• Here’s how evaluators are selected: previous evaluators of Chinese Philosophy are re-invited, I make a case to the editors for inviting a few more, and other members of the editorial board are empowered to nominate people to evaluate (yes, even if those other board members aren’t themselves specialists in Chinese philosophy). Among the evaluators who emerge from this process with an invitation, the response rate is quite low — probably less than half of those invited actually go to the (considerable) trouble of completing a tedious, online survey that lists all faculty at all ranked institutions.
• I have gone out of my way to bring a representative cross-section of scholars into the evaluation group. But because my nominations only account for a fraction of the evaluation group as a whole, and because of the low response rate, my efforts only have so much impact.
• My most direct and consequential role is to give PGR the list of “other programs not evaluated but…recommended…” that you see in the footer to the table. Mindful of my own biases, I have always done this in consultation with a group of evaluators (past and present) from different backgrounds. This year, I consulted with JeeLoo Liu, Sor-hoon Tan, Karyn Lai, Bryan Van Norden, Steve Angle, and Harvey Lederman. In addition to these, Emily McRae, Yong Li (of Wuhan), and Alexus McLeod were in the email group, but I didn’t hear from them (and don’t blame them! For many people, there are better and more important things to do). The participating group unanimously approved the text of the “other programs” as written.
• My personal amendments and additions: I think Duke continues to be an excellent place to get a PhD in Chinese Philosophy. I would also say that both Rutgers and Warwick are very good options.
• I don’t know why the results came out the way that they did. Given the low number of evaluators, it would only take one or two errors of omission to knock a department out of consideration (e.g., someone just not seeing a relevant specialist’s name in the long lists of faculty that are displayed on each page of the survey). But that’s just speculation. I’ll never know, nor will I ever have access to the data that would position me to make an informed guess. Of course, that’s as it should be.

Advice to prospective graduate students in Chinese philosophy:

• There is a more complete collection of information about graduate programs in Chinese philosophy in the graduate programs page hosted by this blog, Warp, Weft, and Way (WW&W). It is updated regularly and covers a wider range of programs than the PGR — e.g., Master’s degree programs, programs outside of the “English-speaking world,” and programs that offer very good training in Chinese thought under the auspices of religious studies or area studies rather than philosophy. Furthermore, the WW&W page includes links to the faculty pages of the relevant specialists, so that you can explore the options for yourself and find the daoshi 導師 who would be a good match for your research interests and methodology. It’s not a ranking, but it’s an exceptionally helpful investigative tool for those who are serious about getting advanced training and mentorship in Chinese philosophy.