October 24th, 2009 / 6:34 pm
Snippets
Snippets
Ryan Call—
Stacey Harwood wrote a letter to Poets&Writers in response to the MFA program rankings they published.
(via @notell)
Why is she dismayed and surprised to find out that a magazine which focuses primarily on fiction and poetry would not use scientific methods to conduct a survey. Does she read the tabloids and get irritated when there is no source cited for a quote?
Why is she dismayed and surprised to find out that a magazine which focuses primarily on fiction and poetry would not use scientific methods to conduct a survey. Does she read the tabloids and get irritated when there is no source cited for a quote?
Is P&W a tabloid?
Is P&W a tabloid?
No, but The Enquirer is.
No, but The Enquirer is.
Hard to disagree with the analysis, not even remotely statistically sound.
Hard to disagree with the analysis, not even remotely statistically sound.
Well, when people read a tabloid (halfway intelligent people, at least), they say, “I know this to be a publication of dubious factual standards. Therefore, I will take anything I read in it with a proverbial grain of salt.”
With Poets & Writers, people say, “I believe this to be a respectable publication, and have no reason to believe it engages in shoddy/shady journalism for the purposes of mere entertainment.”
Well, when people read a tabloid (halfway intelligent people, at least), they say, “I know this to be a publication of dubious factual standards. Therefore, I will take anything I read in it with a proverbial grain of salt.”
With Poets & Writers, people say, “I believe this to be a respectable publication, and have no reason to believe it engages in shoddy/shady journalism for the purposes of mere entertainment.”
i understand why they aren’t posting seth’s follow-up responses but i’d like to see them
i understand why they aren’t posting seth’s follow-up responses but i’d like to see them
How does one scientifically rank MFA programs?
How does one scientifically rank MFA programs?
how do i get P&W to publish my article on why and how MFA writing programs could do any particular person much more harm than good (not even considering the money issue at all)?
how do i get P&W to publish my article on why and how MFA writing programs could do any particular person much more harm than good (not even considering the money issue at all)?
my article is called How the American MFA Writing Program is Causing Global Warming
my article is called How the American MFA Writing Program is Causing Global Warming
I like how she call him a “blogger” like it was a poison found on one’s shoe bottom.
I like how she call him a “blogger” like it was a poison found on one’s shoe bottom.
I’ve gotten into more arguments with Seth at this point than I can count, but I can say that his responses to criticisms tend to be, at best, obtuse. For example, in one of his comments to a detractor on the P&W article, he said: “Iowa has been regarded as the top MFA program in the United States since the Roosevelt Administration (1936).” I pointed out that this was a potentially misleading statement, since Iowa was the ONLY existing MFA program in those years. His response was confusing; first, he reiterated that Iowa has been the top program since 1936 (“Sorry for any confusion–my point was not that Iowa is considered the top program because it was founded in 1936, but rather that it has been considered the top program since 1936. It’s had that position [across years of various polls, rankings, and articles] for many reasons, and certainly longevity has played a part–more alumni mean more alumni “successes,” for instance, particularly during those decades in which there was less competition with other MFA programs–but it’s obviously much more complicated than a simple matter of temporality or history.”); then he went on to claim that he actually rates Iowa lower than previous polls–and that’s all these are, really, polls, not rankings–have, despite it having been “awarded” a number one spot overall. I stand by what I said initially–it’s essentially meaningless to claim that the only existing MFA program in the 1930s has been the top MFA program in those decades.
I consistently find it very difficult to tell whether he just doesn’t _get_ the criticism he receives, or if he’s trying to willfully obfuscate the logic of those criticisms in his responses. But if you read what he writes closely (often a snooze, because of the length), it’s something that happens again and again.
I’ve gotten into more arguments with Seth at this point than I can count, but I can say that his responses to criticisms tend to be, at best, obtuse. For example, in one of his comments to a detractor on the P&W article, he said: “Iowa has been regarded as the top MFA program in the United States since the Roosevelt Administration (1936).” I pointed out that this was a potentially misleading statement, since Iowa was the ONLY existing MFA program in those years. His response was confusing; first, he reiterated that Iowa has been the top program since 1936 (“Sorry for any confusion–my point was not that Iowa is considered the top program because it was founded in 1936, but rather that it has been considered the top program since 1936. It’s had that position [across years of various polls, rankings, and articles] for many reasons, and certainly longevity has played a part–more alumni mean more alumni “successes,” for instance, particularly during those decades in which there was less competition with other MFA programs–but it’s obviously much more complicated than a simple matter of temporality or history.”); then he went on to claim that he actually rates Iowa lower than previous polls–and that’s all these are, really, polls, not rankings–have, despite it having been “awarded” a number one spot overall. I stand by what I said initially–it’s essentially meaningless to claim that the only existing MFA program in the 1930s has been the top MFA program in those decades.
I consistently find it very difficult to tell whether he just doesn’t _get_ the criticism he receives, or if he’s trying to willfully obfuscate the logic of those criticisms in his responses. But if you read what he writes closely (often a snooze, because of the length), it’s something that happens again and again.
A J.D. from Harvard certainly wouldn’t provide one with some good learnin’ on how to obfuscate the logic in an opposing arguement.
A J.D. from Harvard certainly wouldn’t provide one with some good learnin’ on how to obfuscate the logic in an opposing arguement.
I mispelled argument because I don’t have a J.D. from Harvard.
I mispelled argument because I don’t have a J.D. from Harvard.
Why doesn’t his bio on the P&W article mention Abramson Leslie Consulting? That’s disingenuous, at best.
Why doesn’t his bio on the P&W article mention Abramson Leslie Consulting? That’s disingenuous, at best.
Erin, and what is it “at worst”? Something beyond “disingenuous”? Nefarious? Criminal? Sheesh. Abramson Leslie Consulting didn’t exist–in any way, in any form–during the period of time during which the data for the P&W article was collected, so I don’t see any way whatsoever in which it’s relevant to the article. Is that clear? Or “obtuse”?
You know what I find “obtuse”? Mentioning ALC in the same sentence as the P&W article without in *any* way fleshing out the causal chain that makes the one relevant to the other. That’s obtuse. As is implying–as you do–some sinister plot behind the omission, when, again, you have done *nothing* to actually *say* what it is that’s bothering you here.
Erin, and what is it “at worst”? Something beyond “disingenuous”? Nefarious? Criminal? Sheesh. Abramson Leslie Consulting didn’t exist–in any way, in any form–during the period of time during which the data for the P&W article was collected, so I don’t see any way whatsoever in which it’s relevant to the article. Is that clear? Or “obtuse”?
You know what I find “obtuse”? Mentioning ALC in the same sentence as the P&W article without in *any* way fleshing out the causal chain that makes the one relevant to the other. That’s obtuse. As is implying–as you do–some sinister plot behind the omission, when, again, you have done *nothing* to actually *say* what it is that’s bothering you here.
Phoebe,
I can’t help you. I made a true statement: Iowa’s been considered the best program since 1936. You flew off the handle, and tried to imply (illogically) that the fact that Iowa was the *only* program in 1936 (true) somehow invalidated my statement regarding Iowa’s position in the MFA world over the past 73 years. So I responded by arguing (as anyone could see) that if Iowa was tops in 1961, 1979, 1987, 1999, and so on–which you didn’t and don’t dispute–clearly it the fact that it was the only program in 1936 doesn’t somehow explain away its position over the ensuing 73 years? That’s why I wrote “it’s obviously much more complicated than a simple matter of temporality or history.” Your reading skills are poor. Don’t blame that on me. And as to lengthy written tracts–welcome to the real world, Phoebe. A lot of reading is required, and it doesn’t get any easier.
Phoebe,
I can’t help you. I made a true statement: Iowa’s been considered the best program since 1936. You flew off the handle, and tried to imply (illogically) that the fact that Iowa was the *only* program in 1936 (true) somehow invalidated my statement regarding Iowa’s position in the MFA world over the past 73 years. So I responded by arguing (as anyone could see) that if Iowa was tops in 1961, 1979, 1987, 1999, and so on–which you didn’t and don’t dispute–clearly it the fact that it was the only program in 1936 doesn’t somehow explain away its position over the ensuing 73 years? That’s why I wrote “it’s obviously much more complicated than a simple matter of temporality or history.” Your reading skills are poor. Don’t blame that on me. And as to lengthy written tracts–welcome to the real world, Phoebe. A lot of reading is required, and it doesn’t get any easier.
I’m just shocked to see Seth leave blog comments that are less than 1500 words long for once.
I’m just shocked to see Seth leave blog comments that are less than 1500 words long for once.
Flew off the handle? I don’t see how a pretty dispassionate comment is flying off the handle. I stand by what I said, though: claiming that the IWW has been the top MFA program since the Roosevelt administration is potentially misleading. It implies, at the very least, that there were other writing programs that were not “top” writing programs during this time, when (to my knowledge–it can be difficult to find explicit histories of graduate programs), Iowa was the only existing MFA program for at least a dozen of those years, and one of only a small handful until the 1960s. Yes, it was the top program during the 1930s. Because it was the only one. That doesn’t wholly jive with what was implied by your original statement.
And thanks, but my reading comprehension is fine. And I’m fine with reading in volume, so long as the content is both clear and meaningful.
Flew off the handle? I don’t see how a pretty dispassionate comment is flying off the handle. I stand by what I said, though: claiming that the IWW has been the top MFA program since the Roosevelt administration is potentially misleading. It implies, at the very least, that there were other writing programs that were not “top” writing programs during this time, when (to my knowledge–it can be difficult to find explicit histories of graduate programs), Iowa was the only existing MFA program for at least a dozen of those years, and one of only a small handful until the 1960s. Yes, it was the top program during the 1930s. Because it was the only one. That doesn’t wholly jive with what was implied by your original statement.
And thanks, but my reading comprehension is fine. And I’m fine with reading in volume, so long as the content is both clear and meaningful.
Phoebe, you accused me of trying to mislead people! Did you not think that would offend me? Or seem maybe a little unfair? And don’t you think that was a disproportionate response to me simply trying to tell another poster (on the P&W) that Iowa being #1 in 2009 wasn’t *that* surprising? It’s an amazing lack of self-consciousness on your part to not consider how accusations of dishonesty come off. Likewise, Erin, above, accusing me–without even having the courtesy to explain herself–of somehow nefariously withholding information. At least when I write responses I try to explain myself; here (and elsewhere) folks seem content to slag off on people they don’t know with no explanation whatsoever. I’d rather be verbose and sincere than terse and cruel.
Phoebe, you accused me of trying to mislead people! Did you not think that would offend me? Or seem maybe a little unfair? And don’t you think that was a disproportionate response to me simply trying to tell another poster (on the P&W) that Iowa being #1 in 2009 wasn’t *that* surprising? It’s an amazing lack of self-consciousness on your part to not consider how accusations of dishonesty come off. Likewise, Erin, above, accusing me–without even having the courtesy to explain herself–of somehow nefariously withholding information. At least when I write responses I try to explain myself; here (and elsewhere) folks seem content to slag off on people they don’t know with no explanation whatsoever. I’d rather be verbose and sincere than terse and cruel.
Seth, I’m not the owner of HTMLGiant or anything, but maybe you should take a breather. I said your statement was potentially misleading. I didn’t say you were being a big meanie liar and trying to fool people, which is what it seems you’ve read into my original comment.
Seth, I’m not the owner of HTMLGiant or anything, but maybe you should take a breather. I said your statement was potentially misleading. I didn’t say you were being a big meanie liar and trying to fool people, which is what it seems you’ve read into my original comment.
Oops, sorry, I did say you might be trying to willfully obfuscate the logic of those who criticize you. I can see why that might be upsetting. Well, I think that Stacey Harwood’s critique here is pretty valid, for example, and your response didn’t adequately address that. But maybe you’re not doing something willful, and maybe you’re not being obtuse–maybe you’re just taking the whole thing a little too personally. Which I guess is more likely, and probably more kind. Sorry for assuming the worst.
Oops, sorry, I did say you might be trying to willfully obfuscate the logic of those who criticize you. I can see why that might be upsetting. Well, I think that Stacey Harwood’s critique here is pretty valid, for example, and your response didn’t adequately address that. But maybe you’re not doing something willful, and maybe you’re not being obtuse–maybe you’re just taking the whole thing a little too personally. Which I guess is more likely, and probably more kind. Sorry for assuming the worst.
Phoebe, the internet works (in this sense at least) the way all other social interactions do: the personal history between two people matters. Above, you’ve called me “obtuse,” “confusing,” “willfully obfuscatory,” and noted that “I’ve gotten into more arguments with Seth at this point than I can count.” So when you go onto P&W, instead of e-mailing me privately, to say that something I’ve said is “potentially misleading,” you’re not exactly pure-as-driven-snow Mary looking for her lost sheep. I’ve always been happy to correct myself if I’ve said something inaccurate. In this case I didn’t say anything inaccurate (and to be fair, you’re technically not saying I did, either). So I will repeat my earlier point, which you ignored (and which you’ve now, again, brought up on P&W, I see): The fact that Iowa continued to be considered the top program even after it had competition from dozens of other programs suggests that there was (and is) something inherent in the IWW model that would have made it special in 1936 even if it had *had* competition. So when I said it’s been the top program since 1936 (which is true), your response to that was more misleading than the comment itself was: you want readers to believe that the *only* reason Iowa was #1 in 1936 (and until the next program began about a decade later) was because it had no competition–but as you very well know, you are *empirically* wrong there (Iowa continued to be #1 even after it had, as now, 141 full-res competitors), so the impression you’re trying to leave is, again, misleading. Why in the world would Iowa *not* have been #1 from 1936 to (say) 1950, even if we imagine it had had a handful or more competitors, when it’s the top program *now*, with 141 competitors, and has never relinquished its position no matter how many competitors it had or didn’t have? What about this is unclear to you?
Phoebe, the internet works (in this sense at least) the way all other social interactions do: the personal history between two people matters. Above, you’ve called me “obtuse,” “confusing,” “willfully obfuscatory,” and noted that “I’ve gotten into more arguments with Seth at this point than I can count.” So when you go onto P&W, instead of e-mailing me privately, to say that something I’ve said is “potentially misleading,” you’re not exactly pure-as-driven-snow Mary looking for her lost sheep. I’ve always been happy to correct myself if I’ve said something inaccurate. In this case I didn’t say anything inaccurate (and to be fair, you’re technically not saying I did, either). So I will repeat my earlier point, which you ignored (and which you’ve now, again, brought up on P&W, I see): The fact that Iowa continued to be considered the top program even after it had competition from dozens of other programs suggests that there was (and is) something inherent in the IWW model that would have made it special in 1936 even if it had *had* competition. So when I said it’s been the top program since 1936 (which is true), your response to that was more misleading than the comment itself was: you want readers to believe that the *only* reason Iowa was #1 in 1936 (and until the next program began about a decade later) was because it had no competition–but as you very well know, you are *empirically* wrong there (Iowa continued to be #1 even after it had, as now, 141 full-res competitors), so the impression you’re trying to leave is, again, misleading. Why in the world would Iowa *not* have been #1 from 1936 to (say) 1950, even if we imagine it had had a handful or more competitors, when it’s the top program *now*, with 141 competitors, and has never relinquished its position no matter how many competitors it had or didn’t have? What about this is unclear to you?
To say something is a top something implies that there are others in the position of bottom. Like with gay sex, you have your tops and your bottoms. So one could say that today Iowa is a top, while in 1936 the program had to masturbate because there was no bottom available. Kinda.
To say something is a top something implies that there are others in the position of bottom. Like with gay sex, you have your tops and your bottoms. So one could say that today Iowa is a top, while in 1936 the program had to masturbate because there was no bottom available. Kinda.
Joseph, actually that’s not correct. For instance, if America were the only exporter of pineapples in the world, we would certainly say America was the top exporter of pineapples (and we could *also* say it was the *only* exporter, but neither statement would be at all unfair or misleading, unless–as Phoebe did with me–one were to tautologically presume an intent to mislead in the initial observation, which would then be cause for “correction”). It’s a fallacy to say that a thing cannot exist without an opposite; otherwise, “Monday” could not exist, and we’d have to pretend that *no one* exported pineapples because (in my hypothetical) only one country did so. Or, you could look at it this way: Did Harvard, in 1936, have the money, human resources, and institutional structure to form an MFA program? Yes. Did it? No. Iowa “beat” Harvard, and every other school in America, in creating the MFA. Phoebe would have to show that Iowa was the only school *capable* of creating an MFA in 1936 for her fundamental point–that it is “meaningless” to say Iowa was the top program in 1936–to be true. Obtuse yet, or is this still Logic 101? I’m voting the latter.
Joseph, actually that’s not correct. For instance, if America were the only exporter of pineapples in the world, we would certainly say America was the top exporter of pineapples (and we could *also* say it was the *only* exporter, but neither statement would be at all unfair or misleading, unless–as Phoebe did with me–one were to tautologically presume an intent to mislead in the initial observation, which would then be cause for “correction”). It’s a fallacy to say that a thing cannot exist without an opposite; otherwise, “Monday” could not exist, and we’d have to pretend that *no one* exported pineapples because (in my hypothetical) only one country did so. Or, you could look at it this way: Did Harvard, in 1936, have the money, human resources, and institutional structure to form an MFA program? Yes. Did it? No. Iowa “beat” Harvard, and every other school in America, in creating the MFA. Phoebe would have to show that Iowa was the only school *capable* of creating an MFA in 1936 for her fundamental point–that it is “meaningless” to say Iowa was the top program in 1936–to be true. Obtuse yet, or is this still Logic 101? I’m voting the latter.
Phoebe, I just read your most recent note–we cross-posted. Thank you for the follow-up. As to responding to Stacey, I have/I did so, but she deleted it. I’ve also, as I mentioned, created a 10-page methodological document, which I’ve sent to AWP, which absolutely and conclusively addresses every point Stacey made. In short, Stacey did not understand what the rankings were trying to do (or the small portion of the rankings she objected to). Part of the problem is that she clearly didn’t read the 11-page article P&W published, and expected people would read, that accompanied the rankings. So Stacey didn’t know this, for instance: The sample was specifically intended to not be representative. For instance: The sample was specifically chosen to ensure that the target demographic was only in a position to assess immutable program characteristics (including funding package, teaching load, program duration, program size, student-to-faculty ratio, acceptance rate, &c &c &c), rather than subjective program elements which are either unmeasurable or non-probative. For instance: Stacey does not have any knowledge of the history of art school rankings; the primary dilemma in art school rankings, which caused USNWR to stop collecting MFA data in 1996, was (until these rankings) that all previous attempts to rank art schools tried to use various means (BTW, *never* scientific) to measure subjective elements of MFA programs. All of these elements were either unmeasurable or non-probative. If one wants to find a population likely to a) know the immutable traits of the largest number of programs, and b) be able to, without bias, assess programs on the basis of those immutable traits (because they do not have access to other, more subjective information, and have no horse in the field), you would poll exactly those individuals P&W polled: MFA applicants who congregate on websites where data about immutable MFA-program traits is discussed daily. So: the sample was not intended to be representative, and the sample-set was not intended to have subjective, unmeasurable knowledge of the programs. But in the interest of not limiting the rankings to this measure–which, further, had a philosophical underpinning (the returning of power to aspiring artists, from whom it was taken in the faculty-driven, therefore-funding-blind 1996 rankings that caused a generation of anti-MFA critics to have ammunition in calling MFA programs “cash cows”)–four other hard-data rankings were included, and a mountain of unranked hard data, all of which Stacey ignored. That’s the two-second version of a much, much larger dialogue. –S.
Phoebe, I just read your most recent note–we cross-posted. Thank you for the follow-up. As to responding to Stacey, I have/I did so, but she deleted it. I’ve also, as I mentioned, created a 10-page methodological document, which I’ve sent to AWP, which absolutely and conclusively addresses every point Stacey made. In short, Stacey did not understand what the rankings were trying to do (or the small portion of the rankings she objected to). Part of the problem is that she clearly didn’t read the 11-page article P&W published, and expected people would read, that accompanied the rankings. So Stacey didn’t know this, for instance: The sample was specifically intended to not be representative. For instance: The sample was specifically chosen to ensure that the target demographic was only in a position to assess immutable program characteristics (including funding package, teaching load, program duration, program size, student-to-faculty ratio, acceptance rate, &c &c &c), rather than subjective program elements which are either unmeasurable or non-probative. For instance: Stacey does not have any knowledge of the history of art school rankings; the primary dilemma in art school rankings, which caused USNWR to stop collecting MFA data in 1996, was (until these rankings) that all previous attempts to rank art schools tried to use various means (BTW, *never* scientific) to measure subjective elements of MFA programs. All of these elements were either unmeasurable or non-probative. If one wants to find a population likely to a) know the immutable traits of the largest number of programs, and b) be able to, without bias, assess programs on the basis of those immutable traits (because they do not have access to other, more subjective information, and have no horse in the field), you would poll exactly those individuals P&W polled: MFA applicants who congregate on websites where data about immutable MFA-program traits is discussed daily. So: the sample was not intended to be representative, and the sample-set was not intended to have subjective, unmeasurable knowledge of the programs. But in the interest of not limiting the rankings to this measure–which, further, had a philosophical underpinning (the returning of power to aspiring artists, from whom it was taken in the faculty-driven, therefore-funding-blind 1996 rankings that caused a generation of anti-MFA critics to have ammunition in calling MFA programs “cash cows”)–four other hard-data rankings were included, and a mountain of unranked hard data, all of which Stacey ignored. That’s the two-second version of a much, much larger dialogue. –S.
seth, if phoebe did not suggest that you were being potentially misleading in public other people might not have a chance to think about that. it seems to me that this is the only thing of value which could hope to come from blog comments: making people think.
side note: the fact that you really believe no other school has _ever_ had a better mfa program than iowa in the last 73 years suggests an unhealthy amount of faith in the ability of numbers to quantify something as seemingly immeasurable as the effectiveness of a writing program on the individual. as with most statistical information, it seems much more likely that the scales have been tipped (whether by you or someone else) in favor of ‘the establishment’ or whatever-you-want-to-call-it, in order for that to be an opinion that you will not only hold for yourself but attempt to force on others. but then i suppose i’ve never been to iowa. maybe there is something in the corn.
seth, if phoebe did not suggest that you were being potentially misleading in public other people might not have a chance to think about that. it seems to me that this is the only thing of value which could hope to come from blog comments: making people think.
side note: the fact that you really believe no other school has _ever_ had a better mfa program than iowa in the last 73 years suggests an unhealthy amount of faith in the ability of numbers to quantify something as seemingly immeasurable as the effectiveness of a writing program on the individual. as with most statistical information, it seems much more likely that the scales have been tipped (whether by you or someone else) in favor of ‘the establishment’ or whatever-you-want-to-call-it, in order for that to be an opinion that you will not only hold for yourself but attempt to force on others. but then i suppose i’ve never been to iowa. maybe there is something in the corn.
What? It’s still obtuse. A comment can be misleading without there being intent to mislead. Most sensible people will read something being “top” to imply that there are other, non-top alternatives. Bottoms, as Joseph says. I thought public correct was necessary because, you know, other people were reading it and the clarification might have helped them understand what actually happened. And the internet is meant for public discourse, anyway. I don’t think Iowa’s bad, or that it’s currently ranked incorrectly (though, as usually, I disagree with rankings generally yadda yadda) or that I think Iowa’s genuine and actual successes aren’t something to crow about, because they are. But I still think it’s misleading to say that something is top ranked since 1936 when during a great many of those years there were no alternatives. It implies a measure of success that’s inaccurate. For the record, I don’t think Harvard not creating an MFA program in 1936 has anything to do with anything. It was a small point I was trying to make: Iowa had no competitors for years, and so one should not read particular distinction in being the “top” program during those years. Though, ironically, I think their age is one of the things it has going for it.
Seems like if Seth should be explaining something it should be why he used a completely statistically unsound methodology and passed it off as scientific.
What? It’s still obtuse. A comment can be misleading without there being intent to mislead. Most sensible people will read something being “top” to imply that there are other, non-top alternatives. Bottoms, as Joseph says. I thought public correct was necessary because, you know, other people were reading it and the clarification might have helped them understand what actually happened. And the internet is meant for public discourse, anyway. I don’t think Iowa’s bad, or that it’s currently ranked incorrectly (though, as usually, I disagree with rankings generally yadda yadda) or that I think Iowa’s genuine and actual successes aren’t something to crow about, because they are. But I still think it’s misleading to say that something is top ranked since 1936 when during a great many of those years there were no alternatives. It implies a measure of success that’s inaccurate. For the record, I don’t think Harvard not creating an MFA program in 1936 has anything to do with anything. It was a small point I was trying to make: Iowa had no competitors for years, and so one should not read particular distinction in being the “top” program during those years. Though, ironically, I think their age is one of the things it has going for it.
Seems like if Seth should be explaining something it should be why he used a completely statistically unsound methodology and passed it off as scientific.
Public correction, rather.
Public correction, rather.
Would it actually hurt your argument to admit that yeah, it’s ridiculous to be arguing at length that Iowa was the #1 MFA program in 1936 even though it was the only program? I would find it similarly ludicrous to be making a passionate case that the US was the top exporter of pineapples as the lone pineapple exporter. But yeah, you’re spot on. Iowa was #1 in 1936. Why is this important? None of us were studying writing in 1936. Iowa’s the best! Yay Iowa. Iowa rules. Go Iowa. Iowa graduates, feel validated. You, Iowa, are the best.
Would it actually hurt your argument to admit that yeah, it’s ridiculous to be arguing at length that Iowa was the #1 MFA program in 1936 even though it was the only program? I would find it similarly ludicrous to be making a passionate case that the US was the top exporter of pineapples as the lone pineapple exporter. But yeah, you’re spot on. Iowa was #1 in 1936. Why is this important? None of us were studying writing in 1936. Iowa’s the best! Yay Iowa. Iowa rules. Go Iowa. Iowa graduates, feel validated. You, Iowa, are the best.
Seems like BS to say I “passed it off as scientific” when you couldn’t find a single place, online or off, where I EVER claimed to be using a scientific methodology. What an absolute coward you are.
Seems like BS to say I “passed it off as scientific” when you couldn’t find a single place, online or off, where I EVER claimed to be using a scientific methodology. What an absolute coward you are.
Someone should make & publish a ranked list of the top 50 kinds of pubic hair soon.
Someone should make & publish a ranked list of the top 50 kinds of pubic hair soon.
I vote landing strip FTW.
iowa has had the best cornhole hair since 1924, when it was first discovered, in iowa
I vote landing strip FTW.
iowa has had the best cornhole hair since 1924, when it was first discovered, in iowa
phoebe, how can you even compare cornhole hair to a landing strip – they are in totally different areas of the lower-midsection
phoebe, how can you even compare cornhole hair to a landing strip – they are in totally different areas of the lower-midsection
color, corseness, length, shedding factor, shape, ability to be accidently swallowed and have you be able to still go on with your day without the annoying throat issue
color, corseness, length, shedding factor, shape, ability to be accidently swallowed and have you be able to still go on with your day without the annoying throat issue
I keep telling the internet that public hair is totally subjective, and not to spend their hard-earned stipends on overpriced wax jobs!
I keep telling the internet that public hair is totally subjective, and not to spend their hard-earned stipends on overpriced wax jobs!
Coward? Geezus, dude, that’s a little harsh. The thing I don’t get about you is why you spend so much freaking time arguing on the internet. If you’re right and you stand by your methodology, let your published methodology and the ranking stand by themselves. Do you ever consider that your public (and prolix) defenses of yourself might have the opposite result from that which you intend?
Coward? Geezus, dude, that’s a little harsh. The thing I don’t get about you is why you spend so much freaking time arguing on the internet. If you’re right and you stand by your methodology, let your published methodology and the ranking stand by themselves. Do you ever consider that your public (and prolix) defenses of yourself might have the opposite result from that which you intend?
you are so obtuse
you are so obtuse
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuBHzJ5LrXE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuBHzJ5LrXE
Matt, I think about it all the time. But until you’ve tried to orchestrate a sea change in an entire industry by yourself, I’m not sure you’re going to understand. And until you get as many e-mails from MFA applicants (regarding their struggles) as I do daily, I don’t think you’re going to fully understand what’s at stake here, either. Take care guys, –S.
Matt, I think about it all the time. But until you’ve tried to orchestrate a sea change in an entire industry by yourself, I’m not sure you’re going to understand. And until you get as many e-mails from MFA applicants (regarding their struggles) as I do daily, I don’t think you’re going to fully understand what’s at stake here, either. Take care guys, –S.
What is the sea change you are trying to orchestrate? I’ve been an MFA applicant and did not struggle to find a program that was a good fit for me – what are their struggles? What’s at stake? I realize I’m encouraging you to write more after suggesting that you wrote too much, but I find this post baffling.
What is the sea change you are trying to orchestrate? I’ve been an MFA applicant and did not struggle to find a program that was a good fit for me – what are their struggles? What’s at stake? I realize I’m encouraging you to write more after suggesting that you wrote too much, but I find this post baffling.
this is still relevant information, i believe, and worthy of inclusion in a bio, despite the fact that alc did not exist at the time of the research. it is relevant because you conducted the research and now also coadminister a consulting firm, the paying clients of which have an interest in the research youve presented. i dont think its ‘good’ or ‘bad’ or ‘nefarious’ or whatever. just more information that could be usefu to someone interested in applying to programsl. i think erin has a good question, though maybe what she implies isn’t supported well. and i dont think youve answered her question satisfactorily. why is it not relevant information, in your opinion? thats all. its just a simple thing really.
this is still relevant information, i believe, and worthy of inclusion in a bio, despite the fact that alc did not exist at the time of the research. it is relevant because you conducted the research and now also coadminister a consulting firm, the paying clients of which have an interest in the research youve presented. i dont think its ‘good’ or ‘bad’ or ‘nefarious’ or whatever. just more information that could be usefu to someone interested in applying to programsl. i think erin has a good question, though maybe what she implies isn’t supported well. and i dont think youve answered her question satisfactorily. why is it not relevant information, in your opinion? thats all. its just a simple thing really.
i have reviewed the majority of comments here and see little evidence of personal attacks and ‘slagging off,’ (except for those comments that are purposefully meant not to be taken seriously) so i will let the comments stand.
i have reviewed the majority of comments here and see little evidence of personal attacks and ‘slagging off,’ (except for those comments that are purposefully meant not to be taken seriously) so i will let the comments stand.
Hi Matt, I’m afraid I’m going to have to let this one go, sorry. Best wishes, –S.
Hi Matt, I’m afraid I’m going to have to let this one go, sorry. Best wishes, –S.
i like that phoebe did not email you. i like reading these things.
my read: pheobe called your responses ‘obtuse’ and ‘confusing,’ which seems more like a description of how she read your responses rather than a criticism of your person. the third, ‘willfully obfuscatory,’ is questionable to me as i dont have any evidence that supports it.
why is it that someone who asks a question regarding another’s intentions is not ‘pure as the driven snow’? especially if that criticism is qualified with the word ‘potentially’?
i like that phoebe did not email you. i like reading these things.
my read: pheobe called your responses ‘obtuse’ and ‘confusing,’ which seems more like a description of how she read your responses rather than a criticism of your person. the third, ‘willfully obfuscatory,’ is questionable to me as i dont have any evidence that supports it.
why is it that someone who asks a question regarding another’s intentions is not ‘pure as the driven snow’? especially if that criticism is qualified with the word ‘potentially’?
Life’s a song
You don’t get to rehearse.
And every single verse
Can make it that much worse.
Still my friends
Don’t know why I ignore
The million things or more
I should be dancing for.
Life’s a song
You don’t get to rehearse.
And every single verse
Can make it that much worse.
Still my friends
Don’t know why I ignore
The million things or more
I should be dancing for.
The shag carpet w/ braids is in this fall:
http://cache2.asset-cache.net/xc/200426403-003.jpg?v=1&c=NewsMaker&k=2&d=4B58254881E9B7B8458E3929DD70866E02EAABC08936AC60
The shag carpet w/ braids is in this fall:
http://cache2.asset-cache.net/xc/200426403-003.jpg?v=1&c=NewsMaker&k=2&d=4B58254881E9B7B8458E3929DD70866E02EAABC08936AC60
You seem nice. I wonder why no one likes you?
You seem nice. I wonder why no one likes you?
It requires blood oranges, newt’s eyes, hair from a virgin and some salt
It requires blood oranges, newt’s eyes, hair from a virgin and some salt
Actually, I believe in ’38 Iowa was into auto-erotic asphyxiation. It almost didn’t survive
Actually, I believe in ’38 Iowa was into auto-erotic asphyxiation. It almost didn’t survive
Seth’s the number 1 rated blogger of all time, 1936, pineapples, etc, etc…. and now he’s wasting his talents in the pursuit of tainted money…. come back to real blogging Seth! i know you’re itching to!!
Seth’s the number 1 rated blogger of all time, 1936, pineapples, etc, etc…. and now he’s wasting his talents in the pursuit of tainted money…. come back to real blogging Seth! i know you’re itching to!!
what’s the most kafkaesque mfa program?
what’s the most kafkaesque mfa program?
Touche
Touche
You folks in the US have the “World Series” of Baseball, without other countries competing
You folks in the US have the “World Series” of Baseball, without other countries competing
I think seth is talking about anonymity.
I don’t drink soda, but I rank RC Cola below Coke — which is my #1 pick — and I place Pepsi somewhere in the middle range — too syrupy. Does anyone put peanuts in their Coke?
I think seth is talking about anonymity.
I don’t drink soda, but I rank RC Cola below Coke — which is my #1 pick — and I place Pepsi somewhere in the middle range — too syrupy. Does anyone put peanuts in their Coke?
Other countries (besides Japan and those in the Caribbean) don’t seem to like it. It was scrapped from the Olympics.
Other countries (besides Japan and those in the Caribbean) don’t seem to like it. It was scrapped from the Olympics.
That’s because they play cricket. Similar thing with American Football – who needs it when you’ve got rugby – a vastly superior game?
That’s because they play cricket. Similar thing with American Football – who needs it when you’ve got rugby – a vastly superior game?
so essentially if we want to eliminate the menace of these MFA programs we should nuke Iowa with an idea that the lesser programs will begin to fall like dominoes?
so essentially if we want to eliminate the menace of these MFA programs we should nuke Iowa with an idea that the lesser programs will begin to fall like dominoes?
hmmm… i was only able to count up 48 variations… pls send supporting data online quickly
hmmm… i was only able to count up 48 variations… pls send supporting data online quickly
Canada!
Canada!
I give RC points for just hanging in there all these years. It must not be easy being the Nader of colas.
I give RC points for just hanging in there all these years. It must not be easy being the Nader of colas.
And Canada. One city, at least.
But Ross, my point is, why complain about not being in the World Series if you don’t even like baseball? Aha! :)
And Canada. One city, at least.
But Ross, my point is, why complain about not being in the World Series if you don’t even like baseball? Aha! :)
“The sample was specifically intended to not be representative. ” (From seth’s comment, above) I realize I’m a bit late to the party here but isn’t this Stacy’s point? You can’t use a non-representative sample to make claims about how the larger population (of current and potential mfa applicants) will feel about anything. his findings are based entirely on the tiny percentage of his blog readers who decided to answer his survey. Pretty lame. And he doesn’t even know that “data” are plural. “Data are . . .” not “data is. . .” What does that tell you about his qualifications, as a writer and researcher?
“The sample was specifically intended to not be representative. ” (From seth’s comment, above) I realize I’m a bit late to the party here but isn’t this Stacy’s point? You can’t use a non-representative sample to make claims about how the larger population (of current and potential mfa applicants) will feel about anything. his findings are based entirely on the tiny percentage of his blog readers who decided to answer his survey. Pretty lame. And he doesn’t even know that “data” are plural. “Data are . . .” not “data is. . .” What does that tell you about his qualifications, as a writer and researcher?
yeah matt, you’re definately right about that. RC also left this cool presence all over small Southern cafes and even some logos painted on walls and stuff, so i should bump them up over Pepsi, the syrupy whore of sodas.
yeah matt, you’re definately right about that. RC also left this cool presence all over small Southern cafes and even some logos painted on walls and stuff, so i should bump them up over Pepsi, the syrupy whore of sodas.
cant talk bout rccola without talkin bout moonpies, dayumn
cant talk bout rccola without talkin bout moonpies, dayumn
Noah, just to clarify, you have two points: 1) you spotted a typo; 2) you’re upset because you think I’ve made claims I didn’t make. OK. Now let me try a different read: 1) Sometimes I make typographical errors; 2) the only claim I’ve made about the poll is that it suggests, probatively but not conclusively, how a specific group of well-researched current applicants view the immutable traits of various MFA programs. But let me add also, 3) it’s not much of a discussion when you cherry-pick the stuff you think is wrong and ignore all the things I’ve said that you can’t and don’t quibble with. As to you questioning my qualifications are a “writer”–dude, come on, get a life. Or, to quote you: “Pretty lame.” –S.
Noah, just to clarify, you have two points: 1) you spotted a typo; 2) you’re upset because you think I’ve made claims I didn’t make. OK. Now let me try a different read: 1) Sometimes I make typographical errors; 2) the only claim I’ve made about the poll is that it suggests, probatively but not conclusively, how a specific group of well-researched current applicants view the immutable traits of various MFA programs. But let me add also, 3) it’s not much of a discussion when you cherry-pick the stuff you think is wrong and ignore all the things I’ve said that you can’t and don’t quibble with. As to you questioning my qualifications are a “writer”–dude, come on, get a life. Or, to quote you: “Pretty lame.” –S.
PS: Just realized that I totally set you up there; there’s a typo in my comment above — spot it and harp on it and you can score some additional, cheap points. Hurry, Noah!
PS: Just realized that I totally set you up there; there’s a typo in my comment above — spot it and harp on it and you can score some additional, cheap points. Hurry, Noah!
Just to clarify, confusing “are” and “is” is not a typographical error, but an error of grammatical ignorance. However, just to clarify:
“USAGE NOTE The word data is the plural of Latin datum, “something given,” but it is not always treated as a plural noun in English. The plural usage is still common, as this headline from the New York Times attests: “Data Are Elusive on the Homeless.” Sometimes scientists think of data as plural, as in These data do not support the conclusions. But more often scientists and researchers think of data as a singular mass entity like information, and most people now follow this in general usage. Sixty percent of the Usage Panel accepts the use of data with a singular verb and pronoun in the sentence Once the data is in, we can begin to analyze it. A still larger number, 77 percent, accepts the sentence We have very little data on the efficacy of such programs, where the quantifier very little, which is not used with similar plural nouns such as facts and results, implies that data here is indeed singular.” — Answers.com
Just to clarify.
Just to clarify, confusing “are” and “is” is not a typographical error, but an error of grammatical ignorance. However, just to clarify:
“USAGE NOTE The word data is the plural of Latin datum, “something given,” but it is not always treated as a plural noun in English. The plural usage is still common, as this headline from the New York Times attests: “Data Are Elusive on the Homeless.” Sometimes scientists think of data as plural, as in These data do not support the conclusions. But more often scientists and researchers think of data as a singular mass entity like information, and most people now follow this in general usage. Sixty percent of the Usage Panel accepts the use of data with a singular verb and pronoun in the sentence Once the data is in, we can begin to analyze it. A still larger number, 77 percent, accepts the sentence We have very little data on the efficacy of such programs, where the quantifier very little, which is not used with similar plural nouns such as facts and results, implies that data here is indeed singular.” — Answers.com
Just to clarify.
Matt, you’re the sort of person who goes on GOODREADS to talk smack. GOODREADS! Do you actually think I take you seriously? Just to clarify.
Matt, you’re the sort of person who goes on GOODREADS to talk smack. GOODREADS! Do you actually think I take you seriously? Just to clarify.
Hm, and apparently you’re the sort of person who hunts down every reference of himself on the internet. Hm.
Hm, and apparently you’re the sort of person who hunts down every reference of himself on the internet. Hm.
you are responding multiply to everything matt says. that seems to me you take it seriously.
this is one of the most ridiculous threads ever
you are responding multiply to everything matt says. that seems to me you take it seriously.
this is one of the most ridiculous threads ever
Just to clarify: I am not the other Matt.
Just to clarify: I am not the other Matt.
Sorry, Blake, I know you have to get back to analyzing .GIFs from MFA websites. –S.
Sorry, Blake, I know you have to get back to analyzing .GIFs from MFA websites. –S.
i assume you are confusing me with Jimmy
defenses are hard to maintain
i assume you are confusing me with Jimmy
defenses are hard to maintain
failing so hard
failing so hard
Oh, on a related note, thank you for following me on Twitter.
Oh, on a related note, thank you for following me on Twitter.
seth, what’s your pube situation? i’m bored with all the mfa crap already. let’s get down to the furry heart of it all. i see you as an afro type; your responses are so hyper analytical/philosophically precise that i image you need some outlet to just go buck wild, and the pubes is it, son. wild.
seth, what’s your pube situation? i’m bored with all the mfa crap already. let’s get down to the furry heart of it all. i see you as an afro type; your responses are so hyper analytical/philosophically precise that i image you need some outlet to just go buck wild, and the pubes is it, son. wild.
I’ll put a K behind my name when posting from here on out to avoid further confusion. Sorry Matt C. This thread is amazing.