For this year (2010-2011) we are reporting on graduate programs in two categories:

Strongly Recommended departments have indications that female graduate students share an equally active role with males and are equally supported, and that there are no causes for general concern about gender parity.

Needs Improvement departments have indications that there are causes for concern about gender equality for graduate students.

For information about the basis of these recommendations, please go to our FAQ and Methodology pages.

Prospective graduate students are urged to talk to current women graduate students (and male graduate students, of course) about what it is like to study at the programs you are considering. Current students are the best source of information. For each particular school, we cannot be sure that any current students at that school were consulted in the creation of our report.

How should one interpret the ‘Climate for women’ survey results? Our report is based on what some social scientists refer to as a “reputational survey,” meaning that it surveys the reputations of departments among some leaders in the field. In this way, departments can find out what their reputation is, surely useful information, and in this respect it is no different from other reputational surveys; it merely covers a different area of reputation. It is a way of making public the information that will likely be passed to at least some students who ask faculty for recommendations of where to apply to graduate school.

Many may wonder what is the relationship between the reputation that a department has and its actual climate for those in the department. Climate studies are difficult projects under the best of conditions, even where everyone in a department is given open-ended qualitative questionnaires with questions about how marginalized groups participate in public events, seminars, departmental decision making, whether identity issues affect their employment or experience, and how they fare fiscally and whether they feel respected within the community. Some of these issues can be objectively determined, while others are a record of people’s subjective experiences and perceptions. Marginalized groups tend to under-report problems, and may reasonably fear a compromise of anonymous survey methods. Departments are complex, heterogeneous spaces in which diverse individuals may have varied experiences. Some believe that it is impossible to ascertain the climate of a department in any general way that is meaningful or epistemically responsible. Others believe that climate studies can generate information that was previously known by only one person or a few people, that climate studies can reveal patterns of problems, and that climate studies can generate productive conversation and spark positive action. We support the development of more department and discipline wide climate studies, and will offer more concrete suggestions for how to approach such studies in the future, through collecting and curating the many suggestions we receive. What we are offering here is, again, a reputational survey. Students should continue to pursue information about departments in a variety of ways, including especially contacting current graduate students in a department. Discriminatory practices are ubiquitous in most all contexts of our society, and philosophy departments are no exception to this. The difference between departments is not likely to be whether there are discriminatory practices or attitudes, but whether there are offsetting sources of support, such as mentors and allies, institutional signals of support, recognition and encouragement.

Hopefully, departments with negative reputations will be motivated to do more information gathering as well as positive action, and they will publicize these efforts.

Rutgers Students Respond to Climate Survey