CMC Office of Admission Falsely Reported SAT Scores

[fca719]

<p>Xiggi:</p>

<p>As I posted in other threads, I think you are one of the greats here, and I recognize you helped many people who read these threads. </p>

<p>The way I see, the model for future rankings is this:</p>

<p>future ranking = function of (SAT scores + reputation )</p>

<p>Given a change in SAT scores, as it happened at CMC, you are basically saing that the best model to estimate future rankings is:</p>

<p>future ranking = current ranking + delta ranking/delta SAT ,</p>

<p>where delta ranking/delta SAT is the “Direct Effect”</p>

<p>What I believe to be a more comprehensive model is:</p>

<p>future ranking = current ranking + delta ranking/delta SAT + (delta ranking/delta reputation * delta reputation/delta SAT) ,</p>

<p>where the term in parenthesis is the “Indirect Effect” that captures the change in CMC reputation given what happened.</p>

<p>You are saying that the Indirect Effect cannot be measured, and therefore the best estimate is zero. </p>

<p>I agree that one cannot precisely estimate the Indirect Effect, but saying that it will be zero because one cannot precisely estimate it, is more difficult to believe.</p>

<p>I side more with those who believe that the Indirect Effect will turn out to be negative… That is why I said in my previous post that the SAT effect is likely to be magnified. How much magnified? That I do not know and you are correct that no one truly knows.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>Just as I predicted and had to repeat several times in this thread, the corrected SAT numbers did not have ANY impact on the ranking of CMC. </p>

<p>Here is the final analysis of the scandal. Unfortunately for the shrills, the outcome does not include any changes to the ranking. And, again, as I tried to explain in this thread, the actions of Richard Vos were as unproductive as they were naive. </p>

<p>All in all, a real tragedy. </p>

<p>[More</a> Details on Claremont McKenna’s Test Score Data - Morse Code: Inside the College Rankings (usnews.com)](<a href=“http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/college-rankings-blog/2012/04/19/more-details-on-claremont-mckennas-test-score-data]More”>More Details on Claremont McKenna's Test Score Data)</p>

<p>

@USNews

In terms of the Claremont College report and the school’s current rank in U.S. News’s Best Colleges rankings published at usnews.com, “We’re reviewing the report,” says U.S.News & World Report Editor and Chief Content Officer Brian Kelly. “Our preliminary calculation shows that based on the correct data, Claremont McKenna College’s ranking would not have changed. We will decide if further adjustments or explanations to our readers are necessary.”

</p>

<p>Fwiw, here are my previous comments, including the explanation why the USNews could NOT have changed the ranking.</p>

<p>

@Xiggi

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>

@Xiggi

At the risk of being labeled acerbic and fearful, may I suggest again you’d learn a bit more about the USNews methodology and data reporting. This would allow you to drop the faulty speculation. Quoting facts accurately might you gain some credibility on this issue. Here’s a step in the right direction. </p>

<p>Rather than stating “the kind that most schools report, and the kind, no doubt, that USNews used in it’s calculations of CMS’s ranking.” why not spending some time checking how the USNews actually report the data.</p>

<p>Take a look at the ranked SAT scores as reported by USNews this year:</p>

<p>1 Harvey Mudd College 1410-1560
2 Pomona College 1380-1560
3 Amherst College 1340-1540
4 Swarthmore College 1340-1530
5 Williams College 1310-1530
6 Claremont McKenna College 1310-1510
7 Bowdoin College 1310-1500
8 Carleton College 1300-1500
9 Haverford College 1300-1490
10 Oberlin College 1310-1470
11 Wesleyan University 1295-1480
12 Hamilton College 1300-1470
13 Middlebury College 1290-1480
14 Vassar College 1310-1460
15 Washington and Lee University 1310-1460
16 Bard College 1330-1420
17 Reed College 1280-1470
18 Wellesley College 1270-1480
19 Colgate University 1270-1460
20 Scripps College 1270-1450</p>

<p>And, fwiw, this is how the revised data would be presented – and should have been reported.</p>

<p>1 Harvey Mudd College 1410-1560
2 Pomona College 1380-1560
3 Amherst College 1340-1540
4 Swarthmore College 1340-1530
5 Williams College 1310-1530
6 Bowdoin College 1310-1500
7 Carleton College 1300-1500
8 Haverford College 1300-1490
9 Claremont McKenna College 1310-1480
10 Oberlin College 1310-1470
11 Wesleyan University 1295-1480
12 Hamilton College 1300-1470
13 Middlebury College 1290-1480
14 Vassar College 1310-1460
15 Washington and Lee University 1310-1460
16 Bard College 1330-1420
17 Reed College 1280-1470
18 Wellesley College 1270-1480
19 Colgate University 1270-1460
20 Scripps College 1270-1450</p>

<p>Funny how that works! A drop from 6th to 9th, and NO changes for anyone below the 10th ranking. Only impacted schools are Carleton College and Haverford College. Carleton is ranked 6th overall. Only Haverford could see a change in the ranking although it is unlikely that this would add one or two points in the final and overall ranking. So, it looks like the only change in the rankings would be that Haverford shares the 9th spot with CMC.</p>

<p>Could we hope that realizing how the methodology works might change the shrilling from “competitors” who see this as an opportunity. Remember that Bush lost his Heisman but it did not go to Vince Young!

</p>

[Youdon_tsay]

<p>It should have gone to Vince Young.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>Yes, and twice. Before giving it to a crooked USC product, and after taking it away from him. The Heisman is a total joke.</p>

[70_s_Grad]

<p>Here is the story from today’s (4/27) LA Times on the effect of the statistical manipulation on the US News ranking of CMC [Claremont</a> McKenna retains U.S. News ranking despite scandal - latimes.com](<a href=“http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0427-claremont-20120427,0,3538828.story]Claremont”>Claremont McKenna retains top-10 U.S. News ranking after probe)</p>

[fca719]

<p>@Xiggi: The revised US News ranking for CMC considers the change in scores only. It could not possibly factor in any reputational factor that may emerge from this scandal. The reputational effects will be reflected in the 2013 rankings. At that time we will truly know if this imbroglio had a significant effect or not.</p>

[Athleticstudent]

<p>obviously it is sad. what CMCstudent206 means is that it shouldn’t reflect on the students.</p>

<p>There were actually a few interesting blog articles about this…</p>

<p>[The</a> Great Lie of Claremont Mckenna College - Daniel C. Evans: Notes about Books, Music, and Art](<a href=“http://www.danielcevans.com/1/post/2012/02/the-great-lie-of-claremont-mckenna-college.html]The”>http://www.danielcevans.com/1/post/2012/02/the-great-lie-of-claremont-mckenna-college.html)</p>

<p>and </p>

<p>[Why</a> I’m Still Proud of My College Forum | The Official Student Publication of Claremont McKenna College](<a href=“http://cmcforum.com/opinion/02012012-why-im-still-proud-of-my-college]Why”>http://cmcforum.com/opinion/02012012-why-im-still-proud-of-my-college)</p>