Tue 30 Nov 2004
Those interested in reading more about Marissa Doran ‘05, the latest Eph Rhodes Scholar, can check the College’s news release (also published in the Transcript), an article in the Record and this Q&A with Doran (the daughter of Francis ‘74 and the sister of Elizabeth ‘06).
Although it is always hard to tell from a distance, Doran seems like a good kid and her winning seems well-deserved. But, as with last year’s Eph winners, I think that some College officials have gone a bit overboard.
“This young woman is a leader, plain and simple, and she’ll demonstrate that leadership in major institutional arenas in our society within the next two decades,” Jackall said. “She’s already shown great leadership abilities in myriad ways at Williams in her quiet but forceful advocacy for careful environmental planning in the college’s extensive building efforts; for her encouragement of milieux that will further strengthen already strong intellectual ties between students and faculty at Williams; and, before and during her college career, in her work for the American Field Service.”
Ah, yes, AFS. I remember it well.
Again, I don’t want to pick on Doran, or on Professor Jackall, but this is all a bit much. How can Jackall possibly know that Doran will “demonstrate that leadership in major institutional arenas in our society within the next two decades”? Might Doran simply fall in love, get married and decide that her greatest calling is to focus on her children, at least for a few years? I am not arguing that Doran should or should not lead her life in any particular way. I just don’t believe that Jackall really knows what the next few decades will bring, for her or any of us.
It would be fine for Jackall to claim something along the lines of “In over 20 years of teaching at Williams, I have had few if any students who have demonstrated . . . blah, blah, blah” Jackall is, obviously, well-equipped to comment on how Doran compares to other students that he has known well. But even this pool will only be a small fraction of all the students that have gone through Williams.
My own guess would be that a better predictor of future leadership roles “in major institutional arenas in our society” would be current leadership roles at Williams. That is, leadership requires a certain fire-in-the-belly that is quite likely to manifest itself, for good or for ill, at Williams. So, I would put my money on folks like, say, Ilunga Kalala ‘05 and Veronica Mendiola ‘05 (current co-heads of College Council).
In any event, congratulations to Doran and kudos to Professor Jackall and all the other Ephs who played a role in her education and selection.
A special note of thanks should go to Peter Grudin, assistant dean in charge of fellowships. Although it is tough to know why Williams seems to have done much better in the fancy scholarship game in the last 5 years than it did in the previous 15 (assuming that this is true), some of the credit belongs to Grudin.
December 1st, 2004 at 10:00 am
You write: My own guess would be that a better predictor of future leadership roles “in major institutional arenas in our society” would be current leadership roles at Williams.
So you classify only elected positions as leadership? I would argue that she has demonstrated leadership in many other ways.
December 1st, 2004 at 10:21 am
I guess that it is helpful to define terms, lest we slip into the “We are all leaders, each in our own way” school of relativism. (And, again, I think that Doran’s award was deserved and congratulate her on it.)
Examples of “leadership roles in major institutional arenas” would include: major elective office (federal or state) and top executive at a large organization (public or private). The question here is: Which of the 500+ members of the class of 2005 is most likely to end up in such a role within the next 20 years?
My *guess* is that the most important predictor in achieving this sort of office — in the absence of significant family connections of some type — is a certain fire in the belly and/or raw ambition which I am not sure that Doran has demonstrated. I am not saying that she should have demonstrated it or that such an attribute should matter in the selection of Rhodes Scholars.
Perhaps a better way to think about the issue is to go in reverse. Exercise for the reader: Name the members (especially female members) of the class of 1985 (or surrounding classes) who have achieved the sort of leadership positions that Jackall or so confidently predicts for Doran. Were these leaders, during their time at Williams, more like Doran or like Kalala and Mendiola?
Again, I am making *no* judgments about who is most praise-worthy here. I praise them all. I am thinking about this issue as a statistician. How do we best predict which students will, within 20 years, become these sorts of leaders?
December 1st, 2004 at 11:07 am
Kane, your foolish adherence to some silly notions of “College Council” shines through here. The true leaders at Williams were folks like Doran, or Jacob Scott ‘04, who did infinitely more than jackdaws like Drew Newman. If you want to talk about people who made a difference, you should be talking about Doran or Scott, not class president types who won election via their tennis team connections.
December 1st, 2004 at 11:19 am
Why is this so hard to understand? I am making no claims about who is or is not a “true leader” at Williams. I am making no claims about who does more or less for the College. Judging from everything that I have read about Doran (and Mendiola for that matter), I would be a proud father indeed were my daughters to turn out so well.
But, I am making an empirical claim/guess about the past and a forecast about the future. No value judgments are involved. If you have some evidence for why Jackall’s prediction has any basis, please provide it.
December 1st, 2004 at 1:47 pm
perhaps, Mr. Kane, you’d be so good as to provide us a list of Rhodes Scholars that were unsucessful in their career aspirations. Off the top of my head, I can think of a number of Scholarship recipients that ended up having very meritorious careers in public service. I’m speaking of Senator Bradley (D-NJ) and former President Clinton. I’d have to say that if winning the Rhodes Scholarship (or the Marshall Scholarship) isn’t the ticket for future power and leadership opportunities, we’d all, including dear Cecil himself, be quite surprised. Then again, CC President is probably far more prestigious, in the long run.
December 1st, 2004 at 2:23 pm
I really don’t know why Aidan and his dopplegangers are in a bad mood today. Perhaps it is the weather.
To be clear: Rhodes Scholars are generally extremely successful. I have no doubt that Doran would have been successful even if she had not won a Rhodes. I have no doubt that winning a Rhodes will make her success even greater and more certain.
I just question the empirical basis for Jackall’s prediction (made, presumably, in his recommendation letter as well). In my experience, the type of person who rises to the top of organizations like College Council is also the type of person who does so in, say, the State Department. Perhaps this is a bad thing. Perhaps it is a good thing.
I just object to College officials making hyperbolic claims with little factual backing.
December 1st, 2004 at 2:24 pm
I was neither a Rhodes Scholar nor CC president.
December 1st, 2004 at 3:06 pm
For the record, Marissa Doran did run for CC co-president last year (along with Jim Irving), and lost the initial election by 1 vote.
December 1st, 2004 at 3:50 pm
With all due respect, College Council, and the people who self-selectively choose to run for it, may have changed substantially in the last two decades. Specifically, it has devolved into a funding organization that does little to take part in the ongoing strategic discussions to determine the overall direction of the College. In the time when most recent alums were on campus, CC proved to be ineffective in dealing professionally with the administration, and much of the real leadership work done on campus is accomplished by students on the more important student committees (including the CPR, on which Doran sits), and, dare I say, the Record. For whatever reason, CC tends to remain concerned most often with itself, despite the best intentions of many of its members. As such, pointing to CC presidents as the true leaders on campus is no longer an accurate predictor of ambition, or even competance.
December 1st, 2004 at 4:05 pm
Kane, I don’t think it is a hyberbolic (or parabolic or even caternary) claim to suggest that a Rhodes Scholar with as much drive and ambition as Marissa Doran (who, after all, is the only Williams student to ever take a course that she designed and taught) will be sucessful. I dare say, this statement should be no more surprising to you than “the ocean has tides” or “ugly, rich, white men comprise most of our congressmen.” Moreover, I’m glad that in your personal experience (N of 1?) CC presidency seems to correlate with Foggy Bottom flunkiedom. For the rest of the world, betting on the Rhodes seems like a pretty safe bet. If I had to wager on whom was going to be more sucessful over the next twenty years, a Rhodes Scholar or a CC President, I’d have to be an idiot to bet on the CC President.
And I’m not saying that because Mike Needham is going to be the next Paul Wolfowitz. He is. Trust me. And he only ran the Record, a far less prestigious body than College Council. (Or, as one CC rep suggested, not so long ago, in an attempt to gentrify his law school application, Student Senate.)
December 1st, 2004 at 4:44 pm
OK, that’s clearly the REAL Aidan- nobody else can mix flippant abuse, basically sound reasoning, and an SAT prep course vocabulary like that.
December 1st, 2004 at 5:41 pm
MDeph04: i’ll put your check in the mail.
December 1st, 2004 at 6:56 pm
As a former CC Co-President, I guess I should pipe in here. I’m not going to argue that winning a campus election is more indicative of future success than winning a Rhodes: I think that’s pretty ridiculous. It’s just so much harder to win a Rhodes, and, more importantly, the network you gain access to is amazing — as far as I know, there is no network of former CC Presidents, nor, for that matter, any discernable advantage in applying for any job whatsoever. I think most employers, on the other hand, would kill to get their hands on a Rhodes Scholar. Say you want to work for a Senator: it’s a pretty sweet feather in their cap to say, “here’s my aide, the Rhodes Scholar.” Whereas if they said, “here’s my aide, former Williams College Council President” the response would likely be, “what the hell is Williams College and why should I give a damn?”
But, we’re all missing the more important point: the ladies (or in Marissa’s case, I assume, the men). Rhodes scholars may get all the plumb jobs, but believe me, if you want to attract the attention of the opposite sex at Williams, there is simply no better place than at the head of the College Council — the sex appeal magnification is really incalculable. Fine, win a Rhodes, get a great job, lock up an incredible future, but come on, everyone’s going to think you’re a bit of a geek. On the other hand, I seem to (fuzzily, but I don’t think it was a dream) recall literally hundreds of frosh babes lined up just to catch a glimpse of the College Council Prez following a heated meeting. So Cecil, thanks but no thanks, I’ll proudly stand by the College Council!
December 2nd, 2004 at 10:36 am
Jeff: Would that I had a $1 for every “frosh babe” who said the Record editorial made her scream.