UPDATE AS OF MAY 12: Go here for the current, corrected version. No more comments will be accepted on this thread. Post additional comments at the new thread.
====================
UPDATED DRAFT FACULTY LISTS as of 3:30 pm East Coast time (reflecting comments through Carruthers, below). Many thanks for all the corrections and additions! Continue to post corrections/additions, below.
===================
In order to maximize the accuracy of the PGR surveys, we are making available for departmental review the draft faculty lists. You may download the draft faculty lists: Download pgr_faculty_lists_for_2006.doc . Please post corrections and additions in the comment section, below; non-anonymous corrections will be more credible for obvious reasons. By posting the corrections, below, you will save others the trouble of having to correct the same point.
Please note the following information about these draft faculty lists:
Faculties in Philosophy and “History and Philosophy of Science” (or similar units) are aggregated in the faculty lists for each university. Faculty lists are the anticipated roster for fall 2007, based on information available now. An * indicates faculty over the age of 70 by 2007. Adjuncts and emeritus/emerita faculty are excluded.
New additions to the survey for 2006 are: Bowling Green; Emory; Saint Louis; South Florida; Essex; Southampton.
Programs dropped from the overall survey from 2004, because they appear to have no chance of making the US top 50, the UK top 15, the Canadian top 10, or the Australasian top 5 (based on some combination of their 2004 performance and developments since), are: Cincinnati, Oklahoma, Penn State; SUNY-Albany, SUNY-Buffalo; SUNY-Stony Brook; Texas A&M; Tulane; Exeter; Macquarie; Queensland. Departments not included in the overall rankings may still be listed in the Specialty Rankings, based on consultation with the Advisory Board and/or based on survey results from 2004.
Departments wishing to be included in the 2006 survey should submit a current faculty roster to me, and the Advisory Board will be polled on whether to include the department. It is impossible, I'm afraid, to ask evaluators to review all PhD-granting programs in the US, UK, Canada, and Australasia; as it is, evaluators complain about the burden, and the care with which the evaluation proceeds is affected by having far too many programs to consider. Bear in mind, too, that it is not necessarily advantageous to be part of the survey, since many evaluators are not shy about scoring programs poorly (e.g., 0 for "inadequate for a PhD program" and 1 for "marginal"), and we do print the results for all programs in the survey in a given year.
Remember that in the actual survey, faculty lists will appear without departmental names; names used below are simply familiar shorthands. Affiliated faculty are generally determined by reference to department websites; they are supposed to be faculty in other departments who are involved in the teaching and supervision of philosophy PhD students. Please notify me if you believe the “affiliated faculty” lists for particular departments are being padded with faculty who do not fulfill this role (I will keep the identity of informants confidential). (Padding, in fact, often backfires: listing folks that most philosophers don’t know often leads to lower scores.) I am particularly curious about Berkeley on this score, since a faculty member there several years ago suggested to me they might just "pad" in this way. Are the affiliated faculty (at Berkeley or at Cornell or at UC Irvine, among other departments which list a large number of folks) really available to philosophy students, participating in graduate supervision of philosophy students and so on?
Part-time faculty are roughly half-time, unless otherwise noted parenthetically next to the name.
Faculty whose names are in bold are currently entertaining offers elsewhere.
Thanks to all for your assistance.
