CMC Office of Admission Falsely Reported SAT Scores

Colleges and Universities A-Z Claremont McKenna College
161

<p>I think post #145 does a good job of rebutting post #128.</p>

<p>CMC is guilty of academic dishonesty, the kind of behavior that could (rightly) get its own students expelled. Anyone who values academic honesty or finds hypocrisy repellant must admit that CMC deserves to take a downward hit in the rankings as a result of this scandal.</p>

<p>The fact that everyone from President Gann to Parent57 went into full damage control mode immediately after the scandal broke says all that needs to be said about the VERY serious possibility that CMC will, in fact, take a marked downward hit in the USNews and other rankings as a direct result of recent events.</p>

<p>Evidence provided in post #145 shows that, contrary to what seems to me to be fearful, acerbic denial expressed in post #128, USNews may well recalculate it’s rankings based on the corrected CMC stats now being released. Indeed, if USNews cares at all about its own reputation as an honest, trustworthy broker of reliable ranking info on American colleges and universities, it MUST do so – or else risk killing the cash cow known as its fall college issue.</p>

<p>I think the net effect will be that CMC drops 2-5 places in the USNews rankings for the next several years. Maybe Intrade will open a prediction market on this question. :wink: (Probably not, but it would be interesting).</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.intrade.com/v4/home/[/url]”>http://www.intrade.com/v4/home/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Given that numbers reported by CMC to federal agencies may have been falsified, it’s entirely possible that laws could have been broken. If so, this story could be just beginning, and the end of it could be a great deal more serious for CMC and those who hold (or will hold) CMC diplomas over the near term.</p>

<p>Rankings gone wild. More more more. fear fear fear. Get out of my way. Me me me. Got mine, get yours.</p>

<p>May this scandal help burst the boil of the “living large” philosophy that is doing so much harm in so many ways to this nation and to this planet as a whole. It’s long past time we as a culture learned to enjoy “living small,” tone down the competition, and create a society less characterized by fearful, irrational hyper-competitiveness. </p>

<p>Too much to ask, I know. But dreaming doesn’t hurt.</p>

162

<p>Yes, let’s blame this on something other than reputation envy</p>

163

<p>

</p>

<p>Do we really believe that employers will be overly concerned with an admission officer inflating tests scores by a few points? Today and in a next month? </p>

<p>Did Wall Street, corporate America, the consulting firms, and the government change their views about MIT and Penn after the abrupt departures of their Deans of Admissions? Aren’t we talking about careers in IB, government, law, and plenty of others that do not much of a sandbox from which to crow about integrity?</p>

<p>Memories are usually short. Think about Kavvya the Harvard plagiarist. Did that stop her to go to law school and work at a prestigious firm? And this was not an issue by a school official, but a direct and blatant deception by the individual.</p>

164

<p>Pomona’s in hot water for firing several long term employees with questionnable immigration status, yet this doesn’t seem to be diverting attention from CMC’s shenanigans…</p>

165

<p>What Pomona did was follow US law. If you dont like it, write your congressman. What Claremont did was cheat.</p>

166

<p>In response to post #8 (and others which claim “the numbers were small, it was just a little cheating”) …</p>

<p>According to data recently released, the “fudging” wasn’t “just 10-20 points,” but a total (on average) of 27.5 points over two (reading, math) sections of the SAT. </p>

<p>A 27.5 point bump in a two-section SAT score is equivalent to a 41.25 point jump in a typical three section SAT score, the kind that most schools report, and the kind, no doubt, that USNews used in it’s calculations of CMS’s ranking.</p>

<p>Would you like a 40 point boost in your SAT score, if you were competing for admission to a top U.S. school? </p>

<p>Why would the leadership of any college risk the kind of damage CMC recently inflicted upon itself for an “insignificant” boost in rankings?</p>

<p>40+ points on the SAT is in NO way insignificant. The positive effect of a 40 point SAT score boost could easily make a real difference in the attractiveness of a given student’s admission packet.</p>

<p>And, likewise, unfortunately for CMC, the effect will not likely be insignificant after USNews and other college ranking outfits take into account CMC’s true SAT numbers and all the dust blown up by this explosion has finally settled.</p>

167

<p>In short, the STUDENTS did not commit the sin of dishonesty, the SCHOOL did. Does it call into question the integrity of the students? the integrity of the professors? the grading? promoting a culture of wanting to do well any way they can? I do not see a strong case for these, but YMMV. </p>

<p>The issue that employers may consider is whether CMC is elite enough (has students worthy of their employment as scores might or might indicate in their hiring criteria), the students are not as competitive as they thought they were- their choice to see what they wish.
For example, hypothetically, McK might only recruit at the top x schools on the USNWR list, or at school with scores above XYZ. Have NO idea if any employers operate this way, just demonstrating how it would work here if any do.</p>

168

<p>

</p>

<p>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>

169

<p>Regarding post #152:</p>

<p>“Without being in the godly secrets, I think that a more plausible scenario is not one that aleters the individual records but one that inflate or deflate the numbers of students in certain categories by removing lower scores and perhaps counting scores from students who did NOT matriculate.”</p>

<p>Sorry Xiggi. If the Claremont Portside is to be believed, you’re wrong.</p>

<p>[SAT</a> Scandal Involved Systematic Score Manipulation|Claremont Port Side](<a href=“http://www.claremontportside.com/sat-scandal-involved-systematic-score-manipulation/]SAT”>http://www.claremontportside.com/sat-scandal-involved-systematic-score-manipulation/)</p>

<p>[Excerpts follow]</p>

<p>A comparison of old and corrected reports on the SAT scores of incoming Claremont McKenna students shows that the reported score changes entailed systematic manipulation of the vast majority of the data points that CMC had reported.</p>

<p>More than three quarters of non-zero data points that CMC had reported were manipulated.</p>

170

<p>Xiggi obviously knows a great deal more than I do about the particulars as to exactly how USNews calculates their rankings. I appreciate his clearing up any erroneous assumptions of mine or others that could muddy the waters, here.</p>

<p>CMC drops 3 spots. I predicted 2-5. Who knows what the actual results will be after all the dust has settled, but my crystal ball (I just polished it last week) tells me that CMC’s ultimate ranking will drop, due to various factors, by a similar number after all is said and done, because of this scandal.</p>

171

<p>Of course, as test scores go down, points for graduation rate goes up in USNews’ calculations.</p>

172

<p>“Xiggi obviously knows a great deal more than I do about the particulars as to exactly how USNews calculates their rankings.”</p>

<p>That’s one of the first accurate statements you have made on this thread, although I am sure that won’t stop you from offering your highly regarded opinions on this subject</p>

173

<p>

</p>

<p>We are talking about different things. </p>

<p>CMC drops in the partial rankings for the SAT scores. This intimates that they would drop in the selectivity index (unless the admission rates are important enough to maintain the overall selectivity.) The drop from 6th to 9th is in a category that accounts for 7.5 percent of the total. To have a drop in the overall rankings, the change need to amount to changes in the overall scores. Haverford would need to gain one point to tie CMC and two to pass it. Carleton (and Bowdoin that I missed earlier) are already ranked ahead of CMC. The correct SAT will not help a school ranked below Haverford to jump CMC in corrected 2012 USNews. </p>

<p>Last but not least, this is a theoretical exercise as we plug in the correct SAT figures in the USNews 2012. Morse will do the same (and perhaps add the impact onto the grad rates) and publish the results in his blog. USNews will NOT change the past publications. </p>

<p>Also, it is possible that the changes were more drastic in prior years as CMC moved in a very narrow range in the rankings. However, all in all, the impact of the revised SAT scores will be mininal on the overall rankings. And, the results might provide support to my theories that Vos did not manipulate the SAT scores for improving in the USNews rankings, and if he did, he was not that smart about it.</p>

<p>PS I would also like to call for bringing an end to the use of ad hominems. We should be able to discuss the issues with objectivity and respect. While none of us created this mess, we should be interested in weighing the accuracy of the information that is showing up. We should refrain to only look at the information that espouses our views.</p>

174

<p>At such a relatively small school, how can the President not have known that the Admissions Director was fudging such important data every year for more than 5 years?</p>

175

<p>Oh no. Today it was disclosed that the taco meat in the CMC dining hall is 10% cat.</p>

176

<p>Really? I always assumed it was 10 percent tequila and 90 percent grouse. Also known as Sage Hen.</p>

177

<p>^^^^^^^</p>

<p>Do you think it will cause CMC to fall in the USNWR rankings? :-)</p>

178

<p>I wonder if Oswald was the lone gunman?</p>

179

<p>What I take away from this God forsaken mess is not so much the relatively trivial issue of a change of USNWR rankings for CMC, but rather, the strong evidence about what is most important to one Office of Admissions at one highly selective American liberal arts college. Most of the highly selective liberal arts colleges–Wesleyan, for sure–offer a fairly deep curriculum in topics bearing on this grossly unethical act by the CMC Dean of Admissions. Ironically, the gatekeeper here is acting in flagrante delicto doing precisely what the curriculum is teaching its students to avoid at their moral peril. It seems to me that simply allowing this individual to quietly resign is insufficient and that the institution is morally required to not only do a thorough investigation of exactly what occurred, not only search for possible legal violations as well, but also to go through a very thorough house-cleaning and institutional self-study to examine if this activity is rooted in not just the office of admissions but in the institution’s organizational culture. As the Claremont College that prides itself in prowess in the social sciences, those of us who care about the liberal arts mission will be watching to see whether CMC takes this step, or whether, as the Catholic Church has done, provides only the flimsiest cover story to hide a profound flaw in its culture. </p>

<p>And, if it turns out that this was not an isolated incident, it would behoove all of the competing liberal arts colleges to do the same type of self-study. CMC’s moral lapse is not a trivial matter. It has lessons and implications for our college applicants, college faculty and administrators, the parents of prospective and current students who fund the private elite college enterprise, and the graduate schools and employers who rely on an elite college’s brand in making decisions about whom to admit or hire. “Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.”</p>

180

<p>How can anyone draw a possible parallel between this event and the horrific cover-up at the Catholic Church? </p>

<p>To stick to the religious theme, one could do worse than reading Luke 6:41-42!</p>