<p>The guy doing this was non other than Richard Vos. The dean of admissions. Although it shouldn’t reflect terribly on Cmc, I’m sorry to say that it probably will.</p>
<p>Prophet and others critical of CMC are exactly right.</p>
<p>Why hasn’t Parent57, unlike Xiggi, come right out and soundly renounced the cheating? In typically neo-conservative fashion, Parent57 just can’t find it in her to admit that her side is just plain wrong, even when it’s obvious. It must be awfully hard for Parent57 to see CMC caught with its pants down. Reminds me a bit of Alan Greenspan finally having to admit that laissez-faire “free-markets” are incapable of regulating themselves. At least CMC is doing the right thing now, after the fact, for whatever honorable or self-serving reason.</p>
<p>I hope Parent57’s child at CMC, and all the other students there, don’t have to pay for the dishonesty that’s recently come to light within the leadership of the “leadership” LAC.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, this IS a big deal for CMC, which explains Parent57’s irritable and defensive tone. This story has legs and is getting a lot of coverage, CMC’s reputation IS stained, and this will hurt everything from application/yield numbers to employability of CMC grads for years to come (to what extent remains to be seen).</p>
<p>It’s also a stain on academia as a whole.</p>
<p>chrisrb, I remember you from the Wesleyan forum. If you have been reading my posts, you will see that I do not support what happened and think the problem needs to be addressed and corrected. I just don’t agree with your conclusions and some of the other posters that it will stain CMC or hurt CMC grads for years to come. Those hyperbolic statements don’t really add much to the discussion.</p>
<p>Let’s make a deal: you get to select one of the big five accounting firms and have them audit the self-reported data from Wesleyan’s admission office. If the data is perfectly accurate, you get to throw your stones with impunity. BTW, comparing this situation to Alan Greenspan’s leadership of the Federal Reserve is quite a leap.</p>
<p>^parent, I get your point but it would (currently) be “big 4”.</p>
<p>Parent57, I have a child that just graduated from Pomona and another that is in his first year at CMC. I love these two schools, and this scandal certaintly does not define the CMC student body, the faculty, or the larger Claremont community. But we do have to admit that something unethical has been committed by CMC’s leadership in Admissions.</p>
<p>Posters on this forum have every right to be critical of CMC on this issue.</p>
<p>Most importantly, you ask that comments regarding this scandal be made in other non-CMC specific threads on this site, and that you oppose the mudslinging, the negative comments, and generalizations made about the administration and the student body. However, if you look at your own comments about other schools on this site, you’ll see that you are asking posters to refrain from behavior that you yourself are guilty of exhibiting.</p>
<p>We all want to defend our children’s schools, but in this case, we need to admit to the problem and the disappointment it has brought to our community.</p>
<p>jshain, thanks for the correction. I would have been right in 2002. :-)</p>
<p>^That’s okay, I remember all too well when it was the “big 8”.</p>
<p>pomkenna, can you show me where I made negative comments about other schools on this site.</p>
<p>And, yes, I did register on CC just to post as one concerned parent to another.</p>
<p>If you remember when they were the “big 8”, you are as old as I am.</p>
<p>As a current CMC student, I will happily denounce the fudging of numbers. It’s wrong. No one will deny that. But I think it’s silly to call out one school when there’s immorality in all parts of the system. CMC may have fudged its SAT scores slightly, but how many schools out there claim to be need-blind and aren’t? (Hint: a LOT.) That’s a lot more deceptive - and more damaging to prospective applicants - than an SAT mean or median that’s 10-20 points higher. Not to mention the many colleges or universities who twist stats in other ways, such as by discounting ED students. Or -on the other side - what about all the wealthy applicants whose parents basically buy their resumes, paying for SAT classes, essay-writing services, fancy trips abroad, and all sorts of other accolades that are merely a display of money, not merit? Sure, it’s legal, but in my humble opinion it is not ever ethical to buy an admission letter, whether it is bought directly or indirectly.</p>
<p>Certainly, I am disappointed in our administration, and especially Dean Vos (who I and many others thought was above such behavior), but I cannot say I’m entirely surprised. I am glad they did the right thing in coming clean; it’s just a shame that they get punished for doing the right thing while others are likely getting away with similar transgressions. If there’s anything good that comes of this situation, I hope it will be that we all take a scathing look at the college process, college rankings, and the destructive competition they encourage.</p>
<p>Also, I do hope that if any prospective students are looking at this, they do not change their opinion of CMC as a whole. I chose CMC over Pomona and the University of Chicago and after almost 3 years here, I am absolutely certain I made the right decision. CMC is a fantastic school in terms of academics, career support, and student life in general (there’s a reason we’re the happiest school in America), and it would be a real shame to have someone miss out on what could be an awesome college experience just because of this one scandal. If you want to know about the school, ask the students, not the stats. :)</p>
<p>Parent57’ you asked in post 88 where you said anything negative about another school, and I’ll point out post 83 where you cast random and gratuitous aspersions at Wesleyan. I fact, you came to my attention because of a nasty post on Wes’s site for no apparent purpose; I then checked your posts and saw that the tone of your posts are almost always angry and nasty. Claremont is a terrific school, but you are not doing it a service with the tone you take in your posts.</p>
<p>I don’t see any reason to get outraged about this. Did this particular individual fudge numbers a little? Sure. Is that wrong? Oh, without a doubt, yes. I still think that’s less damaging to the actual values of admissions than strategic admissions, which is fairly common in the Ivy League (especially at Princeton). At least CMC didn’t mess with which kids they were actually admitting to fake their numbers; the Enron method is, after all, the best. Just ask Lewis Black: THEY JUST MADE THE NUMBERS UP! How simple!</p>
<p>Really, though, I have no doubt that this happens at other institutions. It has long been apparent that colleges manipulate SAT scores, because OMGUSNEWSGUIZE.</p>
<p>Also, from the NYT piece: </p>
<p>“Robert Franek, the senior vice president of publishing for The Princeton Review, which provides preparation for the SAT and also ranks colleges, said that he had never heard of a college intentionally reporting incorrect data.”</p>
<p>Derp.</p>
<p>pickwick, if you think my post # 83 is negative and mean, you really have a thin skin. So you think the Wesleyan poster (with which I guess is the school your affiliated) was genteel and respectful. Reread both posts and tell me which one is attacking and mean-spirited.</p>
<p>I really pity the CMC applicants who answered “Dean Richard Vos” to the “If I could trade jobs with anyone in the world, that person would be _________” questions on the CMC supplement. What seemed like a witty answer in December/January just turned to s–t.</p>
<p>314*******, I don’t get your point. What does one have to do with the other. Because he lost his job, the answer turned to s–t? Okay, whatever.</p>
<p>@parent57 “fca, you have already posted 8 times on this topic today. If you want to get into a fight with me, it is not going to happen. I already told you what I think about some of your posts.” </p>
<p>Parent, you do not see, do you? I was posting about CMC not about you until you said “this is the dumbest post on CC”. So I think you drew first blood by making a post about me, not about the issue. I only responded in kind.</p>
<p>If you think any of my arguments is invalid, then offer a counterargument. By labeling it as “dumb” you are inviting a strong response.</p>
<p>haha pretty sure @314159265 was making a lighthearted joke about the situation, not a serious commentary about how this could affect anyone’s application</p>
<p>At #74</p>
<p>CMC student: I agree that people don’t take average SAT scores when deciding on a college (although some people may decide not to apply to a college with inflated numbers because the applicant may think that his/her scores are not competitive).</p>
<p>However, students do account for SAT scores and for the school reputation through rankings. You know as well as I do that rankings significantly influences applicants decisions. What is going to happen is that any forward looking applicant now can project that it is very difficult for CMC to sustain its #9 position. Next year, SAT scores will not be fudged (likely to be lower), and the survey responses about CMC reputation provided by both peers and GC counselors is also likely to suffer. Furthermore, in rank-order competitions, as is the case in the US news rankings, small differences in those survey items can represent large differences in ranking placement.</p>
<p>If CMC believes, as you do, that this scandal has no influence in ED applicants’ decisions, then the college should “put his money where his mouth is” and release students from their ED committments. It may be too late for many ED I applicants (who may have chosen not to apply to other schools after receiving the ED I decision), but it may not be too late for ED II students. Again, if you are right and this scandal has no effect on admissions, then releasing students from their committment would not harm CMC’s enrolment management.</p>
<p>Also, you cannot absolutely guarantee that this scandal will not affect employment of CMC grads. No one can absolutely guarantee anything without uncontestable evidence. What are you using to back your guarantee? Your word?</p>
<p>Take the following into consideration: Many companies, such as consulting companies, sell human capital. Meaning, they sell based on the presumed expertise/competency/integrity of the people who work for the company. Many times, they even make the workers/professionals CVs available to customers.</p>
<p>What I believe (and yes, I cannot “absolutely guarantee” but I believe in this) is that some recruiters who are deciding between two equally qualified students, one from CMC and one from, say, Pomona, may now have an extra incentive to hire the Pomona grad.</p>