One correspondent asks: "Since the arguments on the Heck site are pretty bad, why do you think philosophers signed the letter? Is it all the Baker reason?"
I think Baker hit the nail on the head about something important. But I do think there is another important factor, that is discussed briefly in my reply to Heck, since one of the signatories raised it (though, again, the Heck site does not). This other concern, shared by many I suspect, is well-illustrated by two anecdotes.
A Swedish philosopher presented a paper at a Wittgenstein conference in Europe a couple of years ago, lamenting the marginalization of Wittgenstein in contemporary philosophy. In a footnote, he also wrote the following: "I am also told about an American philosopher of law, Brad [sic] Leiter, who, in collaboration with a pool of philosophy professors, devises a well-known and highly influential ranking of American philosophy departments. It is reported--I cannot vouch for the truth of this--that departments ask his advice in hiring new faculty, since his word has the power to make or break departments. Evidently, his pool does not look favourably on departments with an interest in the later philosophy of Wittgenstein. Another sign of the times, perhaps."
The second anecdote involves comments relayed to me by a former student, comments made to him by a very famous philosopher at a ranked department. This philosopher purportedly said: "No one can get hired without knowing Brian Leiter. Brian Leiter controls the Philosophy world. Do you know who I'm talking about?"
What these anecdotes illustrate is that some people attribute to me rather fantastic powers, and then, quite correctly (if they really believe I have these powers), resent it. I don't, of course, have these powers, although it is true that the PGR is influential, and influences where students apply and go to school. (Harvard got tired of losing students to Rutgers, and I'm afraid that explains rather a lot. But except for a few areas, like ethics--and even there the gap is closing--Rutgers is better than Harvard these days.) It is also true that I am often asked about hiring, but lots of people get asked about hiring, and I've seen no evidence that my opinions translate in to outcomes. I think I'm asked mostly because I'm aware of who might be moveable, more so than many others.
But I do think many signatories to the Heck letter were motivated by a sense that it is unjust that one person should have this amount of power, with the sense of injustice being proportional, of course, to whether the powers are thought to be the imaginary ones or the real ones. Let us call this the "democratic" objection to the PGR.
I should say I'm completely sympathetic with the democratic objection, and I hope that the Advisory Board and the ever more extensive opinion surveys will alleviate this concern. Even before the Advisory Board, I consulted very widely, but as the influence of the PGR has grown, it clearly became more imperative to have an official Board, to do better surveys, and to make the process more transparent. I believe this has been accomplished, and the feedback I get, including from signatories to the Heck letter, suggests I have been.
Many philosophers signed the Heck letter for transparently self-serving reasons, as I take it everyone acknowledges. Others signed it because they're sanctimonious jerks. Still others signed it because they're control freaks, and are angry that I've taken away some of the control they had over their students. (This isn't meant to be an exhaustive list, needless to say.) But others--I think a large number--signed it because of variations on the democratic objection. I believe theirs is a just objection, and I've tried to meet it, without compromising the PGR's core purpose of providing candid and timely information on graduate study in philosophy.
Recent Comments