philosophy meta-forum

Who are the rankings for, again?

Bahya

19 day(s) ago

So the Gourmet rankings are supposedly for prospective graduate students. But, you know, when it comes to ranking departments on placement, the focus really needs to be on <i>non-garbagey</i> graduate students: http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2017/10/placement-in-phd-granting- program.html

Tai

16 day(s) ago

Rankings are there for all the chumps who think pedigree matters. In a total coincidence these are the same chumps watching their field turn into fanatical advocacy of obese blue haired women and men who wear dresses to work.

Avicenna

16 day(s) ago

How do you know it's the same people? The most vocal opponents of the rankings are usually the blue-haired fascists that you're talking about. They oppose the rankings because these rankings are used as an argument against political hires. The PGR rankings have had an extraordinarily healthy effect on philosophy because of this.

BL himself would be rather awful if he could impose his personal biases and obsessions on the profession. But the PGR is not BL. There are fifty advisories and hundreds of evaluators, and the rankings are far from what BL thinks they ought to be in his personal perfect world. (See his recent posts complaining about 'the MIT model' and telling us that we should focus more on Marx, Nietzsche, and Foucault because it would attract more students from fields like 'studies' and sociology.)

Julia

16 day(s) ago

How do you know it's the same people? The most vocal opponents of the rankings are usually the blue-haired fascists that you're talking about. They oppose the rankings because these rankings are used as an argument against political hires. The PGR rankings have had an extraordinarily healthy effect on philosophy because of this.

BL himself would be rather awful if he could impose his personal biases and obsessions on the profession. But the PGR is not BL. There are fifty advisories and hundreds of evaluators, and the rankings are far from what BL thinks they ought to be in his personal perfect world. (See his recent posts complaining about 'the MIT model' and telling us that we should focus more on Marx, Nietzsche, and Foucault because it would attract more students from fields like 'studies' and sociology.)

Avicenna

+1

Norman

16 day(s) ago

BL himself would be rather awful if he could impose his personal biases and obsessions on the profession. But the PGR is not BL. There are fifty advisories and hundreds of evaluators, and the rankings are far from what BL thinks they ought to be in his personal perfect world. (See his recent posts complaining about 'the MIT model' and telling us that we should focus more on Marx, Nietzsche, and Foucault because it would attract more students from fields like 'studies' and sociology.)

Avicenna

I was with you until the bit about BL saying anything about attracting students from "field like 'studies' and sociology." He didn't say anything about those fields. What the hell?

Clarembald

16 day(s) ago

BL said that continental is a "magnet for enrollments" because those figures are "influential across disciplines." This means that a student is more likely to enroll in philosophy than elsewhere in the humanities or social sciences. For myself, pandering to students for the sake of enrollment is not a good reason for this kind of refocusing of a dept's priorities. I believe BL is letting his enthusiasm get ahead of his better judgment in this instance.

John

16 day(s) ago

BL said that continental is a "magnet for enrollments" because those figures are "influential across disciplines." This means that a student is more likely to enroll in philosophy than elsewhere in the humanities or social sciences. For myself, pandering to students for the sake of enrollment is not a good reason for this kind of refocusing of a dept's priorities. I believe BL is letting his enthusiasm get ahead of his better judgment in this instance.

Clarembald

Maybe you only have been reading his blog for a couple of days, but anyone who has read for awhile knows that he thinks the treatment of these figures in the other "disciplines" is crap.

Huston

16 day(s) ago

Forcing everyone to specialize in the philosophy of Facebook, online dating, and chugging beer would also increase enrollments. Doesn't mean that it's a good idea.

Tai

16 day(s) ago

How do you know it's the same people?

Avicenna

Naive chump-ness correlates strongly with being a limp wristed milquetoast in the face of blue haired revolutionaries. "muh rankings" is the same basic attitude of fart sniffing solipsism that let the wildebeest herd in through the front door.

Samuel

16 day(s) ago

Naive chump-ness correlates strongly with being a limp wristed milquetoast in the face of blue haired revolutionaries. "muh rankings" is the same basic attitude of fart sniffing solipsism that let the wildebeest herd in through the front door.

I don't know what that means, but I like the way it was said. So: enthusiastic +1

Yohanan

16 day(s) ago

Rankings are there for all the chumps who think pedigree matters.

Tai

Or maybe some of these 'chumps' also want to learn philosophy from good philosophers.

Yohanan

16 day(s) ago

BL said that continental is a "magnet for enrollments" because those figures are "influential across disciplines."

Clarembald

Exactly, and what disciplines do you think he is talking about? Where are Marx, Nietzsche, or Foucault influential? In sociology, anthropology, literature, and the rest of the 'me' studies.

Sure thing these disciplines are butchering the few philosophers whose names they heard, but what does this tell us about the students who thought is was intellectually respectable to enroll in those disciplines? Do we actually want those students?

Guillaume

15 day(s) ago

Rankings are there for all the chumps who think pedigree matters.

Tai

Or maybe some of these 'chumps' also want to learn philosophy from good philosophers.

Yohanan

Exactly. The best philosophy is always done at the Ivies and a few top state schools. Philosophy done outside of the post ww2 American education bureaucracy is totally useless, as everyone who reads the rankings knows.

Julia

15 day(s) ago

Rankings are there for all the chumps who think pedigree matters.

Tai

Or maybe some of these 'chumps' also want to learn philosophy from good philosophers.

Yohanan

Exactly. The best philosophy is always done at the Ivies and a few top state schools. Philosophy done outside of the post ww2 American education bureaucracy is totally useless, as everyone who reads the rankings knows.

Guillaume

NYU, Pittsburgh, Stanford, USC, MIT, Chicago

Lorenz

15 day(s) ago

Pittsburgh?? Haha, make up your mind is post-Kantian philosophy bunk or not, because most in the Pittsburgh school love their Hegel and late-Wittgenstein. Even a little Heidegger by Haugland lol.

Lorenz

15 day(s) ago

^ ignore! I'm in the wrong thread!

Hsu

15 day(s) ago

Rankings are there for all the chumps who think pedigree matters.

Tai

Or maybe some of these 'chumps' also want to learn philosophy from good philosophers.

Yohanan

Exactly. The best philosophy is always done at the Ivies and a few top state schools. Philosophy done outside of the post ww2 American education bureaucracy is totally useless, as everyone who reads the rankings knows.

Guillaume

NYU, Pittsburgh, Stanford, USC, MIT, Chicago

Julia

If your field is so cliquish and intellectually empty that it needs to worry about pedigree rather than the real work that is done, you've got some soul-searching to do about your life choices. A field like that deserves every last Title IX exploiting rainbow-haired radfem narcissist it brings on itself.

Plato didn't even go to a top-ranked school, total loser.


Allowed tags: 'p', 'b', 'em', 'blockquote'. URLs are automatically linkified.
posts per page.