Thu 29 Sep 2005
Lest this title confuse you, M Esa Seegulam started a thread on the WSO boards entitled “6 Reasons Why I Think David Kane Has no Soul”. I didn’t intend to post my reply on Ephblog, but given the fact that I took excessive amounts of time to write it (instead of working on my Bayesian Statistics problem set), I’d like to see something come of it.
Click to read my actual response on WSO.
As a long time reader of ephblog (and technically an author), I know David Kane’s writing well. He and I do not see eye to eye on most matters, but that’s not why I think he has no soul.
He generally takes it upon himself to ask and [attempt to] answer questions that no one is asking, which isn’t a problem in and of itself, but his methods for doing so generally succeed in needlessly ruffling many people’s feathers. For instance, in his most recent discourse, he questions whether students from a less selective college would be a good match for Williams.
Although I can see why his question could be a valid one to ask, his approach leaves something to be desired. If you are at all familiar with his writing, he invariably makes key (and false) assumptions about just about everything, jumps to premature conclusions, says things that don’t need to be said, and finally apologizes when someone proves him wrong beyond doubt. The most recent case is a good example of the Kane-esque style of writing.
Given the distribution of SAT scores and percentage reported by Xavier University-New Orleans, he states,
“Almost all the Xavier students probably fall in the bottom 5%, if not lower, of the Williams population.”
While I don’t care to discuss his statistical inferences, I think it is fairly unnecessary and likely untrue to claim that these bright and motivated students are less intelligent than the average Williams students. Had he done some further research and not jumped to erroneous conclusions, he would know that Xavier pre-med students are among the best and brightest of the nation. Further proving that he has no soul, he gives us gems like,
“On the bright side, putting the Xavier students in a Williams science class will help out the curve for everyone else.”
Now, in the likelihood that any transfer students read this post, please know that Williams students and administrators are generally not stuck up and condescending as this elitist bugger tends to be.
He has ironically posted a reply to his critics as I write this now. Despite accepting blame for certain false claims, however, he continues to say inappropriate things like,
“There is a reason that Williams probably would not have accepted you had you applied a few years ago. It is certainly rude of me to point this out, but it is a rudeness born of honesty, of a refusal to play at the PC theatre that seems to be as prevalent at Williams now as it was 20 years ago.”
While I really don’t care to enter the PC debate ever again, believing that you must be as brutally honest as possible is far worse than choosing to be more sensitive and politically correct with those involved. Despite the fact that I don’t think it’s true that, “Williams probably would not have accepted you had you applied a few years ago,” let’s say for a second that it is.
Why would you feel the need to point this out? Why is it necessary to say this? In a further example, let’s say that I think that David Kane ‘88 was accepted into Williams only because his father graduated in 1954 and subsequently donated large amounts of money to the school. In this context, I also think that David Kane ‘88 is an academic idiot and falls in the lowest 5th percentile of the Williams population. (Before anyone yells at me, I don’t actually believe this about David Kane or any other legacy student)
I could very well tell him, in the interest of honesty, “Hey David Kane, you big moron, you wouldn’t have gotten in had it not been for David Kane senior.” Is this at all called for or necessary? Absolutely not.
This is directed towards you, David Kane, as I know you will read this:
The fact that Xavier students, on average, score lower on the SAT’s than the average Williams students does not give you the right to obnoxiously insult any Xavier student. I would take you a lot more seriously if you stuck to the facts in your “discuss[ions of] hard, difficult, awkward issues at EphBlog,” and avoided being a jerk in inserting offensive little quips in the midst of your arguments. Lest you accuse me of being overly PC or not sufficiently intellectually curious, I have no problems discussing such murky topics if our discourse were grounded in reality and not your half-assed conjecture.
In the end, I’m convinced that David Kane does indeed have a soul, but it is a vindictive one, and he generally makes an effort to showboat his eliteness in condescending ways. Personally, I think he may very well purposely piss people off on Ephblog so that they may openly disagree with him and argue. It’s certainly exciting to see that someone cares so much about what you say that you have 41 replies to your post. In the end, however, I’d really like to see fewer potshots and less questionable reasoning in his posts. I would then gladly say that I respect his genuine curiosity and fervor in writing about “All Things Eph”.
September 29th, 2005 at 6:06 am
David R.: How do you know that all the Xavier transferees are “bright and motivated” as you have stated? Have you you merely chosen to make that statement because politically you want it to be true?
September 29th, 2005 at 8:21 am
I thank David R for these thoughtful comments, and I second Frank’s question.
David R writes:
If you don’t want to argue the statistics, then this will be a short conversation. But, if you think that these Xavier students averaged 1400 on their SATs, then you don’t know what you are talking about. If you think that their high school transcripts are comparable to the high school transcripts of Williams students, then you are sadly misinformed. If your definition of “intelligent” has no correlation to scores and grades, then there isn’t much to talk about.
Really? Williams students and (especially) administrators are certainly not as vocal as I tend to be. But when these administrators you like so much are making actual decisions, they often act just as I would act.
Riddle me this: In just a few months, Williams will be getting hundreds of applications from students of all races and income level that look a lot like the high school records of these Xavier students. Williams will turn down 95%+ of these applications, will say “We don’t want you at Williams. You don’t belong here.”
If President Schapiro and Dean of Admissions Nesbitt are as warm and fuzzy and non-elitist as you seem to think, then why are students like the Xavier transfers not accepted when they apply regular decision? I am not asking whether you think that this is a good policy or a bad policy. I want to know why you think that that they act the way they do.
I agree that “inserting offensive little quips in the midst of your arguments” is something that I should do less of, although you don’t seem to mind them in the posts about financial aid.
I hope to return to the issue of wealthy legacies in a future post. All oxes are gored equally here at EphBlog.
September 29th, 2005 at 11:59 am
It’s true, David, you’ve caught me. I didn’t mind your quips in your post about financial aid. Did you notice that I never mentioned that I wasn’t similarly vindictive? Given my track record with financial aid, it should come of no surprise that I have far fewer kind words for them than the next Williams student. That’s all I’ll say about that.
To answer your questions about Xavier pre-med students, I’m basing my argument on literature I’ve researched and read about the pre-med program. For instance, Princeton Review writes:
Given comments like these, is it unreasonable to believe that the Xavier pre-med students are very bright and motivated? Lest we be confused, making it into med school is no easy task, thus the very fact that such an institution pushes so many students through says quite a bit about its program.
While I don’t care to argue about high school GPA’s and SAT scores–because you admittedly have me on that front–let’s pause and consider your previous statement,
Let’s extend this statement further; instead of concentrating on what you did to get to your current university, let’s focus on your current performance and future potential. In this context, it is very reasonable to believe that these Xavier students are indeed some of the best and brightest despite not having the track records to gain admission to Williams through normal routes.
I’m motivated to say that, given the difficulty and selectivity of Xavier’s pre-med program, we have indeed received some of the most intelligent students that the school has to offer. Furthermore, I believe that it is also a very self-selecting ambitious crowd. It takes quite a bit of drive and will-power to leave all that is familiar to you and enroll in a college in the Middle of Nowhere, New England for the duration of one semester. As some have mentioned, the fact that these students chose to do this instead of simply taking a semester off says quite a bit about them.
In the end, if you want to quote admissions statistics as a basis for the intelligence of students as a whole, then you certainly have my argument beat. If, on the other hand, you’re willing to concede that there is more to brainpower and work ethic than SAT scores can predict, we certainly have a basis for discussion.
I certainly will not claim that the SAT is as flawed in predicting future performance than others have said it is, but I don’t think it is the end-all of conversations on academic ability. In my case, my strong SAT scores certainly improved my chances for admission for college, but I can’t say, with a straight face, that having an SAT score (for argument’s sake) 300 points higher than the next person makes me more intelligent than they are. On average, yes, if you choose people with high SAT scores, they will likely be more academically fit than the next group. When other factors are taken into consideration, however, the weight placed on SAT scores certainly diminishes.
On a final note, I think that all of us are elitist in one sense or another, but we need not be condescending, as you often are, in taking potshots at those whom we deem to be lower on the food chain. The fact that Williams is so selective certainly says that the admissions officers certainly feel that the superior mortals among us deserve favorable treatment, but it doesn’t mean that they tell the other 80% of applicants that they’re flippin’ idiots (nor is it likely true that they are).
September 29th, 2005 at 1:08 pm
David Kane seems to be throwing salt on the same wound over and over. Here again Kane asks
Riddle me this: In just a few months, Williams will be getting hundreds of applications from students of all races and income level that look a lot like the high school records of these Xavier students. Williams will turn down 95%+ of these applications, will say “We don’t want you at Williams. You don’t belong here.”
Let’s make this clear: Williams College is providing spaces for students affected by Katrina as an act of kindness in the aftermath of a disaster. They are making special efforts to provide the funding and resources for this. Admitting students who apply to Williams in the fall is not an act of kindness but solely based on merit, and as David R. mentioned, in some cases, how much their family gave to the college. So continuously raising the point of the poor little rich tri-lingual scholar athlete with the 1480 SAT who will get rejected and comparing this grave injustice to admitting a handful of students whose college was washed away is asinine. Sometimes Kane, I wonder whether you really think before you write; or better yet, re-read what you write and then think about how stupid it is.
Next, Frank Uible asks
David R.: How do you know that all the Xavier transferees are “bright and motivated” as you have stated? Have you you merely chosen to make that statement because politically you want it to be true?
Frank, did you go to Williams? Because if you did, you would know that finding seven people and interacting with them on the Williams campus is not that difficult. I know that all the Xavier transferees are bright and motivated because, given the size of Williams College (as those of us who do go here know as being comfortably small) I was able to personally meet and speak with each and every single one of them. They’re no different from Williams kids. No, I didn’t get to conduct an IQ test (for those of you who base intelligence solely on the scores an individual receives on standardized tests), so I may actually be wrong about the intelligence part, but I certainly am not about the motivation part.
If Williams were washed away in 10 foot waves today, I would probably sit up on Mount Greylock and cry until Jesus came. I would probably have half the student body with me. I wouldn’t have enough motivation to hop on a plane a few days later and re-start the semester in a completely new environment away from my home, my friends and my family. These students did. That takes a lot of motivation.
Now I have a question and I want Frank and David Kane to riddle me this: you’re both old, relatively speaking. What is it about constantly jumping in to criticize each and every single thing done by the Williams administration in the most demeaning, condescending terms that gets you off? What is it about having absolutely no regard for painting Williams-affiliated individuals as uptight pricks that makes you feel so good about yourselves?
September 29th, 2005 at 2:12 pm
I’m sorry to say this, man, cause I think we’re generally friends, but, idk…Esa you’ve said some awful things on the blogs. And then to go questioning whether Dave has a soul–I’ve been disagreeing with him all week (pointedly may I add). But let he who has no sin cast the first stone. I’ve seen you call people names, say things about their parents, drag things into blogs which have nothing to do with them, and generally insult and hurt a lot of people on the blogs–many of whom are very nice individuals.
You’ve also said some thing sI agree with. But I don’t think calling other people out for what they want to post on the blogs is any of your business. Dave here may not get a lot of things in my opinion–but at least he hasn’t dragged personal issues into a political debate the way you have always been fond of doing.
If I were you I would stick to examining my own soul.
September 29th, 2005 at 2:14 pm
BTW, Esa, I also wanted to note that in this particular agrument I agree with ypou. The thing is you can’t make generalizations or insult people just because of what they say on one blog. Take issue with the issue, not the person behind it. It’s a good lesson for everyone who posts at all.
September 29th, 2005 at 3:19 pm
Esa: Is it customary for you to engage in name calling when the heat is turned up?
September 29th, 2005 at 4:13 pm
Yes, it is customary for me to engage in name calling when the heat is turned up Frank. Is it customary for you to not answer questions that you’re asked regarding your own public testimonies?
In response to Marita, I personally agree that I indeed am quite fond of scathing attacks against individuals. However, regardless of whether you, Marita, see these people as “very nice individuals” the point is that I, at one time or another, felt that their niceness didn’t exactly shine through in their comments towards me. So, when attacked, I attack back. I am kind of like a bitch, meaning a female dog, in that I will bite you if you pose a threat to me or if I perceive you to do so.
The difference here is this: I don’t think you can pull up a situation in which, say, I called someone an asshole (as I did in my last blog) for absolutely no reason. I do it in response to some incursion on me. Here I am calling out David Kane and Frank Uible for being downright mean to some students who have given zero reasons to catalyze that meanness. I see a difference. Your little Jesus quote is indeed one of my favorites (I use it very often) and I hope you can see how this will apply to my case as well. David Kane asked me to apologize to the people who I righteously called assholes for their hostility towards me, when in fact, by our dear Jesus’ own advice, he should not be casting stones in my direction for stepping on fragile egos when he is drenched in the same sins himself.
If someone wants to enter a debate with me, they should sure as hell be ready to deal with me. Everyone seems to know that I am the blog Satan. I get hate mail, love mail, please-stop-hating mail, admiration mail, you’re-such-an-asshole mail, letters in my SU box, IMs from people who add me to their buddy lists to say either “you suck” or “you rock”…the list goes on… From this, it seems to me that people are quite familiar with how I write: my biases, my temper, and the wee bit of humanity that sometimes shows through, albeit (in your point of view) hypocritical.
It’s a well known fact that you’ll probably not get away with trying to jerk me around. So why poke and prod me if you’re not willing to get burned a little? I think your time may be better spent crying for innocent people who have done nothing to catalyze the meanness that has fallen upon them rather than defending the ones who quite willingly played with the fire.
Finally, Marita, you say,
But I don’t think calling other people out for what they want to post on the blogs is any of your business.
Explain to me how that makes any sense in the context of what a blog is. That is, a public posting of ideas and opinions to which anyone may reply. And what exactly did you just do in your reply to me? Did you not call me out for what I want to post on the blogs? The irony in that statement is almost too much to handle.
September 29th, 2005 at 4:22 pm
A clarification:
A few posts above, in addressing David Kane and Frank, I said,
you’re both old, relatively speaking
but didn’t elaborate on how that had any place there. I realize it could have been taken as an insult by people who think that being old is a bad thing, but it certainly wasn’t meant that way. I intended to add that, as I get older and move to new phases of life, many things that once intrigued me cease to do so.
I used to get a thrill out of hiding from my mummy. I would just sit there, under the table, and chuckle as she passed thinking “this is so exciting! Mummy doesn’t know I am here under this table!” Praise Allah, I have passed this stage.
Tricking my teachers in my early years of high school (it starts around age 11 in the British system) by cutting out paper cookies and laying them on my desk in the middle of class as if I intended to eat while they spoke (big no-no in Trinidad) thrilled me. They’d walk up to me so sternly and then realize that the cookies were fake! How joyful is that?! Not very joyful when you’re 22, but at half that age, believe me, it made my day.
Right now, there are students who get thrills out of simply being in a state of constant disagreement with Roseman and Schapiro. I am guessing that they will soon end this when they graduate and get better things to occupy them. How has this not happened with you two? This is what I meant to ask.
September 29th, 2005 at 5:37 pm
I’m not playing games Esa. You can be the lord of the blog–I was over that ego trip by 10th grade. I was wondering if you we’re going to attack me for daring to tell you that you can be pretty heartless. I didn’t say anything there that was insulting to you personally, and you just decided you needed to go and write a 1000 word essay on why i’m wrong.
I think Dave should be a lot more sensitive too. How one treats others says more about one than almost anything else I can think of. You guys can play king of the mountain if you want.
I’m not “afraid to get burned” by you Esa. There’s nothing you could say to or about me that I couldn’t deal with believe me. I just wanted to point out–as someone who at least at one time considered herself your friend–that I think you would be happier if you just got over yourself every once in a while, stopped feeling so inadequate, and tried to relate to other people in terms that will allow understanding instead of masturbatory monologue.
There’s my monologue. Go ahead and alnalyze it boys. I’m sure it’ll keep you entertained for days.
–M
September 29th, 2005 at 6:14 pm
Marita, I can see how you would think I was solely referring to you when I wrote
So why poke and prod me if you’re not willing to get burned a little
but I meant a general you and not a Marita “you”. Don’t get too defensive too quickly.
And thanks for the advice on how I can improve my personal happiness, but I would rather leave that to current friends with whom I have actually spoken over the course of the past two years rather than those who at one time considered [themselves to be my] friend.
So long girl!
September 30th, 2005 at 10:07 am
David R writes:
I will gladly concede this! Who could deny it? I have also read more about the Xavier program, especially about the attrition rates from year to year. They do some serious culling.
Who ever said anything about “lower on the food chain”? Not me! I insist on the reality that Williams is filled with high IQ, hard-working (HIQHW) students taught by high IQ, hard-working faculty. If you are not HIQHW, then you are going to have trouble, on average. Indeed, if the match between you and Williams is sufficiently out of whack then you would probably be better off at a school where the other students were more like you.
It is also beyond dispute that American higher education is largely sorted by HIQHWness. Perhaps this is a good, fair, just and efficient way of organizing things. Perhaps it isn’t. But that is the way that the world works today.
Now if you insist on using the “food chain” metaphor for this organization, then you are forced to conclude that Williams is somewhere in that chain (hint: above Xavier and below Harvard). You are also forced to conclude that the typical student at Williams is higher/lower than the typical student at Xavier/Harvard.
But I don’t like that metaphor. It implies too much of a moral judgment. It suggests that HIQHW is all, or even most, of what matters in life. It leads one to use language like “superior mortals.” I reject it.
In the end, I am not sure how much you and I disagree. Looking back over the original post, I regret the grading curve crack, but I stand by everything else. Is that rest of the analysis “condescending”? I don’t think so. The world may not look the way we want it to, but closing our eyes doesn’t change a thing.
September 30th, 2005 at 11:16 am
Esa notes that “Williams College is providing spaces for students affected by Katrina as an act of kindness in the aftermath of a disaster.” True. But there were hundreds if not thousands of students who would have liked to get this invitation from Williams, one of whom is Marita’s friend now at UNM. Why were they not invited? Looking forward, what is the procedure by which Esa suggests that Williams handle something like this in the future? I think that providing spots for students that are most similar to current Ephs, especially if they are from the local community, is the way to go.
Esa asks:
Few people have praised Williams and its administrators as much as I have. See here for some examples. I also provide, I think, cronstructive criticisms and also, on occasiona, righteous takedowns. I call them like I see them.
Esa asks:
If you start being nice to me, I will pass along the secret to eternal youth. But be careful what you wish for!