Unfortunately, the antipodal pressures of tradition and aspiration may force the administration to try to get the best of both worlds – an effort which will ultimately have devastating consequences to the unity of the student body.

By focusing too hard on the extremes, in a graceless counterbalancing maneuver, the administration risks running the “average CMCer” into extinction.

There are no distinct classes of students at CMC. In a way, everyone is average. This is one of the school’s greatest strengths: We can all relate to one another. Most everyone is similar in academic caliber, social engagement and disposition toward embracing life. Whether you started your day with a refreshing beer shower or awkward walk of shame after a one night stand with Poppa, you can have dinner with any other CMCer and have something to talk about.

CMC is a tight-knit family of peers who respect each other’s differences because we have so much in common. From the brawniest bros to the haughtiest hipsters, from the soberest Starkies to tipsiest TNCers, the term “typical CMCer” applies to all of us.

We cannot take this for granted. If the administration is not careful about how it tweaks its admissions policies, we are headed for cultural armageddon and the destruction of CMC’s middle, and only, class.

Rankings are based exclusively on hard factors, and the game is getting increasingly competitive: College selectivity is at an all-time high, and institutions are constantly modifying their admissions pools to gain an edge. Over the long term, CMC admissions will be forced to reconcile our soft-factor spirit with our hard-factor aspirations.When adding to the CMC family each year, the admissions office looks at a number of “hard factors” (test scores, GPA, etc.) as well as a number of unquantifiable “soft factors” (athletics, leadership, overall Stag Factor, etc.). Traditionally, admitted students have a good balance of both hard and soft factors, perhaps leaning slightly more on one or the other.

To accomplish these ends, the administration will initially simply reduce the weight it puts on soft factors; leadership experience will play a diminished role in admissions, coaches will be told they can lobby for fewer recruits and the minimum acceptable test score will be inched upward, disqualifying more soft-factor reliant applicants.

But there is only so far we can go down this road. Eventually, there will come a point where the administration realizes it is straying too far from its commitment to a well-rounded student body. Without a critical mass of soft-factor students, CMC will begin to lose its identity and the unique vibrancy of campus life will fade as more CMCers forgo ski-beach day and the Green Beach slip ‘n’ slide in favor of a Starbucks Doubleshot and a Honnold carrel.

Nobody wants this, and I don’t think it will be allowed to happen. Despite the recent characterization of the administration as a rankings-hungry zealot willing to sell our soul for a spot in the U.S. News and World Report Top 10, I do not think this will be our fate. I have faith that there is an understanding, even within the administration, that without a healthy level of exceptional athletes, brotastic campus organizers and TNC theme loyalists, CMC will lose that special something that distinguishes us from our East-coast wannabe neighbors to the South.

So what happens when we cannot cut the soft factors any further without risking significant losses in culture and identity?

The obvious mathematical solution (that still sates our rankings craving) is to balance the necessity of soft-factor admissions by overstocking on their hard-factor counterparts. Instead of well-rounded students, with decent hard AND soft factors, the administration will turn to a policy of admitting students with either exceptional hard OR soft factors. Since there will be an effective quota of reserved slots for soft-factor applicants (whatever the administration deems to be a “critical mass”), the only way to maintain a national ranking based on hard-factor averages will be to up the admissions standards for everyone else. Soft-factor applicants will still get in on athletics, leadership or other intangibles, and the burden of upholding test-score and GPA averages will fall on those whose applications who rely more heavily on academics.

Put simply, we will be forced to compensate for our commitment to leadership by cutting out the middle of the spectrum. It will take an impeccable GPA and test scores to get in on hard-factors alone.

The consequences of such a policy will be disastrous. The student body will become increasingly dichotomized. The sobriety of Stark will spread quickly to Auen and Fawcett as masses of SAT-perfect overachievers are let in to pay the rankings debt of CMC tradition. The fluid spectrum of interests and abilities that characterizes present-day CMC will fracture as it becomes easier to tell who is a rankings baby and who is on “leadership welfare.” With less in common, the two communities will become more insular; the bunker design of North Quad will finally be put to use as bros barricade themselves inside, fervently defending their right to blast music at 2:00am on a weeknight against an onslaught of RAs summoned by the enemy to enforce a more “study friendly” environment.  Mid Quad lounges will be set aflame as the two sides fight a turf war over space to party or study. John Faranda will weep on parents field.

Hyperbole aside, I have a legitimate fear that this fate, should it befall us, will go overlooked by the administration. So long as there are enough students in each group, activities and opportunities tailored to each will remain sufficiently popular to give the illusion of cohesion. TNC will go on, CMS will continue to dominate the SCIAC, and the number crunchers at Princeton Review and U.S. News and World will be none the wiser. CMC will have accomplished the impossible, preserving both our institutional identity and academic acclaim. On campus, however, it will be abundantly clear that the “typical CMCer” is gone and the achievement of a well-rounded student body has come at the cost of the well-rounded student.

Photo Credit: Jessica Dang

On Thursday, February 2, the Forum and the Claremont Port Side sat down with Claremont McKenna College President Pamela Gann to discuss the recent SAT reporting scandal.

President Gann began the discussion by emphasizing honesty, integrity and the core values of the college. Gann felt it was important “to recognize all of the historical work of prior leaders within the college that makes this community what it is.”

The College’s overarching goal was to get to the “root of the problem.” Gann stated that, “there was never a question that we would be forthcoming” about the falsified SAT data. The College wanted to be open and transparent in their findings and get the information out “quickly but accurately.”

Gann went on to explain the chronology of recent events and how the falsely reported data first came to her attention. On January 9, an unnamed source from within the college approached President Gann and raised a question about the accuracy of the SAT data for CMC’s 2011 incoming class.

That day, Gann asked Vice President and Dean Emeritus Jerome Garris to look into the questions raised about the SAT scores. Gann noted that Garris is a man of unquestionable integrity. Over two weeks later, on January 24, Gann sent an email to Garris to check-in on the investigation. She awoke on Wednesday morning, January 25, to an email from Garris. The email included news that someone within the Office of Admission had confessed to falsely reporting SAT data since 2005.

President Gann was in disbelief when she first heard the news.

Richard C. Vos, former Vice President & Dean of Admission and Financial Aid, is widely assumed to be at fault and resigned on Monday after news of the scandal was made public.

On the morning of January 25, Gann immediately notified Chairman of the Board of Trustees, Harry McMahon ‘75, of Garris’ findings. McMahon formed a small working group of board members that met later that day by phone. McMahon, the Board of Trustees, and Gann worked in parallel through this process. “The board was totally in sync with us as we did our work,” said Gann. Gann then held an executive committee meeting over the phone on Thursday and a full meeting of the board on Friday.

Early Monday morning, January 30, the college began telephoning all entities to which the affected data was reported and informing them of the falsified data. At 9:00 AM, Gann met with her senior staff to inform them of the news, and at 10:00 AM, she met with the Office of Admissions and Financial Aid staff. Gann’s email was sent at 11:00 AM to all students, faculty, staff, alumni, and parents of current students.

Soon after, Gann informed this year’s Early Decision I applicants—those who had already received notification of their binding admission—and Early Decision II applicants about the falsification of SAT scores.

On Wednesday, February 1, the college formally released the corrected data and sent it to outside agencies, including the New York Times, the LA Times, the college’s auditors, Moody’s Investors Service and other interested parties. The corrected data has not been sent to all entities, but the college hopes to finish their distribution by the end of the day.

Photo Credit: Jessica Dang

Gann emphasized the important distinction between data construction and data reporting. Data construction, she explained, is the way in which the college compiles the data internally. Applicants often take the SATs and the ACTs more than once, and all scores are sent to the college. Like many of its peer institutions, Claremont McKenna takes an applicant’s highest critical reading and highest math score to create the combined SAT score used for the college’s admission decision. If a student’s ACT score is higher than his or her SAT score, the former score is used in the admission process.

Gann explained that now, nearly fifteen to sixteen percent of applicants only submit ACT scores to the college. Since a higher ACT score can trump the SAT score, Gann said, “There will not be an SAT score for every student.”

Data reporting, she explained, is the way in which the college’s admissions data is presented to outside entities. According to Gann, the manipulation of SAT score data was an issue of data reporting and not data construction.

“As far as we know,” said Gann, “there was no falsification of data construction.”

Gann noted two main reasons for how the data could have been misreported for over six years. First, she said, “a sole person had too much authority over the reporting of data.” Gann admitted that there was “no internal checks and balances system in place” when the senior administrator was falsifying reports of the data.

Second, the reported SAT scores “did not trigger suspicion,” said Gann. Gann explained that the data were relatively flat, and “the falsified numbers were almost the same every year.” Nothing in the data raised any suspicions amongst those who saw it.

Citing personnel matters, protected by California privacy law, Gann could not comment on the former senior administrator’s motivation behind fudging the numbers. She also could not comment on whether the person responsible was asked to resign and whether there was a resignation letter.

President Gann has said the college will move forward next week with an independent review conducted by the law firm O’Melveny & Myers and led by the Board of Trustees. Gann emphasized that no one from within the college can be responsible for leading the independent review as it would be an obvious conflict of interest.

Though she can’t predict when the review will be completed, Gann said she hoped it would be finished quickly. The findings of the independent review will only be made public if the Board of Trustees chooses to do so. Although the college has no reason to believe that other data has been falsely reported, the independent investigation will look at data before 2005.

Photo Credit: Jessica Dang

Gann believes the college acted quickly and “used good governance” to address the root of the problem and manage the situation. Gann asserts that the College has “been very prompt, open, and honest” in its handling of the issue.

While some students have expressed frustration with the minimal communication from Gann and the college administration, Gann emphasized that her plan of action thus far has prioritized (1) obtaining the right information and (2) getting the correct information out to the appropriate agencies. Now, she said, the college is in the midst of her third objective—to repair the trust of the community—and will continue to reach out and inform students as best it can.

Gann thought going to student publications such as the Forum and the Claremont Port Side was more effective than immediately holding a town hall-style meeting. However, Gann has been present in college dealings over the past week. She attended a senior class reception on Tuesday evening, appearing at a Board of Trustees meeting breakfast with students, and may appear alongside Vice President of Public Affairs Max Benavidez on Monday evening at the ASCMC Senate meeting.

President Gann could not speculate on how this incident will impact CMC’s rankings in the future. On NPR’s All Things Considered, Robert Morse, director of data research for U.S. News and World Report, indicated that the dip in scores is likely to have only a small effect on the ranking. “It’s certainly not going to drop the school to twentieth place,” said Morse, “but I guess there’s some chance that it could drop out of the top ten.”

President Gann added that she does not see any data that suggests rankings drive a student’s decision to go to a college. “The primary reason that students come here is the high quality education and the academic program is a good fit for them,” said Gann. She continues, “rankings and guides are only part of the process.”

Many believe that rankings played a role in causing this incident. Gann stated that the Office of Admission has no explicit goals for SAT scores. “Our aspiration is to have a talented student body,” said Gann, “and SAT scores are a part of that.”

In 2002, the Board of Trustees adopted a general policy statement to guide the admissions office on shaping incoming classes. Some considerations include leadership, diversity, and support for co-curricular programs. According to Gann, one change in this policy since the beginning of her presidency was to increase the number of international students.

Despite the recent SAT score incident, President Gann believes that Claremont McKenna remains a strong institution. “We have wonderful students, wonderful faculty, and I’m very proud of this college,” she said.

Gann hopes that this unfortunate incident will also become a learning experience for students. She explained that the past week has been an excellent lesson in “crisis leadership.” Gann stated that, “lapses in leadership are where you learn the most.”

Updates: February 2, 2012 at 3:14pm

Since the incident first came to light, the college has taken a number of steps to ensure that this will never happen again.  Before any data is released from the Admissions office, two Vice Presidents in different areas of the college, that have no authority in the Office of Admission, must sign off on the data.  President Gann believes this method should be extended for all data reporting at the college. Vice President for Administration and Planning, General Counsel, and Secretary of the College, Matthew Bibbens, and Vice President for Academic Affairs and Dean of the Faculty, Gregory Hess, signed off on the corrected SAT score data before it was released yesterday. President Gann also signed off on the SAT data.

Heath Hyatt ’12, Caroline Nyce ’13, and Nathan Falk ’14 contributed reporting.

Editor’s note. This article was updated on February 2 at 2:37pm. The original article stated that a senior administrator had “falsified reporting” of SAT data since 2005. The updated article clarifies and states the administrator confessed to “falsely reporting” the data.

It isn’t fair. And it hurts.

Needless to say, this has been a rough couple days for CMC. Not only was the news surrounding the fudged SAT reports a poor moment for the administration, but it was also a difficult moment for the Claremont community. After all, we are the ones who love this place. We serve as its principal defenders and advocates. We devote inordinate amounts of time to explaining our institution to relatives and job recruiters– even strangers on the street.  It’s an incredible place, we argue. You’ve just probably never heard of it.

Now they have. It is a great irony that we receive so much attention for an issue that is so far removed from the hearts and minds of CMCers. Rankings are not necessarily what drove us here as prospective students, nor are they what we seek to take away with us as graduates.

I did not choose Claremont McKenna College for its name recognition; I came here in spite of its nonexistence.  I chose CMC because, despite knowing it was small and little-known, I had a feeling in my core it was worth the risk.

Let’s be clear: the unethical move highlighted in the press today was made by an administrator. It was one singular employee.  Perhaps he was moved deeply by his passions for the school, but nonetheless, his actions were his and his alone.  The bad news was honorably self-reported by the administration.

Our community, on the other hand, is innocent. This incident is by no means indicative of our school culture.  After three years here, I can tell you firsthand that Claremont McKenna College is not a hyper-competitive learning institution. The students here are scholars and leaders, not grimey grade-obsessed teenagers. Where I go to school, people do not try to sabotage their peers over grade point averages. Rather, they derive pleasure in seeing their peers succeed, in every venture.

The most important thing we can do as students in this moment is simple– we must defend the community we hold so dear.   Now is not the time for internal competition, rumors or conspiracy theories. We should take this moment to reaffirm our values as Claremont McKenna College’s finest, by supporting our classmates. This is an opportunity to reevaluate who we are as members of the CMC community. No matter what your major may be, we can all agree that, as students enrolled in this institution, we are part of an incredible organization.  This community is a caring one, founded on our ability to support each other regardless of our yearly U.S. News and World Report ranking. We do not find value in petty competition for competition’s sake. Claremont McKenna is better than that.

The CMC they’re writing about? That’s not my school. What happened this week– it is not who we are. Let them not extrapolate their opinion of our admissions office to that of us as a community. While it is clear that the administration needs to make some changes, it is important to remember that our college culture is not what is coming under fire.  Professors and students alike, continue your good work. Our educational policies are not the problem. Please don’t change a thing; you’re wonderful the way you are.

Here on the front lines in pleasant Claremont, California, one fact rings true: competition does not consume, nor define us. What happened on Monday is not reflective of our school community. Claremont McKenna College is a top-tier liberal arts college unlike any other in the nation– I maintain that opinion regardless of the news that broke this week.

Unfortunately the answer is obvious, and cringe-worthy: U.S. News & World Report National Liberal Arts College Rankings.

Claremont McKenna College has been rising on this list—and other lists—for some time now. The yearly reports have been big news on campus: we glorify falling admissions rates and drool when Forbes ranks us higher than Yale. We post on our Facebook walls about how we fared relative to other competitive colleges. We put flashy banners on our homepage telling us where we stand. The 5^th and 6^th lines of President Gann’s biography on the college’s website list the school’s ratings and its admissions selectivity ranking.

The administration is obsessed with our placement on an arbitrary scoreboard, and many of us students have joined the self-congratulatory bandwagon. We find ourselves today in an environment so focused on rankings that a senior admissions officer decided that a one-percent fudge was worth his career.

Shame on Mr. Vos, but he does not deserve all the blame.

Monday’s announcement was a wake-up call. Yes, these types of rankings games must be watched more closely. Yes, everyone involved should see the door. But the administration must also address the fact that the incentive to cheat at these games in our community seems to be unusually high. Beyond firing those responsible for cheating, the administration must address both the larger system of college rankings and its attitude towards our own ratings.

The college continues to insist on measuring itself by metrics calculated by people who have never eaten in Collins dining hall. We have an unusual and unhealthy obsession with moving up that list. It must stop now. If the administration continues to see us only in numbers, we will continue to bleed integrity. CMC will win the game. But we will lose ourselves.

Why would President Gann care what U.S. News and World Report thinks about our professors? The answer is simple: high rankings lead to better students, better professors, more money for the school and better jobs waiting for us after graduation. High rankings are good—and we can measure them. How can the college possibly be asked to ignore them?

It can’t really. Somehow, we have to attempt to strike a balance between caring and obsessing about our reputation as an institution. Unfortunately, this is an issue that every college community and every admissions department in the country must confront.

Why? Because the college ranking system is broken.

We know this intuitively. Measuring Harvey Mudd College on paper with Claremont McKenna on paper is like asking a blind man to compare apples and oranges. If a high school senior were to ask you which of the two schools she should attend, telling her the square footage of Kravis or the SAT score statistics of Mudd’s freshmen would be silly. Yet these are the very numbers that colleges around the country let rule the decisions they make at the very highest levels. These statistics are not inherently important; the ranking system makes them important. That’s ridiculous.

Once a school has been named among the top 20 schools in the nation, it should not be ranked against its peers. The differences between schools at this level come from the different focuses and strengths of each school. Publishing rankings only encourages an obsession with prestige: a gaggle of kindergartners standing on tippy toes trying to see who is the tallest.

Undeniably, the actions of anyone involved with this scandal are irredeemable and absolutely inexcusable.

But the admissions department was acting on the pressures it felt by the rankings fixation of this administration. “I put pressure on myself to drive up the rankings because it is in my office’s best interest,” Dean Vos told the Claremont Port Side in an interview in 2008, a year in which scores were inflated. This administration has created an environment that passively encouraged cheating.
But the administration was acting on outside pressures too—pressures caused by a broken ratings system that we know has no baring on the quality of this education. A solution, then, to properly address what happened will be complex.

U.S. News and World Report should admit that what it publishes is based on funny math from essentially all participants. And at some point, this college should stop sending data to institutions that rank colleges. More realistically in the short term, however, this administration needs to address its ranking mania. The resignation of Mr. Vos should not be the end of this fiasco. From here, the first step is to admit we have a problem.

I didn’t come to Claremont McKenna College because it’s number nine. I came here for the people, the classes and the professors. This won’t affect those things. But we must understand that it is worth reflecting on this situation further. For those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

And we are better than this, CMC.

Senior members of the faculty wanted the living room to be accessible at anytime of the day or night, but ultimately, someone decided to only open the structure while it could be kept under surveillance. Dean Jefferson Huang,Vice President for Student Affairs, explains, “The two reasons for phasing into it are campus safety and we want to see how the room’s personality evolves. The administration wants to see what kind of personality the living room takes on. We want to start with fewer hours and work our way up. There are four cameras inside and four cameras outside the building, which are currently recording but not streaming live to campus safety. Once we get the cameras working, we will be able to monitor the living room, as it cost us millions and we would not like to see it being abused. But stay tuned. We will watch this, we’ll get the mechanical things fixed, and we will make adjustments to the hours accordingly.”

Currently, the structure is locked. A mechanical problem with the hinges and an issue with the ventilation prevent the doors from closing properly.   Dean Huang also said, “first and foremost we want to get the doors opened as there are mechanical problems, which are stopping it from opening.

Contrary to popular belief, Dean Huang points out that the school has never had more study spaces than those  on campus today. Dean Huang says, “other than the two study lounges in Auen and Fawcett, we have never had more spaces that the ones we have opened this semester. We have the Crocker Reading room, we have two rooms outside the Center for Civic Engagement, and we will get the Living Room opened as soon as we can fix the doors. In some ways, I reject the primary premise that we are getting back to where we were, but rather we are going beyond.”

However, Greg Zahner ’12, the RA of Wohlford, feels the school is limiting study spaces by locking most facilities of the Kravis Center outside of  business hours. He cannot even provide visitors with a treat of what the Kravis Center is like during campus tours on Saturday because the elevators are locked  along with most of the rooms. He says, “the school is being overprotective of the Kravis Center and students are not going to trash it after all the effort and money has gone into building it.” He feels that curtailing the hours of living room does not help the situation as students were looking forward to being able to study there at any hour of the day, as there is already a shortage of group study space on campus. He suggests an open classroom policy for Robert’s North and South where students could swipe in once classes have ended for the day. He adds, “this will save the school a lot of money, as they will not have to extend library hours, they could make use of the existing structures on campus. From a safety standpoint, the school could hire a monitor, like the monitor who sits in the reading room, who would be in charge of the living room and the bottom classrooms on Roberts’ North and South. Students could use the classrooms for group work and could take advantage of the white boards and the projectors and could turn the Kravis center side of campus into a study hub at night.”

The RA’s hope that the administration will make Kravis Center facilities, including the living room, more available to students in the future. Meanwhile, Dean Huang understands the students’ outcry for extended hours in different facilities, but points out that it’s not a question of the college being overprotective of CMC’s new crown jewel, but rather an effort on the part of the college to be smart and phase the new buildings into use.

Early Decision, Regular Decision and Yield

CMC received 418 early decision applicants of which 147 were accepted for an early admit rate of 35%.

Miller explained that a “fewer percentage of people were accepted early, but more applied, so a greater percentage of the total class was accepted early. That meant that we could accept a fewer number of people regular decision.”

Composition of Admitted Students

Of the admitted 619 students:

• The ratio of men to women is approximately equal.

• California is the most represented state, followed by Washington, Oregon, Massachusetts, Texas, New York, and Illinois.

• Approximately 14-16% of the class is expected to be international.

• 85% of the accepted students graduated in the top 10% of their high school class.

• Almost half of the class committed with binding Early Decision.

• 472 students were accepted regular decision, and of these admits, the Admissions Office expects a yield close to 33.7%, that of last year’s admitted students.

Acceptance Rates & SAT Scores

This year, the Office of Admissions received 4,481 total applications, of which we accepted 619 students.  Compared with last year’s 4,264 total applications and 732 admitted students, the admission rate dropped a considerable 3.4 percentage points from 17.2% in 2010 to 13.8% in 2011.

An increase in this year’s applications also saw an increase in average SAT scores.  While last year’s class averaged a 700 critical reading and 710 math, the 2011 admitted students have a slightly higher average of 710 critical reading and 720 math.  However, Admissions expects the final yield to match last year’s scores.

Admissions Outlook

“A lot of applicants who may have been admitted in another year, just weren’t this year,” explains Miller. As our national and global presence continues to grow, Miller notes that he “doesn’t see the level of interest leveling off anytime soon.” The increase in applications and competitiveness suggests that not only more students but also more high-achieving students are considering CMC for their college experience.

“The caliber of students is continuing to get better,” said Miller, noting that the incoming freshman are “smarter and more talented than before.”  Put simply, explains Miller, “CMC is in an enviable position.”

For accuracy’s sake, the Office of Admissions prefers not to give any more specifics on the demographics and make up of the incoming freshman class until students are committed.  Expect to see these details soon on the Forum.

The Thesis Party, celebrated by seniors where freshmen are first initiated, has evolved dramatically over the years.

Claremont McKenna’s Dean of Students Office will allow ASCMC to resume registering Thursday night parties this week, after an incident in early September led to heated backroom politicking between the two organizations.

The exchange, which at one point led to a walkout by ASCMC officials, marked a climax in a conflict over alcohol that addresses both realities and perceptions of CMC’s social life.

Student government officials see a change in social culture being imposed by the administration, after the cancellation and suspension of a string of traditional events on campus. The Dean of Students Office (DOS), in contrast, sees a line that has been crossed, a reputation being tarnished and a student body increasingly putting itself in danger.

After three kegs were found at the first Thursday Night Club (TNC) of the year – two more than allowed by college policy – DOS expected “negative ramifications” from the student body once informed of another suspension notice.

“We now have no trust in ASCMC and all the promises they have made us,” one DOS official wrote in an e-mail to staff members.

ASCMC President Tammy Phan echoed the mood.

“I think there’s a deeper meaning behind every action they’ve taken,” she said. “I think ASCMC needs to be very cautious about what DOS is doing.”

Dean of Students Mary Spellman, the subject of much controversy surrounding alcohol policy review over the past several months, reiterated the e-mail’s claim in softer terms.

“The voices that are heard – and the voices that ASCMC caters to, in many ways – are the students that choose to drink,” Spellman said. “You will very rarely hear a group of students stand up publicly on the Forum, or any other forum, and say no. And the college has to serve all students.”

The Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) at UCLA reported in 2009 that 91% of Claremont McKenna students drink beer on a frequent or occasional basis, while 95% report drinking wine or liquor with the same frequency.

CMC’s figures are markedly higher than comparable institutions, UCLA’s report showed, such as Middlebury, Dartmouth and Harvey Mudd.

What students now perceive is an administration hostile to these reports and the publicity that comes with them, such as our presence on Princeton Review’s “Most Beer” list or the Daily Beast’s “Happiest College in America” ranking. With the alteration of TNC and Dry Week, drama around the Thesis Party, and the cancellation of Madrigal – all major events surrounding alcohol – deep suspicion has begun to take root within the CMC community over what the DOS Office intends.

The decision to hire Mary Spellman as Dean of Students last January, on face value, seemed to confirm those suspicions.

THE SPELLMAN HIRE

“Let me take a step back,” Spellman told the Forum. “When I first got here, I did not come with a mandate or an expectation that I would look at alcohol. That was never part of the conversation.”

At the time of Spellman’s arrival, a conservative student blog linked to a report from the Sadie Lou Standard that implied otherwise.

“Responsible, periodic, socially-endorsed drinking seems to be a concept that completely eludes Mary” at Sarah Lawrence, the anonymous student author wrote, claiming Spellman had succeeded at “putting students on the defensive for events.”

Many students made the assumption that Vice President of Student Affairs Jefferson Huang, in charge of the search, was hiring Spellman based on this record.

While Spellman said she stands by her record at Sarah Lawrence, she asserts that the article was skewed. “The particular event in question was a pumpkin carving in the middle of the quad in the early evening,” she noted. “It didn’t necessarily seem appropriate for the event.”

For his part, Huang is deeply displeased with what he sees as the “vilification” of Spellman, who was “absolutely not” hired for her past work on college alcohol policy. “I think she’s been unfairly scapegoated,” he said. “I’d like to think that my word is worth something, and I’m saying I did not hire her to go out there and be the alcohol czar.”

He added: “I have several times asked her, ‘should I be out in front of this?’ And she has said, ‘I’m the Dean of Students, I need to do these things.’”

Spellman does admit to her involvement in the review of alcohol policy at Sarah Lawrence, and even says her “legacy” may very well be a policy that is “perceived as being more stringent.” The college had previously no standard protocol for handling case-by-case drinking indiscretions, and she sat on a committee to organize such a protocol. And while she didn’t chair it, she was responsible for making sure the committee came together – and that it accomplished its aims.

TARGETING THURSDAYS

Whether or not Spellman was brought in for this specific purpose, alcohol policy review was a clear priority to DOS before her arrival, and has been ever since.

In 2009, an Alcohol Task Force was commissioned by Dean Huang to review the state and success of the current college policy.

CMC's "red cup" policy is unique amongst its peers.

Among over two dozen suggestions, the task force recommended the reduction of high-risk drinking be designated an “institutional priority by all groups” at the school; a reevaluation of Dry Week dates, which occurred; more Friday class offerings; and a thorough evaluation of the “Hall Monitor” model of residential living.

The Thursday party “phenomenon” was the target of many of the report’s recommendations.

Last year, a record low number of Friday classes were offered – only 4.3% of all classes at the school – partly due to professorial interest in expanded research hours.

“I don’t know if it’s the college policy to diminish Thursdays,” Spellman said. “But it’s not meant to be a party night. And it is concerning to me that more and more students consider their academic week as shorter.”

In recent years, ASCMC has hosted Thursday Night Clubs throughout the campus, often centered around North Quad dorms. The parties in these facilities have proven difficult to control because of their porous structure, and guests, from both CMC and other Claremont Colleges, frequently “front-load” alcohol before the party in the privacy of their own rooms.

One answer to the front-loading, “pre-game” problem is a hall monitor system, where resident assistants are given stricter directives from deans to enforce policy within student rooms.

Dean Huang says such a policy shift is “on the table for consideration,” noting that, in the past, the sanctity of the room has almost always been protected.

“I suppose we could go there,” he said. “I didn’t want to go there, and I don’t think our students want us to. But we don’t generally go looking for problems unless they present themselves to us.”

The combination of enforcement difficulties, DOS officials say, creates a daunting threat to the safety of students on a regular basis. And for the few that don’t participate, it causes notable disturbance.

“We get a fair number of complaints, but they’re usually pretty quiet,” Spellman said. “Those are the students that either suffer in silence, which a lot do, or they don’t want to be known as the person that’s complaining because its not popular. The popular sentiment is that Thursday night is our party night, and that CMC throws great parties.”

She added: “You may want a CMC education, but you may not want the CMC party culture.”

A ‘PARTY’ REPUTATION

There is no reasonable evidence to believe the administration has a clear, set plan – or a “conspiracy,” as Dean Huang called it – to crack down on alcohol. But there is certainly concern amongst its officials over the direction that drinking is pushing the school’s image.

“The college wouldn’t be doing its job if we didn’t talk about the things that impact students coming here,” Spellman asserted.

Spellman agrees that it is not about a shortage of applicants, with CMC accepting just 15% of students who apply. “But do you want that reputation to be attached to your degree?” she asked rhetorically. “It’s not just a reputational issue and us wanting to be perceived as the best; it’s what it says about you, and the experience you had, and the degree.”

“It’s reputational in that aspect, and in a very powerful way,” she continues. “It snowballs. That’s how schools get reputations.”

Other members of the administration blame various articles and rankings on the Internet for promoting the party image, which, to some, appears mutually exclusive with academic rigor.

“I don’t want us compared to a lot of schools we’re often compared to on the party list, because I don’t think they’re very good academic schools,” Huang asserted. “I think it discredits the institution to do that.”

Asked whether CMC could be called a party school today, Huang replied: “We’re creeping into that zone. I worry about that.”

The admissions office has been challenged most directly by the reputation question, and its dean, Richard Vos, has expressed concern. Over the past year, overnight stays offered to prospective students on Thursday nights have been cancelled, and some of the best candidates, he told the Forum, have cited the college’s drinking culture as the reason they chose to enroll elsewhere.

“For the past few years Jeff Huang, Pamela Gann, and I have been talking about the effect on CMC’s admission program as a result of the negative perception,” Vos said. “We have evidence that the perception that CMC has a strong drinking culture has hurt our admission efforts.”

It brings up a question prospective applicants ask themselves frequently: is it possible to have it all?

CMC students clearly think they can. When ranked the happiest college in the country last year, students prided themselves on their ability to balance work and play by citing the ranking’s methodology, which compiled a mix of data from both U.S. News and College Prowler guidebooks.

“Students here are treated like adults,” Phan stated. “Part of our education is learning how to socialize and network in the real world, and the real world includes alcohol.”

Huang, on the other hand, had mixed feelings on the ranking. “You know, I’d rather be two or three,” he said. “One is a tough place to be.”

CIRP at UCLA found that 58% of Claremont McKenna students partied 3-10 hours a week, versus comparable schools, where the number stood at 40%.

Acknowledging the worry, Dorm Activities Chair Alexander Reichert, who coordinates Thursday night events, rejected the notion as paranoia at best, derision at worst.

“Some say that Dartmouth has a party school reputation, but nobody compares Dartmouth to ASU,” Reichert stated. “We’re absolutely not a party school. Labeling us as one not only insults the faculty and the alumni. It insults the students, who continue to demonstrate success in whatever field they choose to pursue.”

Nevertheless, the worry is growing. And it may explain why parties, as students have lived them, are changing in tone and frequency.

“I want it to be the place where students are incredibly talented, and gifted, and hardworking, and they also happen to throw some kick-ass parties,” Spellman added. “That’s very different than being a party school.”

WHAT ABOUT TRADITION?

Forum editions from 1983 and 1993 give a history to the College's relationship with alcohol.

To ASCMC, the core issue is really what is at stake beyond the day-to-day drink: the tradition of CMC students being able to just enjoy it.

That tradition has manifested in various forms over the years, from day parties on Green Beach to Keg Thursdays in North Quad.

Students argue that they chose this school in part for such freedoms, and that a college’s alcohol policy is a barometer for how much it trusts its students.

But that position assumes the student culture has historically been constant, that traditions at the college have had long lives, and that parties today are of similar scale to parties thrown twenty years ago. And that does not appear to be the case.

Jim Nauls, the Assistant Dean of Students who has been with the college for seventeen years, remembers a period when parties had a dozen kegs, a period when parties charged students entry, and another period when bartenders were hired for every event.

“It’s constantly evolving,” Nauls said. “It tends to reach this peak every three or four years, when new students come in and the old ones leave, and people tend to forget how things were.”

Huang, who has been with the college as long as Nauls, shared similar sentiments.

“I can remember a time when the Senior Thesis Party was a champagne toast. Then I remember the time when the speakers came out. Then I remember when faculty started complaining about the music. Then I remember, just recently, a student had her laptop damaged and, just this past spring, someone was injured by broken glass.”

Since the college officially went co-ed in the mid-70s, the nature of its traditions has changed. Few have stuck. With the changeover in students every few years, a mental relapse occurs, and traditions, first crystallizing, never fully form.

But ASCMC, to its credit, has made efforts to change that.

“The registrar’s office used to give out champagne to every senior who turned in their thesis, which led to the fountain party,” Phan added. “They stopped doing that. ASCMC stepped in to foot the bill. And Madrigals never started with ASCMC, but with the threat of losing it, Brad Walters revived it when he was president. And we’re doing the same thing now.”

“We try to preserve the culture here,” she continued, “as we know it.”

So whether change is due to student actions or wobbly policy is up for debate. But as a result, what exists of CMC traditions has succumbed to the ebb and flow of our drinks and our tolerance for it all.

Dear CMC Freshmen:

For most of you, choosing a college represented the biggest decision of your life. Take heart – you chose very well! Now the challenge is to make the most of your time at CMC. Here’s my advice:

Stay humble. You got into CMC, so you’re pretty great. Congratulations! Now get over yourself. If you don’t want getting into CMC to be the highlight of your life, you’ve got work to do. Speaking of humility: Everyone is wrong about something. What’s tricky is that you don’t yet know what you’re wrong about. When you find yourself in a heated argument, have fun with it and state your case, but remember that you might just learn something from the other person.

Four years is a long time…that will go by very quickly. In the words of the great John Wooden, “Be quick, but don’t hurry.” The ambitious side of you wants to start accomplishing things today. But before you worry about résumé-building, give yourself some time to settle in and figure out what you really want out of college. At the same time, remember that you have a finite amount of time at CMC, so use it well. Set goals every semester so you can stay focused on your priorities. Invest your time in people who inspire you and whom you admire – they are CMC’s greatest, and longest-lasting, resource. Most of all, be thankful for this opportunity and remember how fortunate you are to be here.

Work hard, play hard. More importantly, define those terms yourself. Working hard doesn’t have to mean four years of sleep-deprivation. Playing hard doesn’t have to involve massive quantities of cheap beer. And don’t worry, however you choose to work and play at CMC, you won’t be alone.

Don’t be intimidated by professors. CMC professors want to interact with students – that’s why they teach at CMC. Find opportunities to interact with them. It’s really not hard to find those opportunities at CMC and, honestly, I’m not sure CMC is worth the cost if you don’t take advantage of the access you have to professors.

Ask for help. CMC’s faculty, staff, and administration care about you and want you to succeed. CMCers are the happiest college students in the country, but even the happiest of us go through tough times. Don’t isolate yourself when you need help. Related: As great as CMC is, all CMCers can think of something they would change about our college. You are fortunate to be at a school that is remarkably responsive to student concerns, so if you think something at CMC could be better, make your voice heard.

Go to the Ath. As much as you can.

Appreciate CMC’s amazing staff. Your character has a lot to do with how you treat those who serve you. Learn the names of your building attendants. Smile when you get your food in Collins. Pick up after parties – nobody should have to clean up your mess. If you can’t be decent to the people you interact with every day, you just might fail at life.

Don’t sell your soul for anything… …especially not a keg and an internship. (Though it does make for a catchy t-shirt). Seriously, though. College is perhaps the best time to wrestle with questions about identity, purpose, and value, about who you are, who you want to be, and what you believe. Your answers to those questions won’t do much for your résumé, but they can nurture your soul, provide peace of mind, and give you a sense of direction in life.

You were admitted for a reason. No matter how confident CMCers are, most of us at some point wonder whether we have what it takes to succeed at CMC. You will experience failure here. You will feel overwhelmed. You will look at the successes of your peers and feel like you are falling behind. And you may start to question whether you really deserved to be admitted when so many outstanding applicants got a thin envelope from CMC. Well, on behalf of the Admission Office, let me say this: We admitted you for a reason. You belong at CMC. Don’t ever forget that.

Students at California public universities are suffering from the state's cash shortage, but could CMC use this opportunity to attract stronger students?

To make a long story short, the statehouse is bogged with institutional and political obstacles that make it nearly impossible to pass a functional budget on time. Chief among them is the requirement for a two-thirds majority in both houses to pass a budget.  This gives the usually powerless Republican minority a powerful check over the just shy of two-thirds Democrat majority.  The budget process is often Republicans’ only opportunity to significantly contribute to state legislation.  Instead of compromising and meeting the statutory deadline, the two sides gridlock and force executive agencies to rely on temporary stopgap measures, such as employee furloughs, so the state doesn’t run out of cash.

One of these “solutions” has been to dramatically slash the budgets of California’s state universities.. In order to accommodate losses in federal funding, the CSU system accepted 30,000 fewer students than last year this fall, according to Robert Turnage of the CSU’s Board of Trustees.  The UC Board of Regents recently decided to accept 2,300 fewer students. At many state schools, canceled classes and shrinking faculties are making it difficult for students to get the credits they need to graduate on time.

Ironically, what’s bad for California’s public universities might not be so bad for Claremont McKenna. Because CMC primarily obtains its funding from tuition and its generous alumni base, budget cuts at the state level have had a limited impact on its endowment. Plus, as large state schools take fewer students each year, the applicant pool to CMC increases. Last year, the administration received the second largest number of applications in the history of the college, surpassed only by the year before.  There’s also evidence that Californian students may be choosing CMC over local public competitors UC Berkeley and UCLA, among others. Associate Dean of Admission Adam Miller told the Forum, “fluctuations in yield are important to note.  CMC’s yield on students from California who were offered admission went up by about 10% this past spring. That is a big one-year increase.”  However, Miller cautions readers not to jump to conclusions, as “establishing causality in these situations is difficult” and there may be other influencing factors.

If interest in CMC is increasing in part because public universities continue to lose funding, we are certainly not alone.  As the Fresno Bee reports, many other California private colleges have seen similar increases in enrollment figures over the past two years, likely as a result of students choosing private options over state schools in response to devastating budget cuts.  Some see it as an opportunity for advancement.  As Jonathan Brown of the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities explained to the LA Times, “There is a mix of real concern for our friends in the public sector and a recognition that this is a time when we ought to be looking strategically at what we can do.”

An increased number of applicants and attendees offers real benefits to CMC. A larger applicant pool results in more competition and a stronger freshman class, while a larger yield rate, at least in California, indicates that more of those excellent students admitted by the administration will actually attend.

California’s budget crisis is certainly not good overall for anyone, especially not students who hope there might be some jobs left when they graduate from college. Still, the predicament facing California’s institutes of higher education presents CMC with an interesting opportunity to strengthen an already phenomenal student body.

__________________________________

Early Decision, Regular Decision & Yield

“We accepted 110 early decision students, and we want 190 regular decision students.”

Just over 17% of applicants were accepted by CMC for the Class of 2014. The admissions rate has fluctuated between 15-19% in recent years.

Composition of Class

“The people we admitted are really strong, and very diverse geographically. There are more international students than we’ve had before. More applied, and more were admitted. I think that goes along nicely with the college’s recent globalization efforts.”

The admitted group of 732 students looks like this:

• 385 women (53%)
• 347 men (47%)

• 168 Asians/Pacific Islanders (23%)
• 98 Latinos (13%)
• 62 African-Americans (8%)

• 263 California (36%)
• 120 non-US (16%) — the most represented countries are India, China, United Kingdom, Jordan, Singapore, Canada and the Philippines
• 41 Washington (6%)
• 30 Texas (4%)
• 26 Colorado (4%)
• 21 Arizona (3%)
• 20 Massachusetts (3%)
• 40 other states which have between 1 and 18 students

SAT Scores & Acceptance Rate

“The range is more important than the average. It’s at least as strong as last year’s freshman class. 4,264 applied for Early Decision or Regular Decision freshman admission, and the acceptance rate was 17.2%.  We’ve received 288 transfer applications, and will begin reading them next week.   We expect to notify transfer applicants around May 14th.”

Admissions Outlook

“We’ve accepted roughly the same amount of people from California, but state budget cuts to the UC system may change the landscape with regards to enrollment. Fewer may choose the UCs now and may choose Claremont McKenna, Stanford or Occidental. Our worries about how the economy would change the class last year were unfounded – they were legitimate, but it turned out fine. Families still wanted to send their kids to great schools.”