As detailed here. Any thoughts?
The schools are ranked in peer groups by their rounded mean score
to .5 intervals; after a school's name appears the median and mode
scores. Where the median and mode scores are higher than the rounded
mean that usually indicates that a minority of evaluators scored the
program a bit more lowly than others.
Group 1 (1-2) (rounded mean of 4.5)
Oxford University (5, 5)
Princeton University (4.5, 4.5)
Group 2 (3-6) (rounded mean of 4.0)
Cambridge University (4, 3)
Stanford University (4, 4 & 4.5)
University of Toronto (4, 4)
Yale University (4, 4)
Group 3 (7-10) (rounded mean of 3.5)
Cornell University (4, 4)
University of Arizona (3.5, 4)
University of Chicago (3.5, 2.5)
University of Texas, Austin (3.5, 2.5 & 4)
Evaluators: Rachel Barney, Jessica Berry, Tad
Brennan, Christopher Bobonich, Victor Caston, Dan Devereux, David Ebrey,
Gail Fine, Brad Inwood, Terence Irwin, Thomas Johansen, Mohan Matthen,
David Sedley, Christopher Shields, Allan Silverman, Nicholas Smith,
Katja Vogt, Jiyuan Yu.
1 comment:
James, Do you think this information is useful? As an undergraduate advisor and someone working in the field (who has great admiration for the philosophical work of some of the evaluators), I can't see how it is useful. It strikes me as really very silly, actually. Turns out Oxford is more reputable than Cambridge according to Rachel Barney, etc. So what? For what it's worth, here are my rankings:
Group 1
Peripatetic School
Group 2
Epicurean Garden
Stoic School
Old Academy
Group 3
New Academy
Pyrrhonianism
Group 4
Middle Academy
Neoplatonism
Post a Comment