51¹ú²úÊÓƵ

Saying that the Quality Assurance Agency subject reviewers in philosophy have formed a "cartel" ("Philosophy scores add to QAA criticism", THES , June 22) suggests that those reviewers are corrupt. What is the evidence for this, beyond the fact that those departments so far reviewed have indeed done very well? Have any of the QAA review chairs who have conducted subject review visits been consulted, for example?

There is, of course, another possible explanation for the success of the departments reviewed, namely that the their provision is indeed excellent. And this ought not to be so surprising. Philosophy departments are typically relatively small and well established, and their teaching provision is uncomplicated. This makes quality management much easier than in larger departments with more complicated arrangements to cope with. Furthermore, staff and students talk to one another a great deal so problems are likely to be identified and dealt with, which makes for satisfied students.

It would have been good to have seen acknowledged the possibility that the philosophy departments reviewed deserved their high scores along with the allegation of "cartel abuse". As reviewers, we resent the latter and, for what it's worth, have seen no evidence to support it.

Jimmy Altham
Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge

Mick Bowles
51¹ú²úÊÓƵ of Greenwich.

Brian Carr
51¹ú²úÊÓƵ of Nottingham.

Tim Crane
51¹ú²úÊÓƵ College London.

Jim Edwards
51¹ú²úÊÓƵ of Glasgow.

Nick Everitt
51¹ú²úÊÓƵ of East Anglia.

Christopher Kirwan
Exeter College, Oxford.

Kevin Magill
51¹ú²úÊÓƵ of Wolverhampton.

Alex Neill
51¹ú²úÊÓƵ of Southampton.

David Oderberg
51¹ú²úÊÓƵ of Reading.

Stephen Read
51¹ú²úÊÓƵ of St Andrews.

G. A. J. Rogers
Keele 51¹ú²úÊÓƵ.

Peter Shott
Staffordshire 51¹ú²úÊÓƵ.

Nick Unwin
Bolton Institute