<p>Does anyone else wonder if Vos’ compensation or other kudos within CMC might have been tied in part to the SAT scores?
If so, hmmm.</p>
<p>Of course, we will never learn one way or the other…</p>
<p>Plenty I would hope that a SAT score that was within 10-25 pts of the supposed range would not discourage an applicant from applying to a school they really wanted to go to. But you are correct I do not see this need to see how many schools will accept a kid. But I guess that different students, and their parents, find affirmation in different ways.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Humm, it seems that I have to spend time defending some of my statements by pointing in the direction of information that was posted previously or linked to. I understand that nobody is expected to read every post (I did not) but it gets a bit taxing after a while. </p>
<p>Anyway, and especially since I write this with a smile, allow me to share that the timeline of the events and the reports have been clearly stated by Pamela Gann. Short of calling her a liar, I see no reason to doubt her accounts. Here’s what she reported:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If that is OK with you, I’ll keep on trying to find direct sources when available. I think that when I quoted Bob Morse, I could use what he wrote on his blog, and that I could refer to the timeline shared by Pamela Gann.</p>
<p>Stats, I never heard that procedure referred to as “two capital improvements.” Maybe we should write a case study of your experience for one of the accounting courses at CMC.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you made a reference to the What Are MY Chances in this forum, I am afraid you just made my point!</p>
<p>FCa, I’m sorry about the harshness; I actually like you. I just wanted to point out in that post that the deadline for applicants for the 2012-2013 year had transpired last month. So an immediate resolution of this incident is not necessary to give applicants more time to consider whether they want to apply to CMC.</p>
<p>Most would agree the majority of applicants to Claremont are within the range for the majority of factors in matriculation decisions. Often a student has to “split hairs” on many stats including entering class size and team member admits. Many applicants are enamoured by a college but they still must make reasoned judgements. If the admissions stats can not be trusted or there are unknown personal qualifiers by lone admission staff then the system is suspect.
This may sound harsh but the integrity of the system has been compromised. Adjustments can and should be made. Not just a promise or policing action.</p>
<p>Califdad, great top 10 list, but I am not sure about your number 1 revelation. The college’s mailing address cites Claremont as its home. Where did you hear that CMC is located in Upland.</p>
<p>Parent 57, I read this entire thread. You are mean. </p>
<p>What percentage of colleges across the US tinker with their SAT averages? Any guesses?</p>
<p>Yet again though I believe everything at CMC will work out I await the report from a third-party before accepting on faith the timeline of President Gann. We are talking about someone at best exaggerating and at worst deliberately lying and not just anyone but one of most senior officers of the college. To accept the current series of events from the college requires that you believe no other people were involved. I am not yet able to accept that premise.</p>
<p>chrisrb:</p>
<p>I agree. I don’t think postings like this reflect well on the poster or their college. How about you work on getting all the Wesleyan posters herded back over to your forum and we’ll see what we can do to convince Parent57 to stay over here? ;-)</p>
<p>“Parent 57, I read this entire thread. You are mean.”</p>
<p>Well, no one has accused me of being a wallflower, but my dog thinks I am lovable. Sometimes my wife does too.</p>
<p>You got to admit you probably wouldn’t have read the entire thread if I wasn’t here to entertain you</p>
<p>Schsswcw, there are probably a number of posters who rather I didn’t post here either. I know I should act with greater restraint, but you got to admit the Wesleyan posters can be pretty provocative.</p>
<p>I have learned from this thread that we have some darn racy 'rents on CC, and that there is (somewhat UN)healthy rivalry among Ps and Alums of colleges which nestle close to one another on the USNWR- how silly, but irresistible to some, I guess!</p>
<p>HOOOOOd a THUNK it… </p>
<p>Have a great Super-Sunday!</p>
<p>You know about 7 pages back I vowed to be more pleasant and then this guy, Morganhill, posted and that resolution went out the window. I will try to be more restrained.</p>
<p>CMC Cut from Kiplinger Rankings</p>
<p>thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/03/kiplinger-removes-claremont-mckenna-from-rankings</p>
<p>“Claremont McKenna College unfairly earned its place as 18th-ranked private liberal arts college in our college rankings by reporting inflated SAT scores,” a statement atop Kiplinger’s “Best Values” list said. “We have dropped the college from our 2011-12 rankings of best values in liberal arts colleges and moved schools 19-100 up one slot.” Bennington College moved into the top 100 as a result.</p>
<p>Claremont McKenna College unfairly earned its place as 18th-ranked private liberal arts college in our college rankings by reporting inflated SAT scores, a statement atop Kiplingers Best Values list said. We have dropped the college from our 2011-12 rankings of best values in liberal arts colleges and moved schools 19-100 up one slot. Bennington College moved into the top 100 as a result.</p>
<p>[Kiplinger</a> Removes Claremont McKenna From Rankings - NYTimes.com](<a href=“http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/03/kiplinger-removes-claremont-mckenna-from-rankings/]Kiplinger”>Kiplinger Removes Claremont McKenna From Rankings - The New York Times)</p>
<p>Prophet, Kiplinger’s did say they would include CMC in the rankings as soon as they got the accurate SAT scores, either this year or next. I will let Xiggi speak to the significance and accuracy of their ranking. BTW, why did you feel the need to post this here and in a separate thread. </p>
<p>One other question: I noticed that you have posted 21 times in CC, all of them on this topic. Why is this topic so fascinating to you? Nothing else on CC has ever struck your fancy. Not trying to inhibit you from posting, just curious.</p>
<p>I meant to include this post in this thread not the other one you created:</p>
<p>Prophet, Kiplinger’s did say they would include CMC in the rankings as soon as they got the accurate SAT scores, either this year or next. I will let Xiggi speak to the significance and accuracy of their ranking. BTW, why did you feel the need to post this here and in a separate thread?</p>
<p>One other question: I noticed that you have posted 21 times in CC, all of them on this topic. Why is this topic so fascinating to you? Nothing else on CC has ever struck your fancy. Not trying to inhibit you from posting, just curious.</p>
<p>This seems reasonable to do until the accurate scores are reported/the investigation is complete.</p>