The philosophy results are here. I confess I still don't know what they mean, though the matter is under review! Bear in mind, of course, that RAE results are always backwards-looking: so, e.g., St. Andrews was getting full credit for Crispin Wright (who is now mostly at NYU). Comments from UK philosophers (and others) welcome. Signed comments only.
ADDENDUM: I should confess to being a bit facetious, above. Here's a quick primer about what the chart means: 4* is the highest mark for submitted research, and it's down from there. The number under each column is the percentage of submitted work by each faculty that received the score in question. So, e.g., UCL submitted a higher percentage of work getting the highest score than Oxford, but Oxford submitted a lot more such work because, of course, it's a bigger faculty. As a measure of per capita quality of research output, this is probably quite instructive (putting aside certain weirdnesses: e.g., how could Middlesex rate above Southampton, both programs that emphasize post-Kantian Continental philosophy? It makes no sense). But what it means for a student choosing graduate programs? Harder to say. The list of philosophy evaluators: Alexander Bird (Bristol), Ruth Chadwick (Cardiff), Roger Crisp (Oxford), Jonathan Dancy (Reading), Nicholas Davey (Dundee), R.A. Duff (Stirling), Katherine Hawley (St. Andrews), Joanna Hodge (Manchester Metropolitan), Christopher Hookway (Sheffield), Stephen Houlgate (Warwick), Peter Lamarque (York), Robin Le Poidevin (Leeds), E.J. Lowe (Durham), Mike Martin (UCL), Suzanne Stern-Gillet (Bolton), Alan Weir (Glasgow). Lots of good philosophers here, though far fewer than participate in PGR surveys of course. But the real surprise is the weak representation for Continental philosophy, except for Houlgate in 19th-century. Where are Poellner, Janaway, Finlayson, Martin, Han-Pile, Geuss, S. Gardner, Stern?
UPDATE (Dec. 17, 7 am Chicago time): A U.K. philosopher writes:
One thing that should be borne in mind is that the GPA average [see Professor Otsuka's comment, below, containing the average scores] doesn't take account of the overall proportion of staff eligible for inclusion who were actually included. So Department A can get a higher GPA than Department B by submitting fewer eligible staff as "research active". Previous RAEs have included data on this, but this time there was a big mix up and they eventually decided not to include it for legal reasons I can't quite understand. I suspect this may account for some of the stranger looking results on the GPA list.
It appears, for example, that Oxford submitted all their staff this time around--including, I take it, overworked tutorial fellows who probably have little opportunity to publish. I'm also told that St. Andrews included the quarter-time staff at the Arche Research Center there, i.e., philosophers like Jason Stanley, Graham Priest, and Stewart Shapiro, among others.
