Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.

  1. F.E. Guerra-Pujol's avatar

    Apropos of Sagar’s wish to foist the A.I. industry by its own petard, this article appeared in print in yesterday’s…

  2. Claudio's avatar

    I teach both large courses, like Jurisprudence and Critical Legal Thinking (a.k.a Legal Argumentation), and small seminar-based courses at Edinburgh…

  3. Charles Pigden's avatar

    Surely there is an answer to the problem of AI cheating which averts the existential threat. . It’s not great,…

  4. Mark's avatar

    I’d like to pose a question. Let’s be pessimistic for the moment, and assume AI *does* destroy the university, at…

  5. A in the UK's avatar
  6. Jonathan Turner's avatar

    I agree with all of this. The threat is really that stark. The only solution is indeed in-class essay exams,…

  7. Craig Duncan's avatar

PGR Preview: Philosophy of Law

Here are the results for the ratings in Philosophy of Law.  Faculties are grouped by their rounded mean score (5=distinguished, 4=strong, 3=good, 2=adequate), with the median and mode score listed afterwards in parentheses.

PHILOSOPHY OF LAW

Group 1 (1-2) (mean of 4.5) (median, mode)

New York University (5, 5)

Oxford University (4.5, 5)

Group 2 (3-11) (mean of 4.0) (median, mode)

Columbia University (4.5, 5)

Rutgers University, New Brunswick (4, 4)

University of California, Los Angeles (4, 4)

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (4, 4 & 4.5)

University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (4, 4.5)

University of Pennsylvania (4, 4)

University of St. Andrews/University of Stirling Joint Program (4, 4)

University of Texas, Austin (4.5, 4.5)

University of Toronto (4, 4.5)

Group 3 (12-20) (mean of 3.5) (median, mode)

Arizona State University (3.5, 3.5 & 4)

Cambridge University (3, 4.5)

Georgetown University (3.5, 3.5 & 4.5)

University College London (3.5, 3.5 & 4)

University of California, Berkeley (4, 4 & 4.5)

University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign (3.75, 4)

University of Minnesota, Twin Cities (3, 2.5 & 4)

University of Southern California  (3.75, 4)

Yale University (4, 4)

Group 4 (21-32) (mean of 3.0) (median, mode)

Boston University (3, 3)

Duke University (3, 2 & 4)

Harvard University (3, 2.5 & 4)

Tri-University PhD Program (Canada) (3, 3.5)

University of Arizona (3, 3 & 3.5)

University of California, Davis (3.25, 3 & 4)

University of California, San Diego (3, 3)

University of Chicago (3, 3)

University of Notre Dame (3, 4)

University of Virginia (3.5, 3.5 & 4)

Washington University, St. Louis (3, 3.5)

York University, Toronto (3, 4)

Evaluators: Brian Bix (Minnesota), David Brink (UC San Diego), Ruth Chang (Rutgers/New Brunswick), Jules Coleman (Yale & Rutgers/New Brunswick), John Deigh (Texas), Gerald Dworkin (UC Davis), William Edmundson (Georgia State), John Gardner (Oxford), Alvin Goldman (Rutgers/New Brunswick), Leslie Green (York/Toronto & Texas), Mark Greenberg (UCLA), Richard Holton (MIT), Christopher Kutz (Berkeley), Brian Leiter (Texas), Liam Murphy (NYU), Dennis Patterson (Rutgers/Camden & New Brunswick), Gerald Postema (North Carolina), Arthur Ripstein (Toronto), A. John Simmons (Virginia), John Tasioulas (Oxford), W.J. Waluchow (McMaster).  (Note:  evaluators were not permitted to evaluate their own departments, or the department from which they earned their highest degree.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Designed with WordPress