« Some first reflections on the Areas of Specialization | Main | On Escaping Our Gated Community »

11/18/2014

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Brian Leiter

Evaluators complain about the length of the survey, but in each iteration we rotate in departments that haven't been recently evaluated, including SPEP departments. There were several "Continental-heavy" departments in the surveys this year, including UC Riverside, Warwick, Chicago, and Emory. Thanks for participating.

Keith DeRose

I think of not having all PhD-granting programs surveyed as being underwritten largely by a pretty deep structural feature of the PGR: that it seeks to report which programs (overall in various areas) are good and how good they are (at least acc. to the PGR evaluations), but not which are bad and how bad they are. I see there is also the concern about survey length. I guess it's the two combined.

As for that structural feature: I guess there's a lot that can said both for and against reporting the bad (as evaluated by the PGR machine) as well as the good, but I think just the added fervent enemies the PGR would gain by doing that makes the idea completely infeasible.

Eric Schliesser

Keith, the survey is lengthy, but given the stakes involved I don't see why adding, say, an hour's work is an undue burden.

Given the level of existing enmity I doubt much can be added to it (perhaps I am naive?) whereas some experiments with modest reform and inclusivity in the evaluation and evaluated pool might lead to a healthier conversation. Anyway, I encourage trial and experimentation!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Here's a link to my past blogging (and discussions involving me) at: New APPS.

Categories

Blog powered by Typepad