<p>Okay, fca, I think it is very unfortunate this happened and I am confident CMC will correct this so it never happens again. I will agree that it is embarrassing, and all CMCers wish it didn’t happen; but to suggest this is going to materially tarnish the school for many years and affect recruiting on campus is just not accurate. A student who was able to land a job with a prestigious investment bank, consulting firm or govt agency before this will not go jobless because of the incident. That student’s resume, grades, personality didn’t change overnight. The school is highly regarded because of the high caliber of the students not the other way around. Companies in California recruit at CMC because they know there are many qualified students there. So when you made that remark, it struck me as ludicrous. Maybe among the CC crowd some may have less respect for the school, but I don’t see it that way with employers who are looking for the brightest and most dynamic students.</p>
<p>Fca, I just checked your past posts and I didn’t realize you are a high school student who apparently has lived overseas. I don’t know if you applied to CMC or not, but I am not sure how familiar you are with recruiting at CMC and the companies on the West Coast who recruit there. I am glad you have an opinion, but with all due respect I think it is somewhat uninformed. That’s okay, but I think I need to respond to you because other kids may not be aware of your age and actually think it is someone who is familiar with the recruiting process. I hope you don’t take this as an attack.</p>
<p>Fine that you want to respond to me.</p>
<p>Just respond to this argument, then:</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>
<p>What is wrong with that statement? Please provide a strong counterargument.</p>
<p>I already responded.</p>
<p>Out of curiosity, fca, did you apply to CMC?</p>
<p>^^ So you also absolutely guarantee that this scandal will not affect recruiting. Absolutely?</p>
<p>^ Regarding whether I applied or not, I prefer not to answer this question.</p>
<p>The only reason I ask if you applied is because I sensed you are worried about this. The only way I can answer this question to reassure you is that I am at least 3 times older than you and have worked in an industry which has recruited extensively at CMC and other elite colleges. I also familiar with CMC’s career office and the recruiting on campus. </p>
<p>There are no guarantees in this world, but I really don’t think this will have any impact on recruiting. I think I explained my reasons in my prior posts. The recruiters come to this campus because of the caliber of the students and the previous success they have had recruiting students who performed very well at their companies. Otherwise, regardless of reputation, they would not recruit at CMC if they had a bad experience with the school and their students. The school also has very loyal alumni who are very successful in a variety of industries. It is amazing for such a small school how many of the alumni are leading major organizations. These alumni are a fantastic resource for CMC students. Anyway, if you did apply to CMC, you do not have to worry about this. There will be many opportunities (internships and jobs) for you at CMC.</p>
<p>Agreed, we are all sick of parent57’s intolerance for any disagreements with her/him on this CMC board. But it’s like neighbors, you have several, they’re semi-permanent, so just wave when you walk by and avoid conversations with them that you know will set your teeth on edge.</p>
<p>But I really do wonder if this SAT point manipulation was simply for Voss’s own personal gain, perhaps to reach the next bonus tier. Wouldn’t that mean that it is not this giant reflection on CMC’s ethics, but instead is an action by an unethical employee? Though I am sure an underling or two knew about it also, but if they received bonuses as well, then they may have had an incentive to keep quiet.</p>
<p>That is what happened at UIUC law supposedly. The admissions director kept getting the LSAT scores up and up and up or so everyone thought and he keep getting raise after raise. </p>
<p>Someone needs to be vetting that though. He does have a boss.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just to be clear (and, as long as we’re outing people), Chris is a current high school senior who has <em>applied</em> to Wesleyan.</p>
<p>And, FWIW, I truly sympathize with what Claremont-McKenna students, parents, and alum are going through right now. Every college, at least every college sharing the limelight of great public esteem, as Claremont-Mckenna, Wesleyan, Pomona, Amherst, Williams, Pitzer, Scripps, and Harvey Mudd – all do – they will go through periods of bad publicity. That isn’t the point; a college with a surplus of institutional and human capital, built up over generations, will survive such periods.</p>
<p>I think what people are really afraid of is whether this latest embarrassment is indicative of a deeper problem unique to Claremont-McKenna. I have posted many times on CC about my misgivings regarding contiguous campuses with your most intense academic rivalries practically on your doorstep. I don’t think the creators of the Claremont consortium really foresaw the intense competition that something like the USNews rankings would create among the nations elite colleges. I’ve likened it to having Amherst, Williams, Wesleyan, Bowdoin and Middlebury all within a few blocks of each other. </p>
<p>As the NYTimes stated in this morning’s edition:
</p>
<p>Personally, I think sometimes you need that long bus ride home to recoup some perspective, particularly after a losing game.</p>
<p>"I don’t think the creators of the Claremont consortium really foresaw the intense competition that something like the USNews rankings would create among the nations elite colleges. I’ve likened it to having Amherst, Williams, Wesleyan, Bowdoin and Middlebury all within a few blocks of each other. "</p>
<p>It’s doubtless a reach to assert that the consortium itself led to the behavior of Dean Voss at CMC. Most at the Claremont Colleges feel the consortium is a wonderful collaborative asset, academically and socially. It allows students to experience the support of a small college community while simultaneously accessing all the resources of a larger educational institution.</p>
<p>At the root of Dean Voss’ deception was the US News rankings and misguided incentives that corresponded. No college or university is immune to these pressures. I think the entire incident begs the question of an independent audit of testing data for all reporting institutions.</p>
<p>I have a copy of the Fiske Guide from 2010, which states “. . .in their zeal to make themselves look good in a competitive market, some colleges and universities have been known to be less than honest in the numbers they release. They inflate scores by not counting certain categories of students at the low end of the scale, such as athletes, certain types of transfer students, or students admitted under affirmative action programs.” So, the manipulation of these stats has been recognized for quite a while. The real question is, who has the ability to call for standardized and audited reporting of stats? Parents and students are just trying to get through the application process in one piece; they don’t feel they wield the authority to ask for accountability in this area. We’ve left colleges to police themselves.</p>
<p>Would we reasonably ask students to report their own SAT scores? What percentage of them would inflate the numbers if they were self-reporting? Half? We can quickly see the inherent problem with the system as it stands.</p>
<p>Its no reach at all. Its dead on point.</p>
<p>Prophet, are you a student or alum of one of the Claremont Colleges? </p>
<p>Are you asserting that this misrepresentation in SAT reporting is unique to CMC, both historically and at present?</p>
<p>I didn’t mean to scare you away, Prophet. I just noticed in a previous post that you stated “I will be honest and say I don’t know a heck of a lot about Claremont. . .”</p>
<p>I was trying to make a larger point about lack of accountability across the board and asking what the best structure would be for implementing checks and balances.</p>
<p>Interesting editorial in this mornings LA Times which talks about trickery and manipulation of stats by schools.[Cheating</a> by Claremont McKenna College: What’s gone wrong? - latimes.com](<a href=“http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-sat-20120201,0,3289490.story]Cheating”>When colleges cheat)</p>
<p>I never asserted any such thing. That comment by you is a reach. </p>
<p>I tend to look past the “but everyone else does it!” comments.</p>
<p>[Referencing post #88]</p>
<p>No … of course not. </p>
<p>Parent57 has NEVER attacked or “slung mud at” or spoken in a “mean spirited way” about any other school on this site. That’s just not AT ALL the tone that Parent57 takes on CC. EVER.</p>
<p>What a load of garbage.</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/wesleyan-university/1197037-1-train-wreck-school.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/wesleyan-university/1197037-1-train-wreck-school.html</a></p>
<p>Actually taking seriously a transparent political hatchet job on the part of some right-wing theocratic think tank isn’t “mud slinging” or “mean spirited” or an “attack?”</p>
<p>It’s clear to anyone who reads these threads on CC that, despite hollow protestations, the CMC emperor has no clothes. Parent57’s habitual tone on this board is often precisely that which he denies it to be: mean spirited and attack-oriented.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the effect of such disingenuousness and self-defensive, irritable tone is to leave a bad taste about CMC … which is not, I’m sure, what Perent57 would really like to accomplish.</p>
<p>In this thread, Parent57 has tried repeatedly to ignore or downplay the seriousness of the recent scandal at CMC (“not exactly a felony.”), rather than come right out, as Xiggy did, and admit that cheating is HUGELY wrong and that this DOES cast a negative light on the school.</p>
<p>And yes, if there are similar instances of fraud lurking within the file cabinets and administrators’ hard drives of any other college in America, including (but not limited to) Wesleyan University, such behavior would be deserving of equal notoriety and condemnation.</p>
<p>Right now, though, the fraud is at CMC, and Parent57 should be strongly condemning it, rather than downplaying or minimizing it.</p>
<p>Sarabande has it right:</p>
<p>“So, the manipulation of these stats has been recognized for quite a while. The real question is, who has the ability to call for standardized and audited reporting of stats? Parents and students are just trying to get through the application process in one piece; they don’t feel they wield the authority to ask for accountability in this area. We’ve left colleges to police themselves.”</p>
<p>Just as Greenspan had to admit, finally, that financial markets cannot be counted on to responsibly regulate themselves, I think it should be pretty clear to all concerned that, when large amounts of money is involved, NO group of individuals or organizations can be counted on to self-police their own activities.</p>
<p>Colleges and universities are certainly no exception to this rule, and YES, regulation of the reporting of college statistics is very much in order.</p>
<p>Which is where government comes in. This is precisely WHY we have government, in fact … so that the 99% and the 1% find some way of co-existing rather than destroying each other.</p>
<p>70’s Dad, interesting article, and it certainly supports the Fiske Guide assertions. Seems like a long-standing issue within higher ed.</p>
<p>In the short term, I do hope some measures are proposed – by parents? colleges? students? – to enhance reporting accountability across the board. Perhaps voluntary audits by some schools would get everyone moving in the right direction? Or what about proposals by NACAC, which “strives to support and advance the work of both secondary school and college admission counselors as they help students realize their full educational potential?”</p>
<p>Maybe some savvy parent or student could set up an online signature page for parents/students asking NACAC to recommend audited college reporting? Any better ideas out there?</p>
<p>chrisrb, maybe there’s a government agency to which it would be more appropriate for a petition to be addressed?</p>