Lots of people pay close attention to the US News National University Rankings. But some academics want field-specific rankings. And some academics have created their own. In philosophy, we created the Philosophical Gourmet Report to rank philosophy Ph.D. programs. For many reasons, academic philosophers are becoming more vocal about their criticism of these philosophy rankings (e.g., Bruya 2015, De Cruz 2018). In this post, I will propose a new system. This system will address common complaints about philosophy’s existing ranking system: It will be more versatile, up-to-date, and generalizable.
1. THE COMPLAINTS
The complaints about the rankings are voluminous — what else would you expect from philosophers? In lieu of an outline of every blog post and every public statement, I provide a list of major themes that fall into three different categories: the practice of ranking, the current process of ranking, and the current leadership of the ranking.
Complaints About Ranking
- Rankings might misrepresent the magnitude of the differences between departments.
- Rankings might indicate a false sense of hierarchy and/or prestige.
- Ordinal lists just aren’t that informative.
Complaints About Process
- The PGR rankings are based on a fixed set of variables, so the rankings are not useful to those who wish to compare departments according to a different set of variables.
- The PGR rankings aren’t representative since very few philosophers are invited to weigh in.
- The current process of the PGR rankings relies on qualitative reports, which makes for an unnecessarily large margin for error or dispute.
Complaints About People
- The selection of the board is concerning.
- The primary organizer and editor of the PGR is a subject of concern for a non-negligible portion of philosophers.
I think that my proposal can address many of these concerns. I will try to explain and visualize my proposal below. But first, let’s take a step back.
2. WHAT DO ACADEMICS WANT?
Imagine that we never had the US News University Rankings or the Philosophical Gourmet Report or any other ranking system. And imagine that you are commissioned to create a tool that allows us to compare and rank academic departments. Before you start the project, you ask yourself: what information do academics want? And how much weight should be assigned to each kind of information? The latter question points to the central issue with ranking.
To address the central issue of how to weight each variable, we need a reporting tool that lets users select the variable(s) they care about, weight them the way they want, and ignore whatever variables they don’t care about. If we can do this, then our central issues with a ranking are avoided. After all, this custom reporting tool can accommodate our plurality of ranking ideals.
To address the remaining complaints, you want to make sure that the tool is based on quantitative metrics like publications, citations, areas of specialization (AOS), demographic information rather than, say, individuals’ qualitative report. Getting this information shouldn’t be too difficult.
The Bottom-up Approach
One way to gather the information involves departments and faculty submitting it. Many departments already report information to their own institution. And many researchers already report this information on their CV, websites, and academic social network profiles. So reporting this information would not involve any new practices — just a tweak to existing practices.
The Artificially Intelligent Approach
Another option is to have bots crawl the web for the information. This option will probably be more error prone — even if professional web developers were in charge. The output would be severely flawed, requiring perpetual (human) monitoring and correction. So either way, we will need the bottom-up approach.
Once you decide on how to get your information, you compile it into a database. Now, all you need is a friendly web user interface that creates visualizations of the data. This makes the custom reports and rankings much easier to consume and share.
3. THE SOLUTION
With your fancy new website, users can produce reports, comparisons, and rankings based on their preferred set of metrics and weighting scheme. Maybe you want to see which departments would be a good fit based on your interest in metaphysics. So you search for the departments with the most metaphysicians — metaphysicists? To get a closer look at each department, you generate pie charts representing each department’s distribution of specializations:
And maybe you have certain criteria in mind for choosing a graduate program. So you narrow your search to a few departments that have attracted your attention. Then you select a few metrics by which to compare these departments.
And maybe that last report did a poor job of capturing the big picture, so you turn the last comparison into a ranking. By default, each variable is treated equally. But you care about some variables more than others, so you begin adjusting the weigh of some variables. You get the idea.
3.1 Bigger Picture
Now imagine how other academics could use this tool. Department chairs could look at longitudinal reports of their department. And they could compare their department to departments that they admire. Hiring committees could produce reports of their department to improve the representation of certain research and researchers. You might be thinking of other ways to use the tool. The point is that this one tool can serve many purposes — certainly more purposes than the existing rankings.
3.2 Even Bigger Picture
Now imagine how our larger academic community can use this tool. Imagine that the database includes all academics fields across all academic institutions. A single website could serve as a one-stop reporting tool for all kinds of purposes. We could compare all the aforementioned metrics, but across disciplines. If such a tool existed, and it was updated regularly, then it would easily generate enough traffic to fund itself with advertising income — come to think of it, I wonder if Google Scholar, Academia.edu, or US News would be interested in this kind of project. (See the “Updates” section below to see the proposed system coming to life).
This tool offers lots of advantages. Consider the following:
- Easy to maintain. We can maintain the database just like we maintain a CV and other reports. Or, we could update the database more passively with, say, artificial intelligence. Either way, the actual database would be very simple: the backend database could be a single (albeit large) spreadsheet.
- Easy to use. The visual reports would allow for much more nuanced and meaningful reports than static lists.
- Customizable. People with various interests, criteria, and goals could produce optimally useful reports based on the same data by selecting different variables.
- Broadly useful. Professional and aspiring academics would find it helpful; even para-academic institutions and non-academics might find it useful. And because it’s not a static ranking, even the people who are against rankings could find a use for it.
- Expandable. With few changes, the tool could be used not just by a single academic field, but by the larger academic community.
The PhilPapers Foundation’s announced a new service, PhilPeople, which will deliver — among other things — multiple parts of this rating/ranking system via the bottom-up approach: “We will also shortly be contacting philosophy department administrators in order to make sure that our information about department members is as complete and correct as possible. […] the service will be widely used by prospective students. We will offer the opportunity to compare departments along various dimensions, and it will be in everyone’s interests for the information to be as complete as possible.“