Digressions&Impressions

More on Philosophy Rankings

A proxy is an indirect measure. Sometimes a measure can have two functions; for example, you can measure X in order to (or accidentally) indirectly track Y (where X is something interesting in its own right). Something is a decent proxy (X) if it will co-vary with Y. Unless one has very well confirmed background theory, it’s very hard to tell if a proxy is reliable (accurate, etc.). Absent such background theory, one way to tell if your proxy (X) is reliable, is to measure the target system Y directly, say, periodically (and – let’s stipulate – with greater difficulty and expense). Of course, if one can measure Y directly and reliably without a proxy measure, then the proxy measure becomes dispensable unless X holds out independent interest. Ideally, direct and indirect measures work in tandem so that lacunae in each become visible and modelers and end-users of the models get a clearer sense of social reality. Of course, among intentional systems with feedback loops the measures themselves become part of the causal nexus and may well play some role in shaping the evolution of the system.  So, that a measure X can be a proxy for Y, and play some role in the future development of social ecology (Z).

With that jargon, let’s turn to professional philosophy (recall this post, in particular).

The Philosophical Gourmet rankings (hereafter PGR) are said to be "primarily measures of faculty quality and reputation" of selected institutions and indirectly measures of employability.  The PGR aggregates expert judgments by way of a survey of selected, expert faculty. In addition to measuring quality, one of the main purposes is to guide student choices in graduate education. Several tabs in the report are directly related to and informative about graduate education, choosing graduate departments, as well as job placement (and "employment"). They are, thus, also a proxy for employability. This was reiterated during the past weeks by Brian Leiter, who claimed in a series of (partly polemical) posts that there is “much correlation” between “PGR rank and overall tenure-track placement” (here), and that the PGR is an indispensable measure if one is interested in “academic employment” (here, read also Leiter’s important and sensible caveats).

As an aside, if the PGR indeed measures quality, and if it indirectly tracks (even predicts) hiring patterns, then we might also be inclined to think that the labor market for professional philosophers functions very well. One explanation for this may then well be the existence of the PGR, which provides prospective employers with crucial information (that would otherwise have been left un-aggregated) and, hence, becomes part of the causal nexus. One need not be a Hegelian (or Leibnizian, or Smithian) to appreciate the cunning of history that a self-proclaimed admirer of Marx is, in part, responsible for guiding the invisible hand of the market-place by aggregating expert judgments. Only in America, as my grandmother used to say. (I return to this below.)

Philosophy Rankings: Experts And Markets, Part (I)

The Philosophical Gourmet rankings (hereafter: "Gourmet" or "Rankings" or "Gourmet rankings") are said to be "primarily measures of faculty quality and reputation" of selected institutions. These Rankings aggregate expert judgments by way of a survey of selected, expert faculty. These Rankings serve multiple functions in the profession. In addition to measuring quality, one of the main purposes is to guide student choices in graduate education. Several tabs in the report are directly related to and informative about graduate education, choosing graduate departments, as well as job placement (and "employment"). It has been a true service to the profession that the report "was used to encourage all departments to provide comparably candid and thorough information." So, one non-trivial impact of these rankings is to create far more transparency about professional philosophy in North America, the UK, Irelands, Australia, and New Zealand. By and large, the advisory board and the evaluators are drawn from members of the profession who were trained and work in these countries. (I counted four exceptions to this claim in the 2011 list, but I may have missed a few.) In addition, the vast majority of evaluators are drawn from PhD/MA granting programs. (My eye-ball guess is that this is true of around 90% of the evaluators)

In the report the coverage of Gourmet is described as "The English-Speaking World," even though it excludes quite a few populous English speaking countries (South Africa, India, Pakistan, Nigeria etc.). It is, especially, worth nothing that much professional philosophy in Europe and increasingly Asia and South America has switched to English as its lingua franca during the last decade. Perhaps I am biased, but there is now considerable interaction between European philosophers and North American ones; they share professional journals in common and increasingly the job markets are becoming integrated.I mention this not to nit-pick but because it helps us see thatthe Gourmet's experts are judging their own professional ecology (henceforth: "ecology" or "Gourmet ecology" or "the ecology.") In particular, they are judging the institutional elite within this particular ecology.*

Of course, these institutions have many different characteristics (e.g., private/public) and they inhabit different funding regimes. But on the whole, the Gourmet ecology shares – what I will call – competitive emulation as a key axiological commitment. Relative quality is the scarce good, and by increasing (relative) quality one moves up in the rankings (itself another scarce good). Within this particular ecology, the rankings, thus, also serve to alert outsiders (Deans, Administrators, Alumni, foreign observers, potential students, etc.) to the aggregated expert judgments and can also helpguide policy – for example, hiring and curriculum decisions – in the area. Given that Gourmet offers both overall and niche rankings, it has created a variety of 'markets' and 'market strategies' for (relative) quality in lots of areas of philosophy within the ecology. Not to put too fine a point on it, it is my opinion that the existence of Gourmet has helped increase the average salaries of quite a few professional philosophers that have benefitted from the possibility of competitive bidding of their services within the ecology; I believe I have benefitted from this mechanism. It has also helped that thanks to Brian Leiter's efforts, professional philosophy has been a first mover in these areas, and that neighboring disciplines have been relatively slow to catch up. Moreover, as anybody that is old enough to remember can attest, the existence of Gourmet has undermined, in part, a more close-knit old-boys-club centered on the Ivies, Oxbridge, and a few Midwestern/West Coast Institutions; from a low base-line, it has promoted a more meritocratic ethos within the profession. By updating the Rankings relatively frequently, it has also undermined folk resting on their laurels and, thereby, promoted increased activity within the profession.**