A well-known philosopher who has done reviewing for the National Endowment for the Humanities writes:
"Here is an interesting piece of news about how our profession is viewed by Washington, i.e., the NEH. We have the reputation of being the most critical board in the humanities. Perhaps not surprising. But the net result is that our hypercriticism is undermining members of our own profession; philosophy candidates give themselves much lower grades than other fields, and so they lessen their chance of getting grants. I am told that NEH takes this into account in making its final decisions on grants; but I cannot believe that they can fully compensate for the damage we do to ourselves. Such are the rewards of rigour nowadays! After having giving the lowest grades on the panel, I am now ashamed of myself and urge gradeflation."
I invite philosophers to comment. No anonymous postings.
UPDATE: One trusted reader (not a philosopher) writes: "Imagine: the higher your standards, the poorer your opportunity. Surprise."
