<p>“I thought I did that. But, if answering a question with another question is the best you can do, I guess, that’ll have to do.”</p>
<p>JW, you are getting increasingly hard to follow. There was no question in your post. At least not about a point I made. And, fwiw, there was no question in my answer. So, How could I possibly answer a question with a question when none were used? </p>
<p>Anyway, I offered to clarify the points I made in my posts, but I won’t answer strawmen musings.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Xiggi, there’s no law that says you have to answer any question you don’t want to. But, to be clear: the reason you refuse to is because you’d rather not stride too far off message. And, that message is as convoluted as your defense of the USNews rankings:</p>
<p>1) The act was wrong (but, the results were trivial.)
2) It has nothing to do with Claremont McKenna, itself (but, outsiders have no stake in it, either.)
3) Claremont McKenna will emerge unscathed (so, stop damaging us by constantly posting about it.)
4) Other schools are doing the same thing, but, haven’t been caught (but, even if they are caught – the results will be trivial; outsiders will have no stake in it; and, they will emerge unscathed – so, stop posting about it!!!)
5) Nothing will change.</p>
<p>Isn’t that about it, in a nutshell?</p>
<p>Nice effort of mixing things I have written and personal fabrications. The first four words of your list are correct. The rest? Hardly. My so-called defense is only convoluted to you because you want to make it, and because it does not espouse your expectactions.</p>
<p>Do I really have to cut and paste frommy own posts to set the record straight? What a silly and futile exercise that would be.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Apparently, that’s the only way you can keep your contradictory and carefully callibrated argument straight in your own head – is to constantly cut and paste it. Try reconstructing it from memory. :)</p>
<p>Why do you feel compelled to be condescending? Obviously, you believe I can’t repeat my arguments without looking them up. That is hardly the case, and is greatly facilitated by the simplicity and accuracy of my statements. Of course, when it comes to opinions, there is no way to measure their accuracy. You may believe and clearly hope that CM will face an apocalyptic fall in the rankings. I may believe that this will not happen. Does not make either one of us … wrong. Different opinions. </p>
<p>I have posted the basis for my conclusions, including the analysis for the impact of the SAT scores at the USNews. If you think those numbers are wrong, so be it. Make up your own.</p>
<p>As far as posting damaging opinions, feel free to do so.</p>
<p>The thing is, as irrelevant as SATs are, if a student successfully misreported their SATs by 30 points (say reporting a 2000 instead of a 1970, or a 2400 instead of a 2370) no one would think it was a minor deal. The fact that they had cheated would be enough for the school to reject them, even if their grades, extracurriculars, essays etc. were the same. If students are held responsible to be honest in reporting SATs, so too should colleges.</p>
<p>I’m late to this discussion, but I suspect it will emerge that the SAT scores were not the only stat that the admissions dean has been lying about. The acceptance rate at CMC has had a whiff of aroma on the sniff test, lately, too. If he was fudging the SAT scores, logic would suggest that he was probably fudging quite a few numbers.</p>
<p>Interesteddad:</p>
<p>Interesting speculation.</p>
<p>No way to know right now, but your argument makes sense. If one’s goal is to raise the school’s ranking, why only fudge SAT scores? It seems there’s been a sudden/dramatic drop in CMC’s acceptance rate over the last several years (roughly the same time period in which the SAT fraud occurred?). Such a phenomenon could simply indicate a sudden/dramatic new awareness of CMC’s awesomeness … or more cheating.</p>
<p>I see your point. You could be right.</p>
<h1>2 child is a freshman @ CMC. Chose CMC as first choice, ED. We have no financial ties to the school. As parents we wonder if this smirch on CMC’s reputation will carry when he applies to graduate school. He could have gone to any number of top-rated colleges and why should we pay big money when the school may turn out to be a pariah?</h1>
<p>I stopped posting here for a few days because I was needlessly getting into fights with various posters. I will probably stay away from this thread, because it has become too contentious. Maybe I am too sensitive, but it seems like some posters want to malign the school for reasons I am not sure I understand, instead of having a thoughtful discussion of the issues relating to rankings, SAT scores and obsessive focus on prestige and comparing schools. It is possible that I have contributed to the former which I regret. I do not want to do anything here to reflect badly on CMC. </p>
<p>Many of the posters who don’t really know the school, just don’t understand what a special place it is. But such is life. I believe this will pass and CMC will continue to be one of the top liberal arts schools in the country.</p>
<p>I would also urge any prospective applicants or parents who happen to peruse this thread and others in this forum to pay particular attention to the posts of students and alumni (I am neither) as opposed to certain posters who have no connection to the college, don’t really know the school and may have an agenda which is not entirely understood.</p>
<p>:) to parent57.</p>
<p>A letter published by the Claremont Port Side by a current senior at CMC:</p>
<p>[Letter</a> to the Editor: “The Great Lie of Claremont McKenna College”|Claremont Port Side](<a href=“Bringing a Positive Change to Your Community”>Bringing a Positive Change to Your Community)</p>
<p>Apparently, the official student newspaper at CMC, the CMC Forum, wouldn’t publish the letter.</p>
<p>One student’s inside opinion at this point in time, with interesting (CMC student) comments.</p>
<p>Another interesting piece, also with student comments:</p>
<p>[Gaming</a> the Rankings: Not as Rare as You Might Think Forum | The Official Student Publication of Claremont McKenna College](<a href=“http://cmcforum.com/news/02062012-the-rankings-gam]Gaming”>http://cmcforum.com/news/02062012-the-rankings-gam)</p>
<p>Chrisb: thank you for sharing your last article.
Many on this post try to equate the size and scope of the problem as small,insignificant and only of concern to the community involved. Too often it is assumed every poster who questions from the outside has a “ax to grind”.
That article points out the major flaws in the system and the overall lack of ethics that can be found within.</p>
<p>Just as it was easily predictable, Kiplinger has confirmed that the corrected data had ZERO impact on CMC’s ranking in their publication. Kiplinger has refused to relist the school for 2012 .</p>
<p>Morse has also admitted that the largest change possible in the USNews is one point. One point is possible but not probable. </p>
<p>Pesky facts are not as juicy as idle speculation.</p>
<p>Hi Xiggi:</p>
<p>One argument that was offered on this thread multiple times is that the long run effect of all of this is more than just the SAT scores.</p>
<p>If you consider all the extant data and only change the SAT scores, sure the effect is minimal, as you say. However, if you extrapolate the repercussions of this moving forward on peers reputation, counselors reputation, etc., the effect is likely to be magnified, as others advocated.</p>
<p>I leave speculation and wishful thinking to others. I have merely tried to educate a few in how the rankings are impacted by the SAT changes in the prior editions. </p>
<p>The full impact cannot be projected in the future, but the retroactive effect can be measured. Some seem determined to mix facts and opinions to please an apparent agenda.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>Usually, what one chooses to exclude is as much speculation (and wishful thinking) as what one chooses to include.</p>
<p>I think that saying that the ranking impact will be restricted JUST to SAT scores is speculation. By the same token, saying that the ranking impact will spill over to reputational factors is also speculation. </p>
<p>Which of these two perspectives will better reflect the rankings going forward? We shall see.</p>
<p>How long will those strawmen arguments surface? If you care to address something I have written here, please do so! </p>
<p>I have, like others, offered an opinion about the potential changes in the FUTURE editions of the USNews. This opinion is just as speculative as anyone else who has posted herein, regardless of how much any of us might or might not know about the methodology. Can ANYONE here pretend to know how the officials and GCs will fill the peer assessments? No? Does ANYONE know if they will do so with more knowledge or … attention to the instructions than they did in prior years! No and No! </p>
<p>This established, at the risk of repeating myself, if you have a reason to dispute the argument I presented for the retroactive changes to the past edition that might resilt from the new numbers shared by CMC, please do and I will try to explain it in better words. For the speculative non-sense, you’ll have to look up our east coast visitors.</p>