Full results at the PGR site. A list of evaluators, and some comments, below the fold.
|
Institution |
Rounded Mean |
Median |
Mode |
Group |
|
Australian National University |
4.0 |
4.50 |
5 |
Group 1 |
|
Cambridge University |
4.0 |
4.00 |
4 |
Group 1 |
|
University of California, Irvine |
4.0 |
4.50 |
4.5 |
Group 1 |
|
University of Pittsburgh |
4.0 |
4.00 |
4 |
Group 1 |
|
University of Sydney |
4.0 |
4.00 |
4 |
Group 1 |
|
Washington University, St. Louis |
4.0 |
4.00 |
4.5, 4, 3 |
Group 1 |
|
University of Bristol |
3.5 |
4.00 |
5, 4 |
Group 2 |
|
University of British Columbia |
3.5 |
3.50 |
3.5 |
Group 2 |
|
University of Calgary |
3.5 |
3.50 |
4, 3, 2.5 |
Group 2 |
|
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis-St. Paul |
3.5 |
4.00 |
5, 2 |
Group 2 |
|
University of Utah |
3.5 |
3.50 |
3.5 |
Group 2 |
Evaluators: Andre Ariew, John Bickle, Justin Bruner, Stephan Hartmann, Arnon Levy, Elisabeth Lloyd, Alan Love, Samir Okasha, Kyle Stanford.
I will note that the mode distributions here indicate some significant differences of opinion. I would think anyone giving Minnesota a 2 in this area has an unusual conception of the area! Similarly with Bristol, which I would have thought, as an outsider to the field, is a Group 1 program.
There is a lesson here for prospective students. While it is clearly a huge advantage to have the opinion of multiple experts, rather than just relying on one or two teachers, you should not give too much weight to small differences. It would be perfectly reasonable to choose any of the Group 2 programs over any of the Group 1 programs, depending on your particular interests, your sense of the program, how you "click" with the relevant faculty, etc. This applies to all the specialty rankings, not just this one. And I'd extend that to the Group 3 programs in the case of specialties like this one where the top grouping has a rounded mean of only 4.
Leave a Reply