<h2>I think this was on Letterman last night…</h2>
<p>TOP TEN LATEST REVELATIONS ABOUT CMC</p>
<ol>
<li><p>School reported inflated SAT scores to authorities.</p>
<ol>
<li> Taco meat served in dining hall is 10% cat.</li>
<li> ‘400 meter’ track measures 392 meters. (“It’s only 8 meters” - CMC athletic director.)</li>
<li> ‘Studying abroad’ includes day-trips to Catalina.</li>
<li> If a library book is more than an inch thick, it counts as two volumes.</li>
<li> 47% of male students did not apply to Wesleyan because they thought it was an all-girl school.</li>
<li>12% of male students DID apply to Wesleyan because they thought it was an all-girl school.</li>
<li>Dean’s List is compiled by Jimmy Dean.</li>
<li>Can you pronouce ‘Bowdoin?’ You’re Phi Beta Kappa!</li>
</ol></li>
</ol>
<p>AND THE NUMBER ONE LATEST REVELATION ABOUT CMC:</p>
<h2>1. School is not located in Claremont but rather in adjacent Upland.</h2>
<p>Well, seeing clearly from afar, you may need a hobby. Find your passion, pursue it, and you will soon find yourself caring less about where your neighbor’s kid goes to school. Many enjoy fishing or golf. I prefer drinking and womanizing. Especially womanizing. And drinking.</p>
<p>Given the direction sought by Pamela Gann, the issue will not be “that” simple for CMC. In prior posts, I have applauded the quick and decisive actions by the leadership of the school. In light of the reactions --if they are indicative of the general population-- I now believe that the Prez and the Board of Trustees might have miscalculated the ability of some to understand simple issues. </p>
<p>In thic case, the decision to manipulate the data was wrong. There are no excuses for that. On the other hand, there are no excuses to continue to escalate an issue beyond its original scope. If SAT scores were inflated, all the corrected numbers can do is to bring it back to what it was supposed to be. The utter triviality of the “what it was supposed to be” seems to dismay the folks who hoped for a massive rearrangement of the spots in the rankings. </p>
<p>So, allow me to err on the size of simplicity. No recalculating of the SAT scores will help Wesleyan. They will remain in the same spot, and that is the spot they deserve. This, of course, assumes that Bob Morse maintains the same methodology that is in place today.</p>
<p>And that is where the SAT recalculating starts and … stops. The rest of the issues will be measured later.</p>
<p>Oh come on JW, I am not lurking around on the Wesleyan thread trolling with gratuitous comments about Wesleyan’s indiscretions. If you guys weren’t having so much fun with this situation, I wouldn’t need to point out the hypocrisy and insincerity of some of the posters from the Wesleyan forum</p>
<p>Parent 57’s post:PlentyQuestions, I don’t know the answer to your question. I do know that in April I see all the kids who post here at the CMC forum announcing their rejection and reporting their stratospherically high SAT scores. So I am pretty sure if Dean Vos was only concerned with SAT scores, he could have admitted many more students with very high scores.</p>
<p>My post: Who is this unfortunate for?Why can they not have it both ways? The assumption is that applicants can not be found that hold intresting backgrounds and skills and at the same time test at a higher level. The two are not mutually exclusive.Many top tier college admission offices are able to do so without manipulating numbers.</p>
<p>Parent57, my question is your choice of words to describe corruption as unfortunate in his chioce to “have it all”. The possibility “he could have admitted many more students with high scores if that was all he was concerned with”. There is not a top tier U.S. admissions staff that I am aware of that is only concerned with SAT I scores. That was not my statement nor my point. Other top tier colleges are able to “have it all” without creating stats. Claremont’s admissions office choose to not stick to the requirements put forth but instead acted on their own personal held beliefs. Those involved in this scandal could have pursued a change in policy to eliminate the need of an SAT for applicants.
This revelation is not a mere scandal but calls into question all admissions offices and highlights
the pressures exerted throughout the system.
The unfortunates in this specific case are the applicants and their families; who trust the systems statistics to make good decisions on where to apply. The resouces of a students time, goodwill in judgement and the application fees are not a trifle.
The posts about which college you support or want of demise is a trifle.</p>
<p>I only did recently, and when I did, it raised the eyebrows of my extended family. Actually, the purists shrug it off by saying that Americans cannot pronounve hors d’oeuvres or foyer if their life depended from it. So Boudin (or whatever it sounds like) it is. A bit of New Orleans on the East Coast! :)</p>
<p>Raised eyebrows? I once married a stripper (she called herself a dancer, but she took her clothes off when she danced; it was (and remains) my belief that the definitive activity was the disrobing rather than the dancing). Looked great in the wedding dress and made out like a bandit in the divorce. Lovely person, really.</p>
<p>A bigger question might be raised about the perceived differences between a 1310/1480 and a 1310/1510 score. Because that is WHAT IT IS. Nothing more and nothing less! Do we really have to believe that an applicant might be swayed by such difference? A difference in scores that only exists at a handful of schools. </p>
<p>Do we really have to believe that people might mold their entire applications on a 30 points difference in the 75th percentile? Go ahead and check the scores of the top 25 LACs and let me know how that impact a list of potential applications. Before you do, make sure to compare the scores of the most selective schools to the few ones below.</p>
<p>Oh well, time has come to let others debate this.</p>
<p>Xiggi thank you for your informative posts but applauding the quick and decisive actions of President Gann and the college leadership assume that they just found out about the SAT errors. I think that is assuming facts not in evidence. We have no idea when President Gann was made aware of the situation. I think everything will work out though. I have to believe the fundamentals of a college should be what determines its reputation. In CMC’s case the fundamentals are just fine.</p>
<p>xiggi: It is about being up front about what a college is seeking in an applicant. The chance posts are always answered with GPA, SAT & EC enhancement suggestions.
Integrity of the system and the people within may sound Pollyannaish to some but a factor for most.</p>
That’s just the point, Xiggi. No one cares about the perceived difference between a 1480 and 1510 SAT score. That’s always been the strawman of this whole discussion. The real question is why Dean Vos cared so much about it?</p>
<p>Stats, I hope that divorce wasn’t too expensive for you. If it was in Ca, you would be underwriting her stripping career for the rest of your life.</p>
<p>“The real question is why Dean Vos cared so much about it?”
Agreed… and I wrote something about this before (close to the start of this thread, when some people was still arguing that the entire issue was not a big deal because “it was just 10 points” and “applicants would not change their decisions because of 10 SAT points”</p>
<p>Clearly I financed some (two) capital improvements, thereby enriching the experiences of thousands of patrons. And not a single note of thanks. Well, the world has coarsened, but I shall ever remain a tender soul.</p>
<p>Plenty I am confused. The problem CMC is experiencing is that SAT score reporting was falsely elevated to enhance their reputation. If there was an absolute SAT cutoff then any individual applicant might not apply because their score was 1390 and the cutoff was 1400. I don’t believe this was the case at CMC. I usually don’t read chance me threads, as far as I know most of the respondents have no inside knowledge anyhow. Are honesty and integrity important. Most definitely. I would like those traits to be in all politicians, religious leaders, and teachers among others. But you know sometimes people fail, institutions fail, it is the response that follows that is also important. I want resolution because I believe all of the Claremont Colleges suffer when one suffers. Family weekend in Claremont occurs in a couple of weeks and I know that we will all be looking for answers.</p>
<p>Have no worries. Blame will be assigned all on Vos. No one knew or could have known, they will say. That is how these things always end. Then all the parents can find contentment again and sign those checks!</p>
<p>@parent: “Oh come on FCA, stop pretending with your pious BS about desiring a quick resolution because of your crocodile tears of concern for future applicants.”
I have reasons to care a lot about the resolution of this issue.</p>
<p>Parent, you are too quick at using disparging or discrediting remarks about the poster, as if by discrediting the poster you would make the poster’s arguments go away. Against me you already said that my comments are “dumb”, that I post too much, that my background may make me ill informed about recruiting, and that what I say is BS. Against other posters you used similar tactics.</p>
<p>Like it or not, I will be paying special attention to the CMC developments until the end of this admissions cycle.</p>
<p>70’s Grad; No application has a cutoff on any admissions application that I know of. The statistics are very helpful in determining whether a student should apply. Every student has to weigh their strengths and weaker areas. Their GPA and EC’s may be stronger than their SAT I. AP’s and SAT II’s may or may not be taken into consideration.
Many students can not afford unlimited application fees. They do not fall into the range for a subsidy or have the time to churn out 20+ apps as some do to collect scalps. Yes students game the system as well. The causes for these behaviors hold the answer to the necessary reforms.</p>