Excluding interviews with the Forum and the Claremont Port Side, the ASCMC Senate meeting was the first time members of the administration spoke directly with students since the discovery of manipulated data was made public last week. During the meeting, Benavidez noted that President Pamela Gann, “said that she will meet with the students at an upcoming occasion.”

The Bauer Forum was unusually packed with nearly 150 students in attendance, eager to hear the administration speak publicly on recent events and offer answers to the many unanswered questions raised by the SAT scandal and Dean Vos’ resignation.

Photo Credit: Kelsey Brown

The meeting began with a motion from representatives of the Claremont Port Side to allow for recording and live-streaming of the event. Following an extensive discussion and vote, the senate body decided to bar video and audio recording from the room, much to the dismay of some attendees.

The discussion opened with an address by Dean Huang in which he explained, “We’re here tonight to listen to your concerns… We want to talk about moving forward as well.” He went on to summarize the events of the past two weeks, and tried to reassure students that the situation was under control. “We’ve pledged to strengthen our interior controls over the data,” he explained. He also argued that the impact of the scandal on current students would be minimal, especially for their employment opportunities. “One company … actually did call and said that they had heard about this, and that they were staying with us, saying ‘CMC students are still of incredible talent.’”

Following Dean Huang’s address, DeVeres and Sandoval-Dancs fielded questions from the students, while Benavidez offered help when necessary.

Students were quick to voice their concern for the potential ramifications of Vos’ misconduct. Daniel Shane (CMC ’13) asked how Early Decision applicants were responding to the recent news. DeVeres responded that none had yet asked to withdraw from enrollment because of the debacle.

When asked how the administration would prevent similar problems in the future, DeVeres declared firmly that “all admissions data has been audited” and that, “we’re going to be swiftly putting controls in place” to decrease the likelihood of a repeat offense. Benavidez seemed hopeful for the future when he declared, “We are in the middle of a PR challenge, but we are withstanding it because CMC has a strong foundation”

When asked what kind of pressure, if any, was placed on the administration to strengthen CMC’s performance in national rankings, Sandoval-Dancs claimed, “I can’t say I’ve ever interpreted anything as pressure … to me it was just about momentum and feeling good and knowing you can set goals and you can reach them” but that, “it was always be very clear, you know, be realistic.”

Photo Credit: Kelsey Brown

The officials also discussed the impact of recent events on themselves personally. Dean Huang in particular noted that, “I will forever be changed by this.” He hoped that students could also learn something from the affair, and implored the audience to, “be honest and forthright with the people you work with.”

Students later offered their responses to the discussion. Aditya Pai (CMC’13), who leads the Senate as ASCMC’s Vice President, said, “My expectation was that students would ask constructive, pointed questions and that administrators would answer those questions honestly and openly to the best of their knowledge. I think that expectation was met.”

Others were less satisfied. Tyler McBrien (CMC’14) noted that, “The voice of Dick Vos remains notably absent,” and summarized the night as “Too many questions. Not enough answers.” Talia Segal (CMC’15) agreed, saying “I thought there were too many ‘I don’t knows.’”

Sam Stone (CMC’14) was more critical. He explained, “I was not satisfied. I was, in fact, a little bit insulted because, number one, they spent a lot of time talking about how nice it was for them to take time out of their day to come and talk to us, and that’s their job … The only thing I got from today was that these people didn’t have answers.”

Carly Lenderts (CMC’14) added “I felt like they were trying to pacify us … the answers were dry and a little bit prepared.” She added that, “On a personal level, I don’t really believe it was just Dean Vos. I just don’t think that institutions work this way. You can’t tell us that every application gets two reads but the SAT scores are only dealt with by one person. That doesn’t really make sense to me.”

The CMC administration has made an initial attempt to reach out to students who are hungry for answers. Unfortunately, the general feeling of attendees seemed to be one of dissatisfaction. Many feel that the administration has yet to own up to their mistakes and engage the student body in a thorough, honest discussion regarding the manipulation of admissions data by the Office of Admissions. Hopefully, the administration will better involve students in the process of moving past this ordeal and work harder to resolve lingering questions.

Nathan Falk ’14 contributed reporting.

The misconduct of the senior administration official is both upsetting and novel in its character, but it is not entirely unprecedented. CMC isn’t the first school to try to cheat the system. The recent transgressions on the part of the administration fit in to a wider trend of schools bending to a tremendous pressure to rise in the rankings.

In a New York Times article, Richard Perez-Peña pointed to a number of other schools involved in similar scandals. Last year, Iona College of New Rochelle, New York admitted to lying about “graduation rates, freshman retention, student-faculty ratio, acceptance rates and alumni giving.”  Similar incidences were reported at both Villanova University and the University of Illinois. Even the United States Naval Academy has been accused of playing with their admissions figures. CMC may be the current focus of collegiate dishonesty charges, but there exists a clear problem in the industry.

Other schools hope to improve their rankings through more legitimate, yet decidedly underhanded tactics.  The Los Angeles Times discussed a few of these common tactics in a Wednesday editorial. Some schools, it explained, allow students to opt-out of releasing their SAT scores. One school, Baylor University, offered monetary incentives to retake the SAT after their acceptance in hopes that they might score better. We’ve seen CMC shape its policies around rank performance before: just ask any student who has been unable to join a class capped at nineteen students. In its evaluation, U.S News and World Report uses the number of classes with 1-19 students as a measurement of ”Faculty Resources” at different colleges and universities.

Rankings and statistics are often the standard by which prospective students compare colleges and the metric by which colleges judge their performance. It can be easy to get caught up in the numbers but, as the LA Times emphasized in their article, “Colleges and public schools are under pressure to look good, which means they must also ramp up efforts to ensure that’s done ethically.” We are talking about two big problems here.  First, it is essential that the higher education industry recognizes and addresses the existence of an unhealthy pressure for schools to try to game the rankings.  More importantly, CMC, and other schools like it, must put in place mechanisms to ensure that wrongful manipulation of data cannot happen again.

If there was any question that these shadowy strategies to boost one’s rankings simply aren’t worth it, CMC’s misconduct has already led to its removal from Kiplinger’s Best Values in Private Colleges list from the 2011-2012 year.  CMC had been ranked 18th on the list, a fantastic selling point for the school, but now its removal serves as a ringing condemnation rather than a sign of merit.

Let’s not forget, rankings matter, and in many ways the school has benefited from its increasing renown, including its impressive admission statistics. But it is clear that the higher education industry, including CMC’s administration, has developed an unhealthy fixation, and it is starting to hurt the students who should be its actual focus.

On campus, the Forum broke the news of President Gann’s email concerning the fudged reports and compared a google cache of the Office of Admission webpage to its current page, and later highlighted former Dean Vos’ resignation. On Wednesday afternoon, the Forum publicized an official statement from CMC’s student government, ASCMC. Nationally, The New York Times and The LA Times were among those to first pick up the story, offering background on the events of the incident, including the score falsification, Richard Vos’ resignation, President Gann’s email to students, and the move to hire a law firm to investigate the matter more fully.

Photo Courtesy of CNN

A variety of reports have concluded that the college’s rankings will only be mildly affected, if at all.  CNN reported that according to U.S. News and World Report, SAT scores “account for about 7.5% of a school’s total score in the formula.”  In an interview with NPR, Robert Morse, the director of data research for U.S. News, speculated that while the score change wouldn’t have dire effects on the college’s ranking, it could likely drop out of the top ten.

USA TODAY interviewed Robert Franek, the senior vice president of publishing for The Princeton Review who stated that “he had never heard of a college intentionally reporting incorrect data.” However, Franek also told the Forum that he didn’t believe the score inflation would make a real difference in CMC’s standing with the Princeton Review, as their reviews are based entirely on student opinion.

Rankings aside, the Claremont Port Side conducted an in-depth investigation into how much the scores had been altered to create an upward trend in scoring. Reporter Jeremy B. Merrill ’12 published graphs which reveal critical reading scores were inflated by “an average of more than 17 points,” suggesting the score manipulation was more drastic than President Gann had originally suggested. Merrill reported an elevated mean during the past years to cover up a dip in scores and the fact that, “the freshmen admitted in 2011 — the class of 2015 — had mean Critical Reading scores that were the lowest since the class admitted in 2007.”

TIME magazine’s online newsfeed was sympathetic to CMC and criticized the rankings system for putting undue pressure on colleges to present a flawless face.  The Chronicle of Higher Education also reported on the competitive world of admissions and gave examples of several colleges in similar circumstances.  The article concluded by reaffirming, “We also maintain the belief that the system is fair and honest, and try to head off the cynicism that our families could easily adopt by viewing college admission as a rigged game of numbers and self-interest.”

As for the man responsible, The New York Times also confirmed that it was in fact Richard C. Vos the former Vice President and Dean of Admission and quoted him as saying, “No comment. It’s an internal personnel matter.”

The New York Times Education Section spent time on campus for an article entitled “Students at Claremont McKenna More Worried About Reputation Than Rankings” interviewing students who generally agreed that although the score adjustment was regrettable, it did not reflect negatively on their fellow students. Most students echoed senior Blake Bennett’s sentiment, “It’s still a great school. I just wish this wasn’t why it was getting headlines.”

ABC News reported on campus in front of the Kravis Center, gathering footage of sweatshirt-clad CMC students as a background to its report on the recent controversy.  More recently, ABC News reported that a spokesman for CMC, Associate Vice President for Public Affairs, Communications and Marketing, Max Benavidez, stated “We’re not hiding anything,” he said. “We’re the ones volunteering to tell people what took place and what we’re doing to fix it.”  The report also quoted Aditya Pai ’11, ASCMC Vice President, as saying, “[Vos’s] actions do not reflect the strength of our community, the excellence of our education, or the caliber of our people.”

Students continued to ask for answers as Nathan Falk ’14 called for a further explanation from the administration. “Only shedding light on the issue will bring us closure,” Falk said in his Forum op-ed.

In a positive take on recent events, Caroline Nyce ’13 defended her college and its community in another Forum op-ed published Wednesday morning. Nyce wrote, “The CMC they’re writing about? That’s not my school.”

It is on the front page of the Education section of the New York Times. Publications like USA TODAY, CNN, the Wall Street Journal, TIME, Bloomberg, ABC, and countless others are all writing about us. Finally, people all over the country are talking about that “small, selective liberal arts college in California.”

Credit: hhsprincipalsoffice.wordpress.com

This is definitely not how I pictured it would happen.

Students and professors are shaking their heads in disgust, and Pomona students are preparing “S-A-T” chants for the next basketball game.

I am the first one to tell you that rankings matter. You may, in fact, recall the Forum article I wrote last fall in which I argued that CMC’s rise in the national rankings changed people’s perception about the school. Claremont’s ascension into the ‘elite’ tier of liberal arts colleges convinced many students who would have otherwise gone elsewhere to choose CMC. Perhaps you are one of them.

So, yes, rankings do matter.

Do they matter too much? What could drive a “senior administrator” to adjust already-great scores? There are many unknowns here, but one thing is absolutely clear: there’s no excuse for cheating. Period.

No increase in applications, donations, or rankings could possibly justify risking CMC’s reputation. Nothing can justify fudging the numbers at any time. The fact that the admissions office apparently did it for six years straight is truly disturbing.

Claremont McKenna prides itself as an institution that educates leaders. CMC graduates often go on to run for public office or lead successful businesses. Teaching ethical conduct, no matter the circumstances or competition, is one of the most important lessons a school can teach.

The blame game has already started. Former Dean of Admissions Richard C. Vos is no longer employed by CMC. Honestly, I don’t know who is responsible. Instead of calling for scapegoats, however, I am calling for answers.

The administration owes the Claremont community a further explanation.

Where is the transparency after-the-fact? The news broke after one vague email to the student body, and after 36 hours, the Office of Public Affairs has not released any more information except that the Dean of Admissions has been replaced. Trying to close the book on the issue with an email saying we caught the bad guy and hired lawyers won’t suffice. I understand that there may be legal reasons certain details cannot be revealed, but some very general questions need to be answered before we can move on.

I want to know how these discrepancies came to light. Why now? The administration apparently found out about this in January. Does that mean January 1st? Does that mean Monday morning? Does the timing of this incident just happen to be after applications have been turned in? Was there internal or external pressure to climb the rankings? Were there cutoffs the admissions department were told to meet? Were there incentives in place that may have motivated the individual to manipulate the scores? Most of all, I would like to know how this could have happened – for six years – without anyone else knowing about it at a college that is built on leadership, accountability, and integrity.

The fact that President Gann publicized this information is an important first step. This could have been swept under the rug completely, but it wasn’t. An official from Public Affairs has agreed to address the Student Senate next week. That is a crucial next step.

We need more information. We need to have an open discussion about what happened and how we can move forward from here. The best way to get past this is to understand it and learn from it. Transparency is the only way to end the speculation and conspiracy theories. Only shedding light on the issue will bring us closure.

Is this the end of CMC as we know it? No. Will future employers look at recent grads any differently? Probably not. But will CMC’s reputation be stained indefinitely? Maybe.

Current, future, and past students had nothing to do with this incident, but we now have to pay the price.

The pride that I have in my peers and professors at Claremont McKenna remains unchanged. My professors are no less brilliant, and my peers are no less amazing. The spectacular experience that I have had here as a student cannot ever be taken away from me. My future degree is not any less meaningful to me than it was on Sunday.

But we need information. We need answers.

We need to talk openly about this, because this matters. Yes, rankings matter. Ethics, however, matter more.

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.

Former Vice President & Dean of Admission and Financial Aid Richard ‘Dick’ Vos resigned on Monday following the news of an SAT reporting scandal, in which a senior administrator at the college’s Office of Admission confessed to fudging the school’s SAT scores since 2005. Though the admissions administrator has yet to be named by the college, Max Benavidez, the Vice President of Public Affairs, Communications, and Marketing, has confirmed that the person responsible has resigned.

Georgette DeVeres, Photo Credit: CMC Public Affairs and Communications

Ms. DeVeres, a member of the college’s Senior Staff at the Office of the President, has worked at CMC since 1983. She has served nine years as a Trustee of the College Board and two years as the chairperson of its Board of Trustees. Ms. DeVeres currently serves on the Reauthorization Task Force of the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators (NASFAA), an organization responsible for ‘reauthorizing’ financial assistance funds granted to major federal student aid programs by the Higher Education Act of 1965.

In 2005, Ms. DeVeres was featured in the Spring issue of CMC Magazine and discussed her career as director of Financial Aid at CMC and her work with the College Board, including the change in the SAT format earlier that year. The new test added an essay component to the critical reading and math sections of the exam, bringing the highest possible combined score of 1600 to 2400.

The article mentions former Dean of Admission Richard Vos’ praise for Ms. DeVeres, citing Ms. DeVeres as having “the knack for inspiring confidence in the people around her, as well as an ability to bring out the best in those who work with her.”

Linda Clement, vice president for student affairs at the University of Maryland and past College Board chair, also praises Ms. DeVeres in the 2005 article, noting, “All of the College Board Trustees have enormous respect for Georgette.”

Clement goes on to say that Ms. DeVeres “brings to the task tremendous experience, an outstanding level of commitment to students and their families, and an understanding of complex political issues.”

The email announcement from President Gann regarding Ms. Deveres has been reproduced below. Check back with the Forum for continuing coverage of the SAT scandal and the resignation of Richard Vos.

Dear CMC Community,

I am pleased to announce that effective today Georgette DeVeres, Associate Vice President for Admission and Financial Aid, will become the interim head of the College’s Admission and Financial Aid Office. She has worked at Claremont McKenna College since 1983, and is a member of my senior staff. Georgette is well-respected and nationally known within the admission and financial aid professions. She served nine years as a Trustee of the College Board, and served two years as the chairperson of its Board of Trustees.  Georgette received a Distinguished Leadership Award from the Western Region of the College Board. Presently, she serves on the Reauthorization Task Force of the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators. Georgette is an honorary member of the CMC Alumni Association, in recognition of her many years of service to the College. I look forward to continuing our work together.

Sincerely,
Pamela B. Gann, President

A graduate of Middlebury College, Vos felt similar to most recent college graduates. “I wasn’t quite sure where I wanted to go professionally,” says Vos. Remarking on his experience as a student Resident Assistant, however, triggered what Vos calls his “Aha!” moment, and he quickly realized his passion for Student Affairs. Vos went on to become a Hall Director at Middlebury, where he oversaw a set of residence halls on campus and supervised RAs. After two years, he continued on to Northwestern University for a Masters in Higher Education Administration. Vos then moved to Iowa for a “Masters-level hall director” position at Grinnell College. After tying the knot with his long-time girlfriend last summer, Vos moved back east to Vermont where he was a counselor at an alternative therapeutic school for at-risk teens.

Photo Credit: Eric Vos

About five years ago, Vos reached out to Dean Jeff Huang, Vice President for Student Affairs at CMC,  for career and graduate school advice while visiting his family in Claremont. “We struck up a relationship,” says Vos and when the Assistant Dean of Students position became available last spring, Huang contacted Vos to gauge his interest in the role. After applying and interviewing, Vos was offered the job and he accepted it.

When asked what attracted him most to this work, Vos said he felt most excited about “the opportunity to build really deep relationships with people at such a critical period in their lives.” As an RA, Vos says he felt a strong connection with college students as he was able to be part of “the good, the bad, and sometimes the ugly” of their undergraduate experience. “There’s kind of an excitement and an allure with the unexpected reality that is working with college students,” says Vos. “It’s not cookie cutter work.”

His work at CMC certainly won’t be. As Assistant Dean of Students, Vos oversees everything that happens in the residence halls from a student living perspective and supervises the RAs. With this year’s housing crunch already up for discussion, Vos will have a lot on his plate. Over the summer, Fawcett and Auen study lounges were converted into two female quads in order to make space for the overwhelming number of freshmen and returning students, thus denying the CMC community of two public study spaces in South Quad. Vos has already made plans to discuss the resulting lack of open study spaces on campus, which he calls “concerning.” Vos also hopes to convene the CMC Housing Committee and use the group as a resource for student feedback on a number of issues, including gender-neutral housing.

In his first year, though, Vos wants to focus on building strong relationships with the RA team as well as the rest of the student community. “I’m trying to take this year to observe and get to know what works well and find out what students think needs improvement,” says Vos. He is hoping to maintain an “open door policy” with CMC students and be a visible presence at student events on campus.

Most of all, Vos, or “Dean Eric” as he prefers, is just plain excited for his new gig. “In a way, there’s kind of this added motivation for me to give back a little to the institution that was always so great to me and my family growing up,” says Vos. “CMC has always been very near and dear to my heart.” We believe you.

Tough Road: Admission to CMC has become extraordinarily selective, particularly for Californians.

The acceptance rate to Claremont McKenna is projected to hit a record low of 13-14% in 2011, with 4,453 high school students submitting applications to join the Class of 2015.

A preliminary overview of the applicant pool by the admissions committee showed trends continuing from last year, including an increase in the number of international students applying, as well as an increase in applicants from California— likely due to growing concerns with recent budget cuts to the University of California system.

Despite these concerns, top-ranked UCs have reported an increase in applications as well. But the drop for CMC will be a particularly dramatic one, as the College has witnessed an acceptance rate fluctuating between 16-19% since the recession began in 2007.

This building used to serve as CMC's Admissions Office, back in the day when its acceptance rate was a reasonable 19 per cent.

As the state of California tries to grapple with a financial crisis all of its own, institutions of private higher education, with the resources to provide substantial aid, have filled a need. And the admissions office sees only two major weights on the entire West Coast that can compete with the UC system: Stanford and the Claremont Colleges.

Claremont McKenna Dean of Admissions Richard Vos notes that, despite notable advances from Claremont, Stanford is still the 800-pound gorilla in California, a state in which one-eighth of all Americans reside.

Admissions uses that figure to defend the percentage of California locals in the student body, which has held steady at roughly a third for years now.

CMC sends recruiters to East Coast cities for about a month every year, where they go school to school to speak with prospective students. Collectively, they spend more time in the region than in any other.

But nevertheless, admissions has put a huge emphasis on East Coast recruitment, with officers spending more time in the region than anywhere else in the country.

“There’s much more of an appreciation for private higher education on the East Coast,” Vos told the Forum. “Williams doesn’t worry too much about losing people to the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Out here, the UCs are respected, and powerful. And there are very few private schools out here.”

Add to that Claremont McKenna’s youth— it has only had its current name for thirty years— and the admissions office finds it hardly surprising when smaller crowds show up for brochures in Manhattan high schools.

Vos admits that, as in recent years, the acceptance rate for applicants from the East Coast is likely to be higher than the total rate— and that, conversely, the acceptance rate for California students will be lower.

“We want to have geographical diversity, and so, when we’re down to the final throes of the admissions committee process, and we find a student that could go either way, we take the student from Vermont, or Pennsylvania,” Vos said. “We do give a bit of a nod to geography in that case, yes.”

“But often,” Vos added, “mom says, ‘I don’t want you going that far.’”

In a given year, Claremont McKenna will have four people enroll from the Horace Mann School in New York and three from Phillips Academy at Andover. The following year, it may be that neither school will be represented.

But feeder schools don’t really exist for CMC in California, either. In a class of 280 students, most high schools are likely to only have one student a year accepted and enrolled.

Ultimately, the emphasis on East Coast recruitment is about more than geographic diversity. The majority of liberal arts colleges are there, and because of that, some argue that college presidents tend to vote in U.S. News reputational rankings with a regional mindset.

“In that one aspect,” Vos agreed, “East Coast bias, or favoritism, does rear its head.”

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.