While hundreds of philosophers were filling out the PGR surveys, various SPEPPies and hecklers were ranting and raving about the PGR in cyberspace (though without saying much new). Since the PGR is so obviously a sound ranking system (as the actual research and analysis done by Kieran Healy has shown, though the amateur critics ignore it), as well as being so obviously useful to the profession and to students, it's really astonishing to see otherwise intelligent philosophers declare the opposite (it's less surprising when it comes to the unintelligent ones!). Why the visceral and largely irrational response to being evaluated by one's peers? Someone should research this!
UPDATE: A note of caution to students: do not be misled by philosophers who teach at or took their PhDs from poorly ranked departments (or unranked departments) who profess with great certainty and earnestness that there are serious methodological problems with the PGR: there are not, and no one serious who has studied it thinks there are. It has been hugely influential with students, faculty, and administrators because it is basically sound at what it does, though, as the Report itself says, there is much else to consider in choosing a PhD program. Not all critics of the PGR have transparently self-serving motives, but most do. I gave up long ago trying to reason with them, since they hold their views for reasons other than the transparently flabby ones they proffer. As I've written in the past (see the last paragraph), the PGR has always brought noxious behavior out of the woodwork from alleged "professionals," and I have to confess to being glad not to have to deal with the PGR after 2014 for this reason in particular.
Recent Comments