Sunday, 08 April 2007

Classic Acephalous: Sadly, All Too Relevant Still

Acephalous's Index

Minimum number of deities Scott Eric Kaufman cursed for failing to assist him in the completion of sentences today: 43

Number of sentences Kaufman completed: 8

Estimated number of calories burned in the Kaufman household dissertating: 1800

Percentage of which comes from cheese: 75

Number of days since May 2001 Kaufman has not worked on his dissertation: 16

Number of days he has not thought about it: 0

Chance that someone arrives at Acephalous via a Google search with the word "sex" in it: 1 in 2

Chance that someone arrives at Acephalous via a Google search for "Scott is the best person ever": 1 in 23,792

Estimated percentage of students Kaufman believes do all the reading: 80

Actual percentage of students who do all the reading: 3

Portion of this "Index" which is self indulgent and solipsistic: 3/4

Average number of CFPs Kaufman receives every week: 70

Percentage of CFPs Kaufman could respond to without everyone pointing at him and calling him a liar: 1

Chance that a former student thinks Kaufman is "rude and overly critical": 1 in 9

Percentage of students who do who refuse to edit their work ever: 100

Number of footnotes about Caesar's Column rewritten from scratch today: 7

Chance that it will be rewritten from scratch it again tomorrow: 1 in 3

Average amount of vodka in ounces required for Kaufman to forget about his chapter and enjoy a television show: 17

Percent change in evenings under the influence since 2000: +98

Number of times the author of the last article Kaufman read trumpeted the importance of his own work: 13

Number of sighs Kaufman exhaled while reading it: 189

Percentage of female occupants of Kaufman household who are evil: 50

Chance said evil female occupant weighs 20 lbs. and is covered in cat fur: 1 in 1

Estimated number of words Kaufman has deleted from his current chapter: 9,478,901,092,618

Projected number deleted by the time he files: ∞

Apr 8, 2007 10:32:18 PM | Academia, Classic Acephalous, Dissertation, Evolution, Literary Theory, Literature, Philosophy, Weblogs

10 Comments

Liz Y.

Still classic.

Posted by: Liz Y. | Sunday, 08 April 2007 at 10:57 PM

Adam Kotsko

Oh, I get it -- it's based on that thing in Harper's. OMG, LOL!

Posted by: Adam Kotsko | Monday, 09 April 2007 at 10:38 AM

Thats The Spirit

It's good you're keeping track.

Posted by: Thats The Spirit | Monday, 09 April 2007 at 11:26 AM

SEK

Thanks, Liz.

Adam, I'm on to you.

That's the Spirit, if I didn't keep track, I'd spend all day writing comments on blogs ... crap.

Posted by: SEK | Monday, 09 April 2007 at 01:36 PM

SEK

"Calls For Papers." Most are written by graduate students -- professors have their own, established networks to find panel-mates on -- and they're usually aggressively specific, so much so that I often think them a weird form of academic personal ads. "If you have the same dissertation as me, we should be on this panel together. Afterwards, I'll wine you, dine you, and then respect you in the morning ... after the commitment ceremony, we'll talk about our other interests, &c."

Posted by: SEK | Monday, 09 April 2007 at 08:55 PM

Paul

Shouldn't that be deities?

Posted by: Paul | Tuesday, 10 April 2007 at 12:22 AM

ben wolfson

No, "dieties" is correct. Scott's trying to slim his sentences down.

Posted by: ben wolfson | Tuesday, 10 April 2007 at 12:30 AM

CR

professors have their own, established networks to find panel-mates on

huh? really? Should I take it as a mark against me that no one has invited me to "join the network"?

and while you're at it, could you tell me where I pick up my key to the executive washroom? I've really gotta go, and I'm tired of papering the seat.

Posted by: CR | Tuesday, 10 April 2007 at 12:37 AM

TM

Chance that a former student thinks Kaufman is "rude and overly critical": 1 in 9

Percentage of students who do who refuse to edit their work ever: 100

*****
It's so nice for someone to have this on record somewhere. I always feel lost and alone when I make this same judgment based on student work and later evaluations. Seems like everyone knows this goes on...except the students themselves...and an uncaring administration and clueless faculty peers (you know, the ones who proclaim to never have seen and instance of plagiarism or given a grade under B).

Blah

P.S. I was called "cruel" a few weeks ago for telling a student that she failed an assignment because she didn't learn the lesson on a day when she was goofing off in class. I wear that condemnation asa badge of honor.

Posted by: TM | Thursday, 12 April 2007 at 03:51 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

NEXT POST
Žižek, He Sounds Like a Fool Eyes roll when he opens his mouth, I grant that; but rarely do they drift asleep on a sea of banality, as mine were tempted to watching the many, many Žižek-centric extras on Children of Men. I happily hold his strange blend of Lacanian and Hegelian thought against him—these assumptions, I think in ridiculously stentorian tones, I cannot bear. But I'd never been bored by the man before last night; yet there I was, on my couch, listening to his Slavic-lilt and wanting to slit my wrists. He declared many things, and strongly, and many other things strongly too ... but he never made much of an interesting point, nor did he say much of anything I hadn't already thought. Which is when I realized that his lackluster performance was probably not his fault. I don't share many (if any) assumptions with Žižek, so if I could muster on my own approximately what he'd said, that meant either 1) I'm a sleeper-Lacanian or 2) many, many hours of footage had been edited until all that remained were a few clips that sounded smart to the dropouts working the editing suite. Whatever he'd said that was peculiar to himself had been chopped in order to satisfy someone else's (mistaken) idea of what an intellectual sounds like. However, I could almost reconstruct the interesting strain of thought Žižek wanted to follow there. It had something to do with the challenges countries with no written constitution face when the traditional (common law) order on which they teeter finally crumbles. He said as much once, and would've elaborated in his discussion of the "rootlessness of boats" had someone decided to include that footage in the piece. I would try to reconstruct the argument in full ... but as I said, I'm not quite equipped for that climb.
PREVIOUS POST
Statistical Analysis? Don't Want It. We Prefer "Real Facts." (x-post from the Valve) I’ve seen this article by Mary Eberstadt roll across Phi Beta Cons twice this past week, so I can only conclude they really, really want people to read it. Why? To debunk it, obviously. Who am I not to oblige? In “Do Campuses Tilt Left?” Eberstadt attacks the conclusions of the American Federation of Teachers’ recent report “The ‘Faculty Bias’ Studies: Science or Propaganda?” The AFT paper analyzes eight studies purporting to show systemic liberal bias in higher education in order to determine whether or not they’re methodologically sound. The conclusion? They fail to meet minimum research standards. In particular: The studies were evaluated using five research principles that help to establish whether the authors are overgeneralizing based on limited or flawed collection and interpretation of data. These principles help to differentiate anecdotal evidence that is hand-picked to support a particular point of view and systemic observation that leads to valid conclusions. The emphasis is mine. In my defense, I couldn’t help myself. To refute the claim that these studies hand-pick anecdotal evidence to support a particular point, Eberstadt presents “a few examples from what could be a longer list,” all from the mouths of prominent movement conservatives: “I watched with horror as the multicultural yahoos took over the humanities” (the Manhattan Institute’s Heather MacDonald). “I’d been preaching freedom of speech, but I had to leave the academy for the world of policy think tanks before I’d ever get a chance to practice it” (Ethics and Public Policy Center senior fellow Stanley Kurtz, formerly of Berkeley, Chicago, and Harvard). “Of course the vast majority of the faculty [at Harvard] were on the left” (Hoover Institution senior fellow and former Harvard professor Peter Berkowitz). “Because I studied neither economics nor Straussian philosophy [at the University of Chicago], I never met a conservative professor, and I knew only one conservative student” (David Brooks). Earlier in the article, Eberstadt wrote that “so perverse is [the AFT] report in conception and so quixotically oblivious to the inescapable facts, that it might easily be mistaken for a sendup [and] that some Swiftian wit had pulled off a brilliancy here.” To her bewilderment, I add my own—for an article so “quixotically oblivious” must have been written by a liberal satirizing a conservative. How else to account for the fact that “Eberstadt” responds to the AFT’s criticism of studies relying on anecdotal evidence gathered without any control for bias by hand-picking four anecdotes from a forthcoming collection entitled Why I Turned Right: Leading Baby Boom Conservatives Chronicle Their Political Journeys? Since most people won’t read the study itself [.pdf], I’ll share Eberstadt’s analysis of its highlights. Eberstadt balks at the study’s claim that “it is not possible with any precision to calculate a ratio of Democrats to Republicans at the sampled institutions.” Actually, Eberstadt cites it like this: “It is not possible with any precision to calculate a ratio of Democrats to Republicans at the sampled institutions.” Makes it seem like “It” is...

Scott Eric Kaufman

The Typepad Team

Search

Become a Fan

My Other Accounts

Recent Comments