For Students

This page presents information and suggestions for undergraduate and graduate students at HKU and for students thinking about pursuing a Ph.D. in philosophy, particularly Chinese philosophy.

For Undergraduates

For HKU Graduate Students

Graduate Study in Chinese Philosophy

A detailed discussion I wrote in 2009 about pursuing a Ph.D. in Chinese Philosophy is posted beginning on this page.

In forming plans for an academic career, it’s best to consider a range of opinions from professors and students in your prospective field. The links below lead to various discussions and advice concerning postgraduate study in Chinese philosophy.

As of 2009, I would have strongly recommended my own institution, the University of Hong Kong, as a beneficial environment in which to pursue graduate study in Chinese thought. However, recent changes in the funding model for postgraduate scholarships at HKU mean that we will typically have funding available for only one or two graduate students per year (across all areas of philosophy, not only Chinese philosophy). The most effective way to secure funding is to win a Hong Kong PhD Fellowship. Potential applicants are welcome to email me for more information.

Graduate Study in Philosophy

Links to a wide range of useful discussions concerning postgraduate study in philosophy generally.

  • "A User's Guide to Philosophy Without Rankings." Extensive, helpful information, including discussions of the limitations of any ranking system, especially the PGR.

  • The Philosophical Gourmet Report on postgraduate programs in philosophy contains much useful information. Be sure to read the explanations, clarifications, caveats, and recommendations. Use the report as a starting point to learn more about the field and about a range of programs that might interest you. Don’t attach much importance to small differences in rank between top programs (the top twenty or so), nor to larger differences between other programs. (Given the nature and methods of the PGR, I doubt that the bottom half of the rankings accurately reflect concrete differences in faculty quali

  • Michael Huemer offers a somewhat harsh appraisal here. Balance his remarks against the comments here.