Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T15:00:24.891Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Waiter, There's a Fly in My Soup! Reflections on the Philosophical Gourmet Report

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2020

Margaret Urban Walker
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Editor's note: with this essay, Hypatia inaugurates a new column. We welcome musings on the state of the profession, the life of the independent scholar, political activism, teaching, publishing, or other topics of interest to feminist philosophers. We particularly invite submissions that pick up conversational threads begun by earlier contributions to the column, so that Musings becomes a forum for talking to one another. If you have an idea for the column, please tell us about it.

Type
Musings
Information
Hypatia , Volume 19 , Issue 3 , Summer 2004 , pp. 235 - 239
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 by Hypatia, Inc.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1 Leiter's Philosophical Gourmet Report can be found at http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com. Those who want to review some sensible criticism of what the Gourmet does and purports to do can visit Richard Heck's Web site at Harvard (http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~heck/aboutpgr/). And everyone should visit David Velleman's delightful “Lighter Report,” on his University of Michigan site (http://www-personal.unich.edu/~velleman/Lighter.html), for a good laugh at a parody of Brian Leiter's product. I give this information because, as astonishing as it seems to be to some, there are many in our profession who are dimly aware, if aware at all, of Professor Leiter's labors.

2 The Philosophical Gourmet Report 2002–2004, “The Rankings.” At the center of PGR are the overall rankings of graduate departments, based on a 5-point ranking sysrem where 5 represents “distinguished” and I represents “inadequate.” This is what the “nearly 180 philosophers” are asked to report, ranking 54 U.S. and a limited number of other non-U.S. programs by perusing faculty lists. Mean and median scores, numbers of responses, and previous rankings are provided. The Gourmet also ranks departments by specialty (“Methods & Criteria: Breakdown of Programs by Specialties”). Specialty rankings are made by Leíter “in close consultation with members of the Advisory Board of the Report and, where necessary, other experts in the various fields.” Programs are ranked as “Excellent, Good, Also Notable,” by area. There is also the (aptly titled) section “People,” which records both fact and rumor about philosophy professors who have moved from one department to another, or whom unattributed sources claim might make such a move.

3 PGR, “Methods & Criteria: Description of the Report.”

4 “Survey of Doctoral Programs Needs Major Changes, Panel Suggests,”Chronicle of Higher Education, January 10, 2003, A10. In addition, the NRC contemplates using data gleaned from graduate students who attend the evaluated programs—not satisfaction measures, but measures about how students choose where they go and what they find in support and instruction when they get there.

5 The APA Statement on Rankings of Departments and Programs, APA Web site, last revised May 18, 2001, originally published in Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 68 (5): 42–43.