There has been a lot of discussion on the philosophy blogosphere of late on whether the PGR should continue, and whether philosophy departments should be ranked at all. John Protevi, for example, has produced an "October Statement" soliciting signatories to endorse the idea of "No Rankings, Not Now, Not Ever."
I am actually very sympathetic with the idea that our discipline should do away with "reputational" rankings forever, and for a couple of reasons. First, I do not think there is any methodologically sound way to do reputational rankings. Reputation rankings must be based on either (1) the qualitative judgments of a select few (as the PGR does, in selecting its board/voting members), or (2) the qualitative judgments of the many (i.e. the philosophical community as a whole). Neither methodology seems to me sound in principle. (1) is methodologically problematic because any selection of a select few will have to be peformed by other individuals with their own biases and philosophical preferences, and (2) is problematic because there is little reason to think that the many are good judges of the philosophical quality of departments across the discipline as a whole (as most of us are quite unfamiliar with the work of most other people). Second, I tend to think reputational rankings set up morally perverse incentive structures, ultimately concentrating power in the discipline in a relatively small number of individuals and departments.
So I, for one, am right with those who would like to do away with reputational rankings. But, for all that, I think it would be a mistake to do away with all rankings, particularly rankings on things like (i) job placement, (ii) attrition rates, and (perhaps) (iii) department climate. I believe rankings on these things are of great importance. Anyone who enters a PhD program should have access to sound information about whether the next 5-10 years of their life are likely to be a positive experience with good prospects for career success. Collecting and ranking graduate programs in these areas would not only provide prospective students with much-needed information; it would put much-needed outside pressure on programs to improve their performance–something I believe our profession has every right to expect of them. Too many graduate students over the years have suffered, and continue to suffer, from finding themselves in departments with poor placement rates, attrition rates, and climates. Quantitative rankings would hold departments accountable for their performance, and such accountability can be expected to systematically lead, in time, to better treatment of graduate students throughout the profession.
Or so say I. What say you, my fellow Cocooners?
Leave a Reply