<p>I know this isn't the first school to do so, but maybe the most prestigious? I wonder how widespread this might be at other schools...</p>
<p>And such a small increase, why bother falsifying?</p>
<p>Wow, I just saw this. Guess “SAT cheating” takes place on both sides of the fence. Seems like the combined median score difference (1400 vs. 1410) might be a rounding error, but the 75th percentile number is off by 30 points.</p>
<p>So much for objective data…</p>
<p>I’m just shocked that folks would just assume universities would provide objective data when it is ever so easy to find ways to self-report data and still be convinced its doing nothing wrong. Not to mention it only takes one person, not an entire institution, to make such wrong outcomes (whether intended or not). And there are so many pressures, so many financial and professional advantages (and one could argue advantages to one’s own student body and alumni) to not be entirely truthful in this area where there is room for subjectivity. Even in the world where there are audits and third party observers, this goes on. Why do we continually expect it to be any different in this industry where the gains are just as big to cut corners?</p>
<p>The error in the combined 75th %ile score is actually smaller than I would expect, if someone had naively added the 75th %ile score in CR + the 75th %ile score in M, and assumed that would give the 75th %ile combined score. (And ditto for the median.) That’s a common-enough error in thinking. That might possibly have happened here, rather than actively adjusting the numbers up.</p>
<p>I’m anxiously awaiting xiggi.</p>
<p>Personally, I don’t give too much stock to ratings. Amazing to me that 10 pts has so much of an effect.</p>
<p>The hired “a law firm” (!!!) to “investigate further”.</p>
<p>“That might possibly have happened here, rather than actively adjusting the numbers up.”</p>
<p>Doesn’t it say (or the College Board suggest) that Vos intentionally misreported data? (Shall we call it, “Continuing lack of integrity in domestic SAT reporting”?)</p>
<p>I always considered super scoring as a “legal” way of inflating the SAT scores.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Anxiously? Why the anxiety? </p>
<p>All I can say is that I am dumbfounded by this announcement. And, as someone who has always clamored for more transparency and disclosure, I am as deeply disappointed as surprised. </p>
<p>I hope you did not expect me to dig deep in the excuse bag. And on the subject of hope, I do hope that the school follows up to its promises to go to the bottom of the possible problem and finds it worthwhile to share the result of the investigation. The quick reaction by President Gann might the only silver lining here.</p>
<p>I wonder what we’d see if some Consumer Protection Agency with broad subpoena power audited every college’s reported numbers? This should be a warning to all the applicants who base their college choices on numbers such as self-reported SAT percentiles. Does anybody really think that CM alumni over the past five years feel cheated? One guy fudged numbers, got caught, was fired. Claremont McKenna is still a wonderful school.</p>
<p>If your SAT score is lower than your ACT score, and the college doesn’t require an SAT score, give them just the ACT score. The article proves why. Also, it’s easier to boost your ACT score than your SAT score.</p>
<p>Since these sorts of stats are so easy to falsify and so hard to audit, I’ve always wondered why there isn’t a lot more of this kind of fraud. Or maybe there is and it’s just usually undetected.</p>
<p>The ease of cheating on self-reported admissions stats are one reason why I never believed that high-end or other colleges were soliciting thousands of more apps in order to reject the students and thereby boost their selectivity and thus their ranking. Why go to all that bother? If your ethics are low enough that you are going to elaborate lengths to rig and game the system, it’s far easier and cheaper to simply lie about it and make up false numbers. No need to actually receive all those thousands of apps; just simply say that you got them.</p>
<p>lol, coureur.</p>
<p>Have to acknowledge–just read the actual NYT article rather than inparent’s brief comment–and mini is right. The fact that the administrator resigned rules out my interpretation, that perhaps the statistics of the combined scores were misunderstood.</p>
<p>It’s actually kind of refreshing to see a college president act quickly to set things right instead of foot-dragging while trying to spare the reputation of the school.</p>
<p>
Who do they report this combined number to?</p>
<p>This was for 2010, and if you look at their CDS the 75% for Math and CR are each 740. Obviously, the combined will likely be lower.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.cmc.edu/ir/pdf/CDS2010_2011.pdf[/url]”>http://www.cmc.edu/ir/pdf/CDS2010_2011.pdf</a></p>
<p>I’m surprised the author of the article minimized the significance of a 20 point fudge because the test has a “total of 800 points”. If it were a single student’s score it would be insignificant, but when the number represents the mean of thousands of students it would reflect a much higher overall increase. How many students would need to score higher to move the mean 20 points? One of the articles on the topic mentioned that no individual scores were altered, so are the scores reported just jotted down by one person with no oversight?</p>
<p>A couple of years ago, the former head of Villanova’s Law School was caught falsifying some data that was used in rankings.</p>
<p>“Tell me how [and when] you’ll measure me, and I’ll tell you how I’ll behave”</p>
<p>I believe it is in the book “The Goal” by Goldratt</p>
<p>Many schools manipulate results, some by kosher means, others by falsifying data. When Harvard encourages students with no chance of getting in to apply, it is not because they want more work, they want to reduce the acceptance rate (numerator stays the same, denominator goes up) as acceptance rate impacts ranking. Unethical possible, but definitely legal. Is it up to the student to decide to apply or not. The acceptance rate is a factor in the rankings and might mean the difference between number 1 and number 2.</p>
<p>Again, in this case the numbers (difference in SAT scores) may not be big, it could make a difference to ranking. The median SAT scores is a factor in the overall score and the overall score determines ranking. This could make a difference between 9th and 10th position. It is not that students were directly impacted (they may have been misled but it did not change acceptance criteria), it changes the rankings, the stupid rankings. That is all there is to it. IMHO.</p>
<p>Some good could come from this if it convinced more students not to judge the quality of a college by its position in the US News rankings.
There are many ways to manipulate the rankings. This incident just demonstrates a particularly blatant and dishonest approach.</p>
<p>Momsquad’s post hits the operative issue. </p>
<p>Differences of 20-40 points for an entire population reflect a materially different selectivity on both the part of the admissions committee and the matriculating students.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agreed, and that is why some people (me included) pay particular attention to the reported SAT ranges and generally discount much of the other information in the rankings.</p>