<p>What are the top colleges in the nation for an undergraduate major?</p>
<p>I've looked at Philosophical Gourmet and U.S. and World News for top philosophy colleges but I'm wondering if there's other resources out there or if anyone has personal testimony to offer in favor of universities with strong philosophy departments.</p>
<p>It depends on what your interests are really. Every university has their specialty within a department. UCLA for example is good at philosophy of language; Rutgers is also very, very good at philosophy of language (among a number of other things.) </p>
<p>i’d avoid universities that lack a well rounded curriculum. I forget my Leiter, but i think this includes phil. of mind, phil. of lang., logic, ethics, with some epistemology and metaphysics thrown in there as well. All of these courses were offered, at least every other year, at UCLA.</p>
<p>Another thing you might want to consider is the requirements of the curriculum. NYU for example requires no class in the history of medieval philosophy for its major. UCLA on the other hand does. As a result you get a pretty strong foundation in medieval philosophy, which is important since it covers anywhere from 500 years to 1000 depending on how broad the instructor wants to be.</p>
<p>As far as the program goes, i can only comment on UCLA’s. The class sizes, i’d say, tended towards the larger side (60-80 students per class) but the majority of the professors within the program were excellent, in knowledge, repute, and their ability to lecture. The faculty is very broad in their specializations. They teach on anything from set theory to Wittgenstein.</p>
<p>The most versatile university (in terms of admission, quality of faculty, etc.) would probably be Rutgers, closely followed by Pitt and Michigan (although its the most competitive of the three.) At Rutgers, you’d get access to loads of high quality (but very busy) faculty, and the chance to probably do many independent studies, and so forth. What you’d miss out on, however, is the personalized feedback you’d get at a university with smaller student to faculty ratios. The best that fit both of these categories would include Princeton, Harvard, and MIT. While NYU offers perhaps an unparalleled program, it’s a very expensive university.</p>
<p>NYU requires history of modern philosophy and history of ancient philosophy, but you’re correct, there is no required medieval philosophy. </p>
<p>NYU leads in philosophy of mind – the best professors for mind teach at NYU and they’re really great. </p>
<p>Classes tend to be mid-size to small. I’ve had classes with a max of maybe 30-40 (which get broken down into recitations every week of about 10-15), and as small as 8 (which is essentially a discussion with the professor, rather than a formal lecture and there is no recitation). </p>
<p>Most of the faculty at NYU teaches undergrads (and they like to do it. Some professors even take on more classes than the department requires because they enjoy teaching the undergrads so much). </p>
<p>I’m obviously very biased, as I went to NYU specifically for their program.</p>
<p>Michigan is very strong, all faculty teach undergrad classes, and the classes are small to medium-sized–no big mega-lectures. They’ve made a pretty extraordinary commitment to undergrad teaching. This semester, for example, 31 classes are open to undergrads (this includes 10 400-level classes where advanced undergrads and grad students take the class side-by-side) in just about every area of philosophy imaginable: philosophy of science, logic, philosophy of language, philosophy of mind, epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, political philosophy, legal philosophy, philosophy of religion, history of philosophy (ancient, enlightenment, Descartes, 19th Century, phenomenology & existentialism), feminist philosophy. </p>
<p>If you’re looking for the best places to study philosophy, Princeton is also not to be overlooked. To the surprise of many, MIT has been a perennial powerhouse in philosophy, and Stanford and Columbia are quite strong.</p>
<p>Here’s a list of the NRC’s most recent ranking of philosophy Ph.D. programs, which is a rough proxy for faculty strength. Each school’s most recent Philosophical Gourmet ranking is also listed in parenthesis. There are some outliers in either direction, but for the most part there’s a pretty strong correspondence between the two. Philosophical Gourmet is based on a more recent survey.</p>
<ol>
<li> Princeton (3)</li>
<li> Chicago (20)</li>
<li> Rutgers (2)</li>
<li> Michigan (4)</li>
<li> UC Berkeley (14)</li>
<li> NYU (1)</li>
<li> MIT (7)</li>
<li> Carnegie Mellon (40)</li>
<li> Stanford (9)</li>
<li>Pittsburgh (5)</li>
<li>Columbia (11)</li>
<li>UC San Diego (22)</li>
<li>Notre Dame (18)</li>
<li>Brown (19)</li>
<li>Duke (24)</li>
<li>Cornell (14)</li>
<li>Penn State (50)</li>
<li>UCLA (11)</li>
<li>UNC Chapel Hill (9)</li>
<li>Harvard (5)</li>
<li>Arizona (14)</li>
<li>Penn (29)</li>
<li>UC Riverside (31)</li>
<li>Johns Hopkins (37)</li>
<li>Texas (20)</li>
</ol>
<p>Well the nearest McDonalds is probably down the street to serve fries for late library book fees on philosophy. But jokes aside, the strongest programs coincide with the normal rankings more often than not. Programs such as Pittsburgh are more graduate focused than anything else and should be saved for a PhD. Smaller prof-student ratios are very strong indicators of potential for discussion based phil. classes. Therefore the natural conclusion will be LACs. The choice then becomes more of a personal fit. Absolutely you will receive a great philosophical education at the above large universities. But a smaller environment is a draw to many prospective philosophers as the intimate relationship between you and the leaders of the field bring about a more enlightened perspective. </p>
<p>This of course is my view, and not necessarily correct. Ponder about such things.</p>
<p>While you’d certainly get small student to faculty ratios at a LAC, you’d miss out on the powerhouse faculty, who tend to teach at research universities. These include people such as Kripke (CUNY) Block (NYU) Adams (UNC) Burge (UCLA) and Stroud (Berkeley) but include many others as well.</p>
<p>Why does the Philosophical Gourmet have Harvard at #5 while the NRC has the school at #24?</p>
<p>later in your philosophy education-that’s what grad. school is for. Read this from Brian Leiter especially the first and second paragraphs: [The</a> Philosophical Gourmet Report 2011 :: Undergraduate Study](<a href=“http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/undergrad.asp]The”>http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/undergrad.asp)</p>
<p>I don’t know anything about the subject, but I’d think you’d want to at least look at the Great Books colleges like St. John’s.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve read that (multiple times.) What it doesn’t emphasize is letters of recommendation, which will largely determine which programs you’ll get into later in your philosophical education. Although they’re arbitrary (and to some degree superficial) they’re heavily utilized in graduate admissions. The second is that some universities tend to teach what they want to teach, or not what’s standard within the field. As a result, your philosophical education (and more important your readiness) might be called into question as a result of the school that you went to. These people are often shuffled off to MA programs before being accepted into a doctoral program.</p>
<p>One might make the argument that there are very good philosophers working at schools like Williams, Amherst, etc. But given that these people tend to have stats for the best research universities in the nation (and at these schools student to faculty ratios are small) it might not be the best idea to choose Williams or Amherst above Princeton or Harvard for example. That being said, i’m sure that Williams and Amherst will be able to provide you with good letters of recommendation. (but probably not as good as those from a top research university.)</p>
<p>@hampster - One could study with powerhouse faculty members in both their undergraduate and graduate degrees, so why limit it only to graduate? If you attend two different powerhouse schools for philosophy, you’re going to get A LOT of exposure to the most well-known faculty. Also, if the person is not doing philosophy at the graduate level, but only at the graduate level, yet still wants to be taught by said powerhouse faculties, then it wouldn’t really make sense for them not to go somewhere that has a powerhouse faculty, would it?</p>
<p>What you learn in Philosophy at the undergraduate level isn’t really going to differ whether you are taught by Burge and Kripke or two arbitrary professors at a good LAC like Amherst and Williams.</p>
<p>The fact that the graduates of top LACs and research universities without prestigious Philosophy programs are just as well represented at the top graduate programs (Princeton, NYU, Michigan, Rutgers) as alums of these same institutions should tell you that it doesn’t matter where you get an undergraduate Philosophy degree as long as you do it at a place that graduate school admissions officers perceive to be rigorous and selective.</p>
<p>I definitely didn’t expect this level of feedback! This thread has helped immensely in my search for top philosophy colleges in the nation for undergrad, I honestly don’t have a specific topic/area of field to which I’m compelled (at the moment) so I’m very open to any and all universities at the moment.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is to some degree true and to some degree false. At Harvard, for example, their curriculum might emphasize ethics or political philosophy. At Duke, i wouldn’t doubt philosophy of biology would be strongly emphasized. What i would say is that engaging in philosophical thinking and writing would be the same at all these universities however.</p>
<p>Let’s take a look at a particular work. Naming and Necessity (Kripke) is taught in many departments where Kripke does not teach, including UCLA, probably Rutgers, and many others. While our professor didn’t write the book, he was directly involved in its development, was involved at the time when the book was being written, and is credited within the book. He doesn’t just tell us the arguments themselves, but is also able to inform us of his direct involvement with its history. You may argue that this is arbitrary (and to some degree it is) but it leads to a much more fulfilling class imo.</p>
<p>Additionally, while many can give the same arguments as top professors, they aren’t authorities within their field. They’ll largely be giving you their own views, which may largely change. Try, for example, experiencing having Kant taught by some arbitrary philosopher (which i have) and an authority on Kant (which i also have) and tell me there’s no (large) difference.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think this is true at all. I don’t want to knock the philosophy departments at Williams and Amherst, about which I know very little. I do know, however, that while they’re relatively large departments for LACs, they’re tiny in comparison with the departments at the top universities in the field. Williams, for example, has 8 philosophy professors, including the college’s provost who presumably spends most of his time on administrative duties (he’s listed as the instructor for only one course, which is not offered this year), plus one “lecturer” which usually means not a full-time, tenure-track member of the faculty. Amherst has 5 (including one on leave, apparently all year), plus an emeritus and 2 visiting assistant professors. With faculties that small, one of two things is going to happen: either the faculty will need to be generalists, teaching courses outside their own areas of expertise, or the school won’t be able to offer a broad range of courses. Or both.</p>
<p>As I look over this year’s course offerings at these schools, it looks like Williams is heavily tilted toward ethics and history of philosophy, which are fine things to study; but there’s only one course in epistemology, and none in philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, or philosophy of science. Very little in the way of political philosophy, either, except from a historical perspective or very narrow topics. Similarly, at Amherst there are no courses in epistemology, philosophy of language, or philosophy of mind.</p>
<p>I have no doubt you can get good training in modes of philosophical inquiry at these schools, and come out prepared for work in a top graduate program. But there could be huge gaps in your substantive knowledge about major parts of the field. Now to some extent that’s true of every undergraduate, but it’s much easier to get a well-rounded philosophical education in a department where there are more choices and where there’s faculty expertise in every major area. I’m not even going to make the claim that the education at the school with the larger and better-rounded department will necessarily be better; my D1 has taken some philosophy classes at her LAC, and I’ve been tremendously impressed with the quality of instruction she’s getting, and what she’s been able to do with it. But I think it is simply false to claim that "what you learn in Philosophy at the undergraduate level isn’t really going to differ. . . . " </p>
<p>The best scholars are not always the best teachers (trust me, I’ve taken some classes from giants in the field who couldn’t teach their way out of a paper bag, and I’m talking about heavy hitters at HYP-level Ivies here). But by and large, people are going to be most effective teaching in areas of their own expertise, and so what you get at an LAC is going to closely track the research interests of a limited number of faculty. The breadth just won’t be there; or if they spread themselves thin trying to cover the waterfront in areas beyond their own expertise, you’ll likely lose some of the depth. But for some people, the closeness of the student-faculty relationship is enough to compensate for that. It will, however, be a very different experience than studying philosophy at a major university with a strong and well-rounded philosophy department.</p>
<p>Joining late to add these comments – </p>
<p>If your goal is a strong undergrad program because you know you want to get your Ph.D and teach/research in philosophy, that would influence your decision in one way. </p>
<p>If, however, you are intrigued by the field and want to go to a school with a solid program and don’t know how to identify such places, that is a very different question.</p>
<p>As spouse of a philosophy professor at a research institution (where they admit grad students), what I have lerned is that writing sample and letters of recommendation are crucial in philosophy grad school admissions. That means, an undergrad from a robust research institution is likely (not guaranteed) to have been exposed to the most current research and will be more comfortable doing original work themselves – which will show in the writing sample. Letters of rec from such a school will carry more weight than letters from small, well-rounded LACs because they are written by active researchers in the field. </p>
<p>However, if your goal is to get a great, liberal arts education, and you don’t know/think/care whether you go to grad school (as the parent of an 18 year old who enjoys philosophy, but has no idea whether he wants to go to grad school, I can imagine many high school seniors are in a similar situation) – then your focus on undergrad schools would be very different. You want dedicated teachers with a generally well-rounded curriculum which is not too dependent on 1-2 profs who may not be available when you are ready to really explore your interests as a major in junior and senior years. </p>
<p>Perhaps I missed the discussion earlier about the “why” for this question, and if so, I apologize.</p>