哲学品酒师2014-15年度排名新鲜出炉
2015/2/5 哲学园
A Ranking of Graduate Programs in Philosophy in the English-Speaking World
哲学品酒师报告
英语世界哲学研究生课程排名
This year's overall rankings are based on reputational surveys completed by nearly 200 philosophers throughout the English-speaking world and Continental Europe; 230 philosophers participated in either the overall or speciality rankings, often both. Evaluators included 15 Fellows of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, and nearly 10 Fellows of either the British Academy or the Royal Society of Canada, among other learned societies, as well as leading senior and junior philosophers in every area of philosophy. In the overall rankings, evaluators were asked to evaluate randomly ordered faculty lists that did not include the university's name along the following dimension:
Please give your opinion of the attractiveness of the faculty for a prospective student, taking in to account (and weighted as you deem appropriate) the quality of philosophical work and talent on the faculty, the range of areas the faculty covers, and the availability of the faculty over the next few years.
After scoring faculties, evaluators then viewed a list of their evaluations organized by score, and had an opportunity to revise their scorings.
Because evaluators do not have reliable access to information about the quality of graduate teaching and mentoring for most departments, this was not a component of the evaluation. As always, students are advised to talk to current students before enrolling at any program.
Evaluators scored departments on the following scale:
5 - Distinguished
4 - Strong
3 - Good
2 - Adequate
1 - Marginal
0 - Inadequate for a PhD program.
0.5 fractions were permitted. The rank of each department is based on the "overall" mean. In the next three columns the department's rank in the 2009, 2006, and 2004 Reports are given.
All programs in the top 50 in the U.S., the top 15 in the U.K., and the top 5 in Canada and Australasia, since based on this and past year results, we have reason to think that no program not included in the survey would have ranked ahead of these programs. Other programs evaluated this year are listed unranked afterwards; there may well have been programs not surveyed this year that would have fared as well.
Note: evaluators were not permitted to evaluate either their own department or the department from which they received their highest degree (PhD, DPhil, sometimes the BPhil).
美国排名
2014-15排名
学校
1
纽约大学
2
普林斯顿大学
3
罗格斯大学
4
密歇根大学安娜堡分校
5
耶鲁大学
6
哈佛大学
7
匹兹堡大学
8
斯坦福大学
9
南加州大学
10
哥伦比亚大学(包括巴纳德女子文理学院)
11
加州大学伯克利分校
12
加州大学洛杉矶分校
Ranking Of Faculties In The United States
小编注： Rank-排名 Mean-平均数 Median-中位数 Mode-众数(即出现最多的数)
横屏阅读
Rank in 2014
School
Mean
Median
Mode
Rank in 2011
Rank in 2009
Rank in 2006
1
New York University
4.8
5
5
1
1
1
2
Princeton University
4.4
4.5
4.5
3
2
2
Rutgers University, New Brunswick
4.4
4.5
5
2
2
2
4
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
4.2
4
4
4
5
3
5
Yale University
4.1
4
4.0 ,4.5
7
8
16
6
Harvard University
4
4
4
5
6
7
University of Pittsburgh
4
4
4
5
4
5
8
Stanford University
3.9
4
3.5, 4.0
9
9
6
University of Southern California
3.9
4
4
11
17
16
10
Columbia University (incl. Barnard)
3.8
4
4
11
13
9
University of California, Berkeley
3.8
4
4
14
9
12
University of California, Los Angeles
3.8
4
4
11
9
7
13
Massachussetts Institute of Technology
3.7
4
4
7
6
7
University of Arizona
3.7
3.5
4
14
13
13
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
3.7
4
4
9
9
10
16
City University of New York Graduate Center
3.6
3.5
4
14
15
23
17
Cornell University
3.5
3.5
4
14
17
16
University of Notre Dame
3.5
3.5
4
18
15
13
University of Texas, Austin
3.5
3.5
3.5
20
20
13
20
Brown University
3.4
3.5
3.5
19
17
16
21
University of Chicago
3.3
3.5
3.5
20
21
20
University of Wisconsin, Madison
3.3
3.5
3
22
23
24
23
University of California, San Diego
3.2
3
3
22
21
20
24
Duke University
3
3
3
24
26
27
Indiana University, Bloomington
3
3
3
24
23
27
University of California, Irvine
3
3
3
29
23
20
Washington University, St. Louis
3
3
3
31
30
39
28
Ohio State University
2.9
3
2.5
24
26
26
University of California, Riverside
2.9
3
3
31
30
31
University of Massachussetts, Amherst
2.9
3
3
24
26
24
31
Northwestern University
2.8
3
3
31
41
53
University of Colorado, Boulder
2.8
3
3
24
26
26
University of Maryland, College Park
2.8
3
3
31
30
27
University of Miami
2.8
3
3
31
34
32
University of Pennsylvania
2.8
3
3
29
30
27
University of Virginia
2.8
3
3
37
36
39
37
Georgetown University
2.7
3
3
36
36
39
Syracuse University
2.7
2.5
3
37
34
32
University of Connecticut, Storrs
2.7
2.5
2.5
50
43
48
40
Carnegie-Mellon University
2.6
2.5
2.5
40
36
39
Johns Hopkins University
2.6
2.5
3
37
43
35
42
University of California, Davis
2.4
2.5
2.5
44
36
35
University of California, Santa Barbara
2.4
2.5
2
40
41
39
University of Illinois, Chicago
2.4
2.5
2.5
40
36
35
45
Florida State University
2.3
2.5
2.5
44
43
44
University of Rochester
2.3
2
2
44
48
44
47
Rice University
2.2
2
2
44
48
50
Saint Louis University
2.2
2
2
n/a
54
not in top 50
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis-St. Paul
2.2
2
2
44
47
44
University of Missouri, Columbia
2.2
2
2
50
48
53
Other schools evaluated in 2014 (not ranked, since there may have been schools not evaluated that might have performed comparably)
Boston University
2.1
2
2
Texas A&M University
2.1
2
2
University of Utah
2.1
2
2
Arizona State University
2
2
2
Purdue University
2
2
2
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
1.9
2
2
University of Washington, Seattle
1.9
2
2.5
University of Cincinnati
1.8
2
2
Emory University
英国排名
Ranking Of Faculties In The United Kingdom
Rank in 2014
School
Mean
Median
Mode
20011 Rank
2009 Rank
2006 Rank
1
Oxford University
4.6
4.5
5
1
1
1
2
Cambridge University
3.5
3.5
3.5
2
3
3
3
University of St. Andrews/University of Stirling Joint Program
3.2
3
3
3
2
2
4
University of Edinburgh
3
3
3
8
12
9
5
King’s College, London
2.9
3
3
4
5
6
6
London School of Economics
2.8
3
3
11
8
8
University College London
2.8
3
3
4
4
4
8
University of Birmingham
2.7
3
3
not in top 15
not in top 15
not in top 15
University of Leeds
2.7
2.5
3
6
12
9
10
University of Bristol
2.6
2.5
3
13
12
9
University of Sheffield
2.6
2.75
3
9
7
6
12
University of Warwick
2.4
2.5
2.5, 3.0
11
9
14
13
Birkbeck College, University of London
2.3
2.5
2.5
6
6
4
University of Reading
2.3
2.5
2
10
9
9
University of York
2.3
2.5
2.5
15
15
15
Other faculties evaluated (not ranked)
University of Glasgow
2.1
2
2
University of Manchester
2.1
2
2
University of Aberdeen
2
2
2
University of Durham
1.9
2
2
加拿大排名
Ranking Of Faculties In Canada
Rank in 2014
School
Mean
Median
Mode
2011 Rank
2009 Rank
2006 Rank
1
University of Toronto
3.8
4
4
1
1
1
2
University of British Columbia
2.7
3
3
2
4
4
University of Western Ontario
2.7
3
3
2
2
2
4
McGill University
2.3
2.5
2.5
2
3
3
5
University of Alberta
2.1
2
2.0, 2.5
5
5
5
University of Calgary
2.1
2
2.0, 2.5
not in top 5
not in top 5
not in top 5
Other faculties evaluated (not ranked)
Queen’s University
1.9
2
2.5
University of Waterloo
1.9
2
2
澳大利亚排名
Rankings Of Faculties In Australasia
Rank in 2014
School
Mean
Median
Mode
2011 Rank
2009 Rank
2006 Rank
1
Australian National University
3.3
3.5
3.5
1
1
1
2
University of Sydney
2.8
3
3
2
2
2
3
Monash University
2.1
2
2
4
3
4
University of Melbourne
2.1
2
2
4
not in top 5
3
5
University of Auckland
2
2
2
3
4
4
Other schools evaluated (not ranked)
Victoria University, Wellington
1.9
2
2
National University of Singapore
1.7
2
2
University of Otago
1.3
1.5
1
英语世界综合排名
Ranking Of Top 50 Faculties In The English-Speaking World
Rank in 2014
School
Region
Mean
Median
1
New York University
USA
4.8
5
2
Oxford University
UK
4.6
4.5
3
Princeton University
USA
4.4
4.5
Rutgers University, New Brunswick
USA
4.4
4.5
5
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
USA
4.2
4
6
Yale University
USA
4.1
4
7
Harvard University
USA
4
4
University of Pittsburgh
USA
4
4
9
Stanford University
USA
3.9
4
University of Southern California
USA
3.9
4
11
Columbia University (incl. Barnard)
USA
3.8
4
University of California, Berkeley
USA
3.8
4
University of California, Los Angeles
USA
3.8
4
University of Toronto
Canada
3.8
4
15
Massachussetts Institute of Technology
USA
3.7
4
University of Arizona
USA
3.7
3.5
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
USA
3.7
4
18
City University of New York Graduate Center
USA
3.6
3.5
19
Cambridge University
UK
3.5
3.5
Cornell University
USA
3.5
3.5
University of Notre Dame
USA
3.5
3.5
University of Texas, Austin
USA
3.5
3.5
23
Brown University
USA
3.4
3.5
24
Australian National University
Australasia
3.3
3.5
University of Chicago
USA
3.3
3.5
University of Wisconsin, Madison
USA
3.3
3.5
27
University of California, San Diego
USA
3.2
3
University of St Andrews/University of Stirling Joint Program
UK
3.2
3
29
Duke University
USA
3
3
Indiana University, Bloomington
USA
3
3
University of California, Irvine
USA
3
3
University of Edinburgh
UK
3
3
Washington University, St. Louis
USA
3
3
34
King’s College, London
UK
2.9
3
Ohio State University
USA
2.9
3
University of California, Riverside
USA
2.9
3
University of Massachussetts, Amherst
USA
2.9
3
38
London School of Economics
UK
2.8
3
Northwestern University
USA
2.8
3
University College London
UK
2.8
3
University of Colorado, Boulder
USA
2.8
3
University of Maryland, College Park
USA
2.8
3
University of Miami
USA
2.8
3
University of Pennsylvania
USA
2.8
3
University of Sydney
Australasia
2.8
3
University of Virginia
USA
2.8
3
47
Georgetown University
USA
2.7
3
Syracuse University
USA
2.7
2.5
University of Birmingham
UK
2.7
3
University of British Columbia
Canada
2.7
3
University of Connecticut, Storrs
USA
2.7
2.5
University of Leeds
UK
2.7
2.5
University of Western Ontario
Canada
2.7
3
A Note on the Figures
The Philosophical Gourmet Report aggregates the judgments of a panel of field experts into a ranking of philosophy faculties. For the Overall Rankings in particular it is desirable to give users of the guide an accurate sense of the degree of consensus amongst respondents about the departments ranked in the survey. The Report has long done this numerically by reporting several measures of central tendency in the rankings. For this edition we provide additional graphical summaries of the ranking data. For each rank table (United States Top 50, Canada, Australia & New Zealand, and Overall English-Speaking Top 50) we provide three new views of the rating data. These are (1) Mean, Mode, and Median Plots, (2) Histograms of Votes by Department, and (3) Kernel Density Plots of Votes by Department. Each highlights a different aspect of the ranking data.
1. Mean, Mode, and Median Plots
These plots graphically reproduce information already contained in the rank tables. They show three measures of central tendency for each department, the mean (or average value), the mode (or most frequently occurring value), and the median (the middle, or 50th percentile value). In several cases, most commonly for the median and mode, some of these values are the same or very nearly the same and appear plotted on top of each other in the figures. The x-axis scale in each of these plots is the same, which means departments in different figures can be compared to one another.
2. Histograms of Votes
These large panel-plots show the distribution of votes for each department ranked. The figures present departments in rank order beginning in the top left corner reading from left to right. Each panel summarizes the distribution of votes for a department. The x-axis is the score awarded, and the y-axis is the count of votes received. The upper end of the y-axis range is determined by the largest number of votes cast for a department within that plot. This means that while departments can be compared to one other within any single figure, they are not comparable across different figures. To compare departments from different countries, consult the Overall English-speaking Top 50 figure.
3. Kernel Density Plots
These figures summarize the same information about the distribution of scores within and across departments that is presented in the histograms. Once again the aim is to represent the range of votes for each department, but this time in a way that can be quickly compared along the vertical axis. When the number of departments is large, histograms are less well suited to this. A kernel density can be thought of roughly as a continuous version of a histogram. It is a smoothed, nonparametric approximation of the underlying distribution of scores. It gives an indication of where scores are concentrated at particular values (visible as peaks in the distribution). The total shaded area of the kernels is proportional to the vote count for that department. The height of the peaks corresponds to the number of times a department was awarded about that score by respondents. Darker areas correspond to more votes. Higher-ranking departments do not just have higher scores on average, they are also rated more often. This is because respondents may choose to only vote for a few departments, and when they do this they usually choose to evaluate the higher-ranking departments. Hence higher-ranking departments may appear darker in color, and lower-ranking ones lighter, reflecting the fact that relatively fewer assessments are made about them. The absence of any clear peak in a department's distribution indicates a more uniform distribution of scores awarded. The wider the spread, the wider the range of votes cast. Comparing down the column also gives a good indication of how much the distribution of expert opinion about departments tends to overlap across departments, and at what points on the scale votes are concentrated for different departments. For more detailed information about the distribution of votes within departments, consult the histograms.
来源：http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/overall.asp
鸣谢
http://www.duyihua.cn
返回 哲学园 返回首页 返回百拇医药