MIT is far and away the most narrow department among the top U.S. departments--it has no serious presence in the history of philosophy or the post-Kantian Continental traditions, for example, or even in political philosophy since Cohen left and Thomson retired--but that has no impact on its placement at other top departments. The explanation is simple, I think: it is, or at least has been, very strong in the language/mind/metaphysics/epistemology areas, though Stalnaker is about to retire (and he has been a key player in training students). But clearly plenty of top U.S. departments will hire adept "technicians" who have little or no knowledge of the history of philosophy or Marx or Nietzsche or Foucault. This is a fact about the Anglophone profession at present, one that I regret, but a fact nonetheless. Perhaps it will change.