One of the things that has been occupying a lot of my time of late has been the bi-ennial survey of hundreds of philosophers for the Philosophical Gourmet Report; happily, the PGR for 2006-08 is now done, has been delivered to Blackwell, and will appear on-line in about two weeks. (It will also be previewed in the November 5 "Education Life" section of The New York Times.) One component of that evaluation exercise is an evaluation of philosophy faculties in more than two dozen different sub-specialties, including Philosophy of Law. The results for Philosophy of Law for 2006-08 are previewed here. Bear in mind that the evaluators were presented with lists of philosophy, not law, faculties–though in many cases law faculty working in jurisprudential fields are cross-appointed to the philosophy faculties as well. (For those who are interested, a preview of the top 15 U.S. faculties overall is here; and a preview of the top 20 faculties throughout the English-speaking world in all aspects of value theory [from ethics to philosophy of law to philosophy of art] is here.)
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.
Everything you say is true, but what is the alternative? I don’t think people are advocating a return to in-class…
The discussion here assumes an institutional context where returning to supervised in-person assessment is at least theoretically feasible, a reasonable…
Cyber security professional here -reliably determining when a computational artifact (file, etc.) was created is *hard*. This is sorta why…
Agreed with the other commentator. It is extremely unlikely that Pangram’s success is due to its cheating by reading metadata.
I see this question as a bit naïve. There is metadata on every document created by a modern word processor…
There’s a simple way to test. Open a pre-2022 essay and copy-and-paste it into a new file.
To be worth using, a detector needs not only (A) not get very many false positives, but also (B) get…