Sat 21 Jun 2008
Morty took great pride in claiming that athletic admission were very different now then when he started 8 years ago. This was clearly a great success, in his mind. I agree. He offered few details, but see our previous discussions. If Williams still had the same process in place today that it hard 10 years ago, at least 10% of the class we actually have would be replaced with dumber (perhaps) athletically more gifted students with lower academic rankings. You can claim that Morty has gone too far. You can claim that he hasn’t done enough. But there is no doubt that he has made major changes, that the Williams student body is significantly different than what it would have been if Morty had not become President.
June 21st, 2008 at 7:45 am
Dumber? You really had to say something like that? Again (wow, I say this a lot) I disagree. And don’t spout test scores at me. I happen to think that intelligence is more than that. I also think such a comment is unnecessary, as well as being insulting and disrespectful to fellow Ephs.
June 21st, 2008 at 8:19 am
Is your complaint just that I use the word “dumber?” You prefer something more like “less intelligent?” Or how about “less academically acomplished and ambitious?” As always, I am ready to believe that a more gentle tone on my part would make EphBlog a better place, but isn’t there some value in calling a spade a spade? Large numbers of, for example, current members of the football team would not be at Williams under the old system. The reason that they are Ephs today is because Morty raised the academic standards for tips. And, yes, this means rejecting students (who would have been accepted) because their grades/scores are too low. Instead of calling these rejected applicants dumber, perhaps I should call them “differentially abled.” Yeah, that will help generate a productive and open-minded dialog.Let me guess at the real source of the dispute, between both me and JG in this thread and me and other people in similar discussions. I call these rejected applicants “dumber” and the highly-sensitive among the Eph think that this is an unforgivable insult because (?) they value intelligence so much. To call someone dumb is, in their view, akin to calling them a bad person, to impugning their worth as a human being.I could not disagree more. Humans vary in their intelligence just as they vary in their running speed. Calling someone “dumber” is no more a value judgment as to their overall worth than calling them “slower.”I have been (accurately!) called “slow” all my life. I was too slow to play soccer for Williams and, even now, run more slowly than just about anyone else on the field when the old men in my town play pick-up soccer. Maybe I am slow because of nature. (Thanks Dad!) Maybe I am slow because of nuture. But slow I am.And, for most purposes, you don’t care if I am slow. Being slow tells you nothing about my other skills. Yet, if your goal is to win a soccer game, and you are picking your team, then you are going to want to know that I am slow and take that fact into account.The same applies to the process by which Williams selects its students. It accepts students valedictorians with 1500 SATs and rejects (almost always) students with average high school grades and 1200 SATs. People who want to speak honest English call the first group “smarter” than the second and the second “dumber” than the first.But ingore that rant for now. You claim that “intelligence is more than that.” Excellent. Specify what you mean and explain how the Williams admissions office can identify it.
June 21st, 2008 at 9:31 am
I don’t think they are “less intelligent” either. This is not necessarily a tone issue, although tone is a problem. I don’t think test scores are the measure of intelligence. I don’t think book learnin’ is the measure of intelligence either. I would agree that those students have lower academic credentials, I would not agree that they are less ambitious at all. After students are admitted to Williams, tipped or not, they have to survive on their own merit. Unless you can cite me a statistic (with an actual source not just your conclusion) that shows tipped athletes failing out at rates higher than other Williams students, I don’t see how you can make any claim regarding academic ambition or ability. Both as a fellow student and as a JA, I saw athletes and non-athletes alike have varying work ethics, take supposedly easier classes or harder classes, and sometimes succeed and sometimes fail. If anything, many of the athletes I knew (as well as other people involved in activities) be more disciplined about their studies so that they could excel both in an out of the classroom.
As far as your tone, if you wouldn’t call a Williams student dumb to his/her face, why would you do it here? You essentially called me stupid when I first started writing on Ephblog, but after meeting you I realized you wouldn’t do it to me face (or so I presume). And “dumb” is pejorative (unless being a “dumb blonde” would now be a good thing) so don’t even try to pretend it is some objective measure. Please.
June 21st, 2008 at 9:34 am
Er…that should be “I SAW many of the athletes…be more disciplined….”
June 21st, 2008 at 9:48 am
JG writes:
Consider the Report on Varsity Athletics, which claims that “Athletes, to summarize, achieve lower grades than other students overall, but achieve about the same grades as students with similar academic ratings. They tend to take easier courses, larger courses, and fewer tutorials than the student body as a whole.”Now, this is not really discussion about athletes versus non-athletes. And athletic admissions have changed enough that this may no longer be true at Williams. And I have doubts about some aspects of the Report. And it would make a great senior thesis if someone were to revisit this topic. But, big picture and on average Williams students with low grades/scores relative to other Williams students do much worse at Williams.As to tone, I can see JG’s point and appreciate the tenor of her suggestions. I am too quick to call statements I disagree with “stupid” and would never call another Eph dumb. I will edit the post accordingly.
June 21st, 2008 at 11:08 am
“La, la, la…fingers in ears, eyes closed…not listening to (or reading) this nonsense…savoring instead Ken’s essay…la, la, la”
Though I will not spend the day arguing this inane stance that David takes on athletes ( which he knows riles me like no other), I will say this:
DK, you are like clockwork. I suggest that perhaps (a more scientifically inclined) one of us, could chart the pattern, so that those of us who find the recurrence of these old arguments, annoying and tedious, will know when to expect them, and as Frank might say, go tweeze nosehairs instead…or, er…file our nails…
Or, if we did choose to get involved, we could prep for it, by cutting and pasting from all the past ’same’ threads. Not much less work, but more like a little scrapbook project, and perhaps less infuriating than the exercise of presenting, yet once again, all the same points made once, or twice, or thrice before.
JG, thank goodness for you! You’re a much more formidable opponent anyway. But, I warn you…hwc may be on at any moment with many, many ‘facts and stats’.
June 21st, 2008 at 11:21 am
Did Morty give any details whatsoever on this? My understanding is that the main changes are fewer tips overall (72 to 66) and, more significantly, the elimination or near elimination of the low-band tips.
June 21st, 2008 at 2:58 pm
I would be interested to know how the “bands” have changed. With the boomlet of record applications just about everywhere (offspring of the Baby Boomers, many more international applicants, many applicants applying to many more schools than used to be the case and a higher percentage of high school graduates applying to college), what it takes in general (tipping, minority status, legacy status, etc. aside) to get into a place like Williams has changed (higher gpa, higher standing in high school class, higher SAT I/ACT/SAT II, more expectation of 5s on APs junior year and before, etc.). I’d be interested to know what an AR 1 or an AR2, for example, is now.
However “low” (measured by the stats, unhelpful though they may be) the College may dip for athletic tips (say, AR5 or AR6 — I can’t remember what the new tip floor is, and I’m too lazy to look it up), what it takes to fall within that band must have gotten significantly tougher in recent years. Does anyone have any idea of what the stats ranges for each band are now?
June 21st, 2008 at 5:55 pm
“Did Morty give any details whatsoever on this?”Not really. He just emphasized how different things were and how pleased he was with the changes. He acted as if this were one of his more important accomplishments at Williams. He may have mentioned something about “fewer tips” but, even if he did, it was only in passing and he went into no details. My sense was that Morty has placed this into the “problem already solved” pile and moved on to other things.”I would be interested to know how the “bands” have changed.”The best inside scoop we have on how much things changed is from Dave Barnard’s essay. Read that and the other posts on this topic (especially this one) for all the details that I know.”[W]hat it takes to fall within that band must have gotten significantly tougher in recent years. Does anyone have any idea of what the stats ranges for each band are now?”My understanding is that the “bands” themselves have not changed at all. An AR3 is still an AR3. (It would certainly make data analysis impossible if these definitions changed from year to year.) There is no easy-to-link-to definition for Williams, but by all the accounts that I have read (Talor/Doelac theses, various reports), the Amherst listing is virtually identical, at least for our purposes.
June 21st, 2008 at 11:05 pm
BTW, re-reading my earlier comment, I realize the typos were pretty egregious. Apologies - no more commenting on such little sleep w/ visiting parents running around trying to talk with me! I will post soon related to our many adventures around DC these last few days.
June 21st, 2008 at 11:07 pm
From the June 2008 edition of the Alumni Review, “What’s the Price of a Williams Education”, from Opinions & Expressions, Mortimer Shapiro writes on the subject of 2020 Vision.
Someone who uses the words 2020 Vision, would assume you have perfect and proper vision, that is, that your vision is normal, with the ability to see things sharply.
Mortimer Shapiro cites: “One of my worries about American higher education is how well it will be able to adapt to emerging national and global trends.” Higher ED in the USA is increasingly challenged. It has become the breeding grounds for political correctness with its vast impact within social and psychological processes. Why does WIlliams College need to worry about adapting to global trends when its goal is to educate? What business is it of Mortimer Shapiro to think that the college revolves about statistics of natiuonal and global trends? Trends should never dictate higher learning. Williams should not become the trendy school that bows to emerging national and global trends. Schools like Williams should be leading the way to higher ED in the concerns facing the education of its youth and not following in the footsteps of trends, fashion and public relations to satisfy change agents within ED.
Mortimer Shapiro continues: “….Williams is able to look for changes coming over the horizon.” Right, his 2020 Vision is about using the generous endowment for conforming to those emerging national and global trends.
Mortimer continues: “The speed of change in US demographics is breathtaking. Modeling (confirms) ….white American will represent less than half the Williams entering class around 2018.” Now we understand Morty’s superior 2020 Vision. Now that we have the endowment, let us have the 2020 Vision to implement the emerging national and global trends in ED, and he is here to do this.
Bravo!
Continuing: “Our goal is to move Williams from being impressively diverse to truly inclusive.” There you have it. We are going to have 2020 Process, managed no doubt by 2020 VISION.
Again, Mortimer: “Demographic change will also affect the composition of faculty and staff.” Yes our endowment allows micro-managers to adapt to emerging national and global trends with Williams brainstormed ways of responding to our breathtaking demographics.
Yes, our new found “2020 process is helping to keep our vision sharp.”
June 21st, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Mortimer?
June 21st, 2008 at 11:26 pm
He has a “c” in his surname.
June 21st, 2008 at 11:29 pm
morton owen schapiro.
June 22nd, 2008 at 3:09 am
Who is smarter? Mrs. Smarter or Mrs. Smarter’s baby?
Mrs. Smarter’s baby… because it’s a little smarter.
June 22nd, 2008 at 9:27 am
We already know David is willing to lower standards for admissions for some who bring special qualifications and backgrounds to the school… so I have to wonder, why not athletes? Did you have a bad run in or experience with the football team during your years at Williams- or something, David?
June 22nd, 2008 at 9:29 am
OK. I actually love that Dave raised this issue. Again. For one simple reason: he has laid out for us his fundamental beliefe: That people who score higher on the SAT and have higher grade point averages are smarter than those who do not. Or, I should say, that the students with lower gpa’s and lower SAT’s are “dumber.” I think this is an idiotic assessment of what intelligence is, but it is Dave’s standard as he’s made clear.
In another conversation, down below, on “legacy Admissions” and thus affirmative action, Dave tells us that black students at Williams have lower gpa’s and lower SAT scores. I think this is an idiotic standard for what one ought to desire in making up a freshman class at Williams, but it is dave’s standard as he’s made clear.
OK, Dave, your game, your rules, and you’ve established them. Indeed, when called out on the use of the word “dumber,” you have defended yourself. So, simple question, and I think many of us would appreciate a simple answer: Are black students at Williams dumber than the white students at Williams?
dcat
June 22nd, 2008 at 10:42 am
Who’s dumber? Mrs. Dumber or Mrs. Dumber baby?
Mrs. Dumber’s baby because it’s a little dumber.
June 22nd, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Derek, charming as ever, writes
I guess it depends on what you mean by “dumber?” And why do you bring “white students” into the conversation? I have made no claims about white Williams students in this thread.
If we are to make any progress in this conversation (which is doubtful), we must first agree on the facts. Here they are:
1) African American students at Williams have significantly lower high school GPAs than Chinese American students at Williams.
2) African American students at Williams have significantly lower SAT scores than Chinese American students at Williams.
3) African American students at Williams have significantly lower AP and achievement test scores than Chinese American students at Williams.
4) 1-3 cause African American students at Williams have significantly academic ratings than Chinese American students at Williams.
Feel free to huff and puff as much as you like, but until you can stand to look reality in the eyes, you aren’t going to make much progress.
Once we have established these facts, we can go on to discuss their meaning and importance, if any.
And, side note, aren’t you actually a college professor? At your college, I assume that some students do very well in your (and other) courses and have high GPAs. Those students received academic honors like Phi Beta Kappa. Other students do poorly in your (and other) classes. Those students have low GPAs. You can be sure (check with your registrar) that, on average the Phi Beta Kappas had higher high school GPAs and higher SAT scores than the non-PBKs.
What word do you use to compare PBKs to non-PBKs at your school? They are what-er? I would go with “smarter” but I could also imagine “more hard working” or “more academically accomplished” or something even more wordy. Once you tell me the word(s) that you use to compare your best students with your worst students, I’ll know what word I should use.
June 22nd, 2008 at 4:55 pm
David -
The way you have phrased your “facts” is incorrect and offensive. Perhaps you meant, for example, that the average SAT scores of African Americans at Williams (i.e., overall, but none of us knows about the scores of individual members of the group) are lower than the average SAT scores of Chinese American students at Williams as a group.
(And by the way none of us has any reason to assume that Obama’s daughters’ scores, were they of age to be taking the tests, would be lower than those of successful Caucasian applicants to Williams; to the contrary, if anything, I would think; what a gratuitous slur against two very young girls that was).
June 22nd, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Of course I meant on average! Isn’t that obvious? Anytime you compare one group of people to another (Williams students or not), you are almost always talking about averages.
June 22nd, 2008 at 7:46 pm
David,
A few “facts”, as I see them:
SATs and GPAs are not measures of intelligence. Granted, smart people stand a better chance of having high GPAs and SATs, but lower scores ( especially within the range existing at Williams), do not denote lesser intelligence.
Perhaps those with slightly lower scores (or grades) had no SAT prep… or went to a poor public school, or spent less time studying, or more time on other activities (that didn’t contribute to their GPA), or they were sick their senior year, or holding down a job as well, or had some learning or language issues, or, or, or… (my point being that there are many, many things that contribute to grades and scores, that have little to do with level of intelligence).
And yes, a Phi Beta Kappa could be called “more accomplished” which is not the same thing as “smarter”. And yet you imply that “more accomplished” is a “wordy” replacement for “smarter”, when actually, it just has a whole other meaning.
And to complicate your example, that particular Phi Beta Kappa might even have lower SATs than her fellow student with the less impressive GPA. So, what would that make her? Perhaps a “dumber”, but “more accomplished” student?
Last, but not least, there are no “dumb” students at Williams.
And P.S.
Why are all your comparisons made to Chinese Americans? Did I miss something somewhere? Are they the Williams standard?
June 22nd, 2008 at 8:02 pm
David used Chinese-Americans as a comparison group because Derek was trying to bait him into writing something racist, or at least something he could call racist.
June 22nd, 2008 at 8:04 pm
And since a comparison of two minority groups lacks the emotional impact of a white-black comparison …
June 22nd, 2008 at 9:18 pm
David - If that is what you mean, say it. It doesn’t help your arguments to make readers have to make assumptions about “what you must have meant.” And very little is “obvious” to me about you, your beliefs and what you “must mean.” As far as I know, you think every African African student at Williams is “dumber” than every Chinese American student at Williams, whatever you may think that means.
June 23rd, 2008 at 2:53 am
How about some “facts” that compare the average [racial, ethnic class, or athlete] to the average armed service veteran? If we can identify the *dumbest class of people* at Williams, maybe we could further review admission policy and make improvements. What if veterans fit the bill as dumbest class of people at Williams… the smart ones get their college educations first and enter the service as officers. On another tack, I’m surprised no one has made the argument that anyone scoring below the mean math and verbal SAT score is an affirmative action case.
June 23rd, 2008 at 2:58 am
Apologies to Mr. Shapiro on the prefix of Moritmer as I understand he is Morton.
Needless to say, I stand by my statements.
This is not entirely about race alone, it is about conforming to the process of 2020 versus the potential of prospective students in the interests of Williams College.
June 23rd, 2008 at 5:42 am
“… the smart ones get their college educations first and enter the service as officers.”
David- If my eyes are not mistaken, I do believe that “nuts” just called the 90 day wonder smart, at the expense of the Gunny who is “not as smart”. Lol. Too funny.
One thing not mentioned- Veterans would also add age diversity. They are older. More veterans at Williams would mean less trashed common area furniture, and less throwing up in the hallways. A good thing, one would think.
June 23rd, 2008 at 11:51 am
I was extending the line of thinking to an absurd conclusion. What’s a 90 day wonder?
June 23rd, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Re: #29 -
Wow do I feel old.
But nothing new there.
June 23rd, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Once again - the David Kane column. I may be slightly off base here since I didn’t have the time to read each post thoroughly but Ithink I’ve gotten the gist. Why not just say “achieved lower (or higher) SAT scores (or GPAs)” which appears to be DKs definition of “dumber” or “smarter” - which, indeed, is not necessarily agreed upon by the rest of the education world. One of the wonderful things about education these days - at many levels - that the whole student is considered, not just a formula derived score as it was when I applied to college - they just took the highest score (based on SAT and GPA; no ECs or anything else counted) in the applicant pool and counted down from there until they filled the class.
June 23rd, 2008 at 3:20 pm
SAT scores correlate pretty well with IQ tests, so to the extent that IQ measures “intelligence”, so does the SAT.
Of course, if you define intelligence as some nebulous amalgamation of all mental capabilities, to include all talents from musicianship to social skills to being a really good Halo player, then the SATs don’t measure it. I don’t think such a definition is particularly useful, but then again, intelligence is a very, very fuzzy concept.
June 23rd, 2008 at 3:59 pm
I believe we could all agree that the ‘AR’ assigned by Williams - a combination of SATs, GPAs and other academic achievements from the great nebula of smartness that is otherwise not quantifyably included - measures ’smartness’ fairly well. It is not perfect, but its pretty accurate. Given the fuzzy nature of admissions, anything that works pretty well is a bonus.
What is with the underlying current of discourse here that wants to believe that ‘everyone is equal’ and ‘everyones a winner’? Why is it so hard to believe that a football player is, on average, dumber than a non-athlete? Sure, I do know a few footballers who are very smart, but that doesn’t change the averages. And theres nothing fundamentally wrong with that belief - it is simply another property, just as his ability to throw/catch an elongated oval ball is much superior to mine. Of course, this property just happens to have a stronger effect on his ability to actively participate in an academic institution. Sometimes we forget that Williams does, in fact, happen to be a college in the few hours that its not busy being a sports camp or a drunkard reunion. Don’t get me started on the idiocy that is the ‘Division of the day’. What is that but official acknowledgment that athletics have completely taken over life at Williams?
And to Larry George: Your argument makes no sense. If we used your criteria for comparisons, no judgment would ever be possible. David Kane was obviously talking about averages. He is also a statistician. There is nothing wrong in assuming that you make the usual allowances for a Gaussian distribution with long tails and outliers, but in general derive much meaning from the averages and the standard deviations.
June 23rd, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Dave –
Mind-boggling. Just mindboggling.
You initially used the word “dumber.” It’s in your original post. You used it. You. Not me. And then when I ask you point blank a question based not only on this thread, but on the totality of your ideas, you suddenly expect me to define the word that you brought into the original conversation.
Then you go on to spout statistics that are among your favorites. So you have your stats, you have your defense of the word you chose to use. And so I ask again: Are black students at Williams on average dumber than white students? Why suddenly so shy about the courage of your convictions?
As for how I assess students, believe it or not, some of the smartest kids I’ve taught were not necessarily the ones who earned Latin honors. But then I live in a world where I look at the whole package of the people I deal with on a daily basis.
dc
June 23rd, 2008 at 5:30 pm
By the way — I also love the “typically charming” dig. Nice nonsequiter insult from the guy whose modus operendi here has become clear to almost everyone. I asked a question point blank that you have not answered because the terms of debate that you established would reveal you for what you are.
I’ll keep asking about the historical circumstances that have led to varying SAT scores among racial and ethnic groups, but I suspect that I won’t get an answer. And then Dave will pretend to lord a specialist vein of knowledge over me. And then I’ll ask him what he thinks about Terry Anderson’s history of Affirmative Action in the United States, and since he won’t have read it he’ll find a way to call me ignorant or charmless or — let’s just spend the coin of the realm here — dumb.
Charming indeed.
By the way — why are we uncritically accepting comparative gpa’s from kids who did not go to the same schools? Basically what we have here is the SAT, which does at least have a national baseline, but that baseline is deeply flawed. (BTW — what does Dave think of Nicholas Lehmann’s book on the SAT, or Ned Johnson’s? Oh, yeah, I bet he has not read those either. And what about the ability of rich kids to take test prep classes?) And then we have the gpa’s of kids froma whole host of educational environments with no baseline.
I do not oppose elitism or merit. But to blindly follow the gpa and SAT and pretend that these are perfect measures even of academic accomplishment, never mind of intelligence really does baffle the imagination. And to continue to ignore the historical circumstances that created this situation while smugly pointing to the same tired measurements lacks, well, charm. Among other things.
dc
June 23rd, 2008 at 6:17 pm
While I believe it is true that most people who score high on SATs probably have fairly high IQs, it is not true that people with high IQs always score high on SATs, or have high GPAs…
And again, there are no dumb people at Williams…whether they are football players, nerds, or African Americans, or whatever…but I daresay there are probably nerds with absolutely no athletic skill :-)
Derek:
If indeed you are going to Zimbabwe, be sure and keep your, ahem, ‘wits’ about you.
Safe journey to you…
June 23rd, 2008 at 6:53 pm
You missed the point, Class Nerd ‘10. I was not making an argument, but pointing out that David was speaking extremely imprecisely. Nothing wrong with statistics but they require precision to have validity.
When broad generalizations are made about race without being extremely clear that averages are being discussed and that there may be and probably are a lot of exceptions, it can be quite demoralizing to members of the group being discussed and it can lead to, or reinforce (relatively) low expectations for all members of the group and a prejudice that all members of the group will perform (relatively) poorly.
June 23rd, 2008 at 7:08 pm
The football players are as smart as you class 10 nerd! They got into Williams too! Some did it without the SAT score… I would say, that makes them damb smart! They got to drink beer and go to Williams!
June 23rd, 2008 at 9:44 pm
PTC, What’s a 90 day wonder?
June 23rd, 2008 at 9:48 pm
Got the answer from another thread. 90 Day wonders do Marine OCS.
June 24th, 2008 at 12:00 am
FM: “dumb” is relative. Sure, everyone at Williams is probably in the top 50% of the population by whatever intelligence metric you want to use, but that’s not saying a whole lot. Some Williams kids are a lot smarter than others. Some take interest in “the life of the mind” and seek out the famous 3 a.m. intellectual conversations we’re all promised when we come to college; others don’t care about anything intellectual beyond maintaining a barely passable GPA. (and of course, there’s a large middle ground)
The issue of whether any Williams students are “dumb” is largely irrelevant anyway. No one denies that there’s room for them to be, as a whole, smarter. The debate is over whether selecting for extra “smartness” (by whatever standard you want to use) creates a better school than selecting for diversity/legacies/athletes/whatever. It would certainly be a different school.
June 24th, 2008 at 12:21 am
to ‘10:
Consider the possibility that 3 am might not be the only time of day in which to pursue “the life of the mind”….and that, in fact, if you have arrived back at Williams from a double-header at Amherst, and studied for your 9am class (the next morning) on the bus ride home, then sleep might look very appealing to you at 3am.
The world is a big place full of all kinds of people…why not embrace diversity now…even if that means lowering your ideals consider that diversity might just include athletes.
A little extra “smartness” might behoove you.
And yes, I fully agree that Williams would be a very different school if it only had students…like you.
June 24th, 2008 at 1:03 am
Frosh Mom –
Thanks for the best wishes. Basically, without being mellowdramatic or self-aggrandizing, I want to go to Zim. I’ve written a lot about Mugabe, however, including in a prominent South African newspaper as well as at the Foreign Policy Association, so I just need to be smart and careful. Although I’m not technically a journalist, i’m sure that would be a distinction without na difference in a country in which practicing journalism without a license is, let’s say, precarious.
So I’m alloting a certain number of days, will buy my ticket at the last minute, and will be surreptitious assuming there are no issues getting into the country. If I am successful, I’ll be writing about the situation for the FPA and elsewhere depending on what I see, what I write, and who is interested.
Otherwise, it’ll just be three weeks in South Africa, where I have two conferences, some research to do, and plenty to keep me busy. It’ll be a great trip either way. i leave very early Wednesday morning.
Best –
dc
June 24th, 2008 at 3:13 am
F/SM: You’re assuming a lot of things that I never said. You seem to think I was attacking athletes as a class, but I said nothing of the kind - I know some brilliant, passionate athletes, and some rather dull non-athletes. I have even spent a fair amount of my life involved in varsity athletics, although currently I’m not “officially” an athlete for Williams. I am, however, involved in a few other fairly heavy extracurriculars, so I’m quite familiar with the pressures involved in balancing work and play at Williams - these issues are not limited to athletes.
That said, I’m far from being the smartest student at Williams, or the most intellectually committed (if such things can even be objectively ranked across subjects). To the extent that I might want Williams to admit even smarter students than it already does, it would be because I want to be constantly surrounded by people smarter than me. Let’s say I’m a physics major. If I want to be a world-class physicist - and I think Williams students should be able to reasonably aspire to be world-class - the best way forward is to work with a peer group of brilliant physics students (who may also happen to be athletes, musicians, etc., but the important thing is their scientific ability). This is one advantage of going to a school like MIT - a lot of world-class physics students simply aren’t very “well-rounded”. One might argue that there’s something mystical about athletics, or musicianship, or whatever that makes people into better physicists, but the final test is still ability at physics, which is fairly easy to gauge. And of the physicists I know at Williams, many are quite smart, smarter than me, but I doubt that any of them would be in the top 20 undergrad physics students in the world (for a variety of reasons, only some of which are related to admissions policy).
But, I never said that Williams should change its admissions balance. Williams has all kinds of reasons for accepting “less smart” (in terms of AR) kids over the alternatives - of course there are legacy and athletic tips, racial considerations, international quotas, and so on, but also other factors like musical or artistic talent, extracurriculars, community service, leadership positions, etc. It’s a perfectly reasonable choice to aim for a well-rounded student body, to accept an AR2 virtuoso cellist and soccer captain over an AR1 physics student with nothing but a 1600 SAT and 4.0 GPA, and that’s what Williams has (generally speaking) decided to do. Williams has decided that it doesn’t want to be MIT, and I’m more or less OK with that - if I had wanted to go to MIT, I would have. But, there are definitely tradeoffs involved, and that’s what I mean by saying that a “smarter” Williams (at least by the traditional measures) would be a different school, if not necessarily a better one.
(and hopefully, the students at such a school would not all be exactly like me. First of all, they would mostly be smarter than me, but secondly, it would be boring to go to a school with nothing but physics majors. Although if all of them also sang a capella, the results might be hilarious.)
June 24th, 2008 at 11:16 am
To ‘10:
Well… in noting the time on your comment (#44), you are certainly capable of conversation at 3 am. Sorry I wasnt able to reply at the same time, but like many people, I was (softly!) snoring at that hour. Besides, I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t have fit your criteria for the kind of person who could provide a truly, intellectually stimulating chat…(just pulling your leg here, now).
Also, forgive me if I made incorrect assumptions. But in all fairness, ‘10, you have taken this exact stance (re desiring a more intellectual environment at W)…at least twice now, and in both instances, in threads that were about athletes (even using athletes in your examples, each time). So, I …ahem…decided to use athletes in my example.
So now, first of all…
I find it difficult to swallow, that you are having trouble finding enough intellectual stimulation (amongst your peers) at Williams.
Secondly, I believe that development of the intellect, and a ‘life of the mind’, is more likely in an environment in which diversity is a priority (rather than “level of smartness”). Besides… the range in “smartness” at Williams, is not so vast as to preclude those capable of intelligent conversation. Of course, there are those who seek it out more than others, but I don’t see how that particular trait is assured (or that it goes hand-in-hand with high SATs) or that it even should be, for that matter.
Lastly, I believe that your intellectual development is not dependent on your being “constantly surrounded by people who are smarter than you.” In fact, I believe that a true “life of the mind” begins with you, and how you embrace the world. And that means being willing to see the value in, and engage with, all kinds of people, not just those who are “smarter”.
For example, if you are a physics major, try engaging with a pitcher on the physics involved in getting the ball to the batter, fast, hard, in several different ways, and in the ’sweet spot’ each and every time. Or if that particular pitcher is too tired to discuss it (after doing it), then go out there and watch a game and write an essay on it.
And if all else fails, and you still can’t find enough intellectual conversation, you can always ask a professor to dinner…or come on over to EB. I always enjoy your comments, but there are many here much smarter than I, who could provide you with a real challenge.
:-)
Derek:
Let us know how your travels turn out. A post would be terrific…or at the very least, please provide us with a link to whatever you end up writing.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:32 am
F/S Mom –
Thanks. I cannot believe I actually spelled melodramatic “Mellowdramatic” in my comment. To many hours awake polishing off writingh before my trip I guess.
I have an op-ed on the Zim situation coming out in tomorrow’s Cape Argus in Cape Town (comparing one element of Tsvangirai’s withdrawal to the Freedom Rides, my book topic: synergy!) which I’ll likely see soon after my arrival, but which probably does not bode well for me being discrete about the trip. I’m just going to assume the good folks at border control don’t use Google to keep out the undesireables and won’t have read the Argus in recent months!
I’ll be writing about the trip throughout, certainly the SA parts. And naturally I’ll write a ton about Zim, though I may leave the laptop in South Africa for obvious reasons. My guess is that I’d survive jail but that my laptop would not. The laptop is probably more valuable.
Best –
dc
June 24th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Dc- Good luck.
June 02, 2008
This Travel Alert updates safety and security concerns in Zimbabwe, advises U.S. citizens to consider relocating if necessary to ensure their security during the upcoming election period, and continues to recommend deferral of all non-essential travel to Zimbabwe at this time. This supersedes the Travel Alert for Zimbabwe dated May 14, 2008 and expires on August 1, 2008.
U.S. citizens should defer non-essential travel to Zimbabwe. U.S. citizens resident in Zimbabwe, particularly in rural areas, should carefully review their personal circumstances and consider moving to a more secure location in advance of, and immediately following, the June 27 runoff of the presidential elections between President Robert Mugabe and Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) candidate Morgan Tsvangirai. Since the March 29 general election, Zimbabwean security forces, including some military and police, as well as so-called war veterans, have created a climate of intimidation and fear across the country, particularly in rural areas and high-density suburbs. There have been numerous and widespread attacks on opposition supporters, renewed farm invasions, and arrests and beatings of election officials accused of vote tampering. There is a continued risk of arbitrary detention or arrest.
Americans should be particularly cautious when using still, video or telephone cameras in any urban setting, or in the vicinity of any political activity, as this could be construed by Zimbabwean authorities as presenting oneself as an accredited journalist, a crime punishable by arrest, incarceration and/or deportation.
dc- Not the worst place on the planet to be a gringo right now, but still dude- Be very careful… especially with a camera.
Know how to get to the Embassy, and have a plan for travel and return to the embassy in case it really hits the fan. Make sure you have a good cell phone, and verify the 24/7 contact numbers for the Marine guards. Carry plenty of water.
Before traveling anywhere remote, know the location of the nearest Red Corss, USAID and/or other humanitarian assistance stations of allied nations in that location and use them for a reference point and points of contact. Travel with a buddy. Cover your ass dc. If you are going to take risks in order to get a “scoop”, mitigate them with a proper survey of the area in which you are traveling.
June 24th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
When I think of all the remote places I have been without taking the above precautions…Great advice, PTC.
Amen and Godspeed.
June 24th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
PTC –
Thanks. Trust me — I’ll be smart. I’ll almost certainly leave my camera, my laptop, and any books about politics or especially Zimbabwe back in South Africa. I’m less interested in a “scoop” - I’m not likely to be able to do anything other than augment what we already know — than I am in simply being there and seeing. Depending on what happens on Friday I may scuttle the plan, which is largely why all I’ve done thus far is to allot x number of days during the trip for a possible Zimbabwe trip.
The main purpose of the trip is the South Africa portion, but if possible I’d like to get north of the Limpopo. I’ve been writing so much about the situation, and I have not been back for some time, and if possible I want to see. I’m trying to avoid seeming like I’m in it for the danger tourism, or that I’m either suicidal or brave, but doing what I do occasionally means dealing with things I’d prefer not to.
The alarm will go off at 4:00 central time. I was polishing off some last minute writing at 4:00 this morning. Not good times.
Thanks everyone.
dcat
June 24th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Dcat- Man I get it. I do not know enough about Zimbabwe culture to know if you can get out and around to check it out or not. You may be able to hang out some with the locals and get a feel for the place pretty safely. Africa is a strange place- a rebellion can be going on in some places with very little danger to Westerners. I just have no feel at all for Zimbabwe- never been there. Being a former British colony, they may have very positive or negative sentiment towards Westerners and whites. As you know, that could change depending on location, age, socio economics and polity. An official language of English is certainly a plus for you. You may find a lot of people very willing and anxious to talk about politics with a westerner, and have a really enlightening experience. Maybe not. I have zero read on it, and do not know anyone there.
Good luck with your trip.
June 25th, 2008 at 2:01 am
Derek -
Safe trip.
I’ll be interested in hearing about it, whether or not you take the side trip.
June 27th, 2008 at 7:29 am
If anyone is still reading these comments: I’m in South Africa now. You can follow my travels at the Foreign Policy Association’s two blogs related to African affairs:
The South Africa Blog: http://southafrica.foreignpolicyblogs.com/
And the Africa Blog:
http://africa.foreignpolicyblogs.com/
As well as more informal stuff at dcat: http://dcatblog.blogspot.com/
dcat
June 27th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
Derek,
Good to hear you’re there and read your stories. More follow-up on the FP blogs if I get enough time to ask something relevant.
June 28th, 2008 at 12:31 am
Following as well, Derek. Thanks for the links.
Absolutely no ‘witless-ness’ allowed…