Posted by Willy Mac

“No nobler monument could be raised to the great Carolinian than such an institution on the spot where the tradition of his great and beautiful life would be most strongly felt, and where the youthful mind of the State could be trained to take up his work.”

- Thomas Green Clemson

Yesterday we released an article verbatim that was published in the Charleston Post & Courier that has caused quite a bit of controversy not only in the realm of Block-C, but in the whole Clemson community.  It seems that there is a substantial split of ideas.  To preface this article, I’d like to make a few bullet points:

• I’ve met Jim Barker.  He’s a good person.  He’s also a good Clemson person.  I have nothing against him personally.  I just have issue with his direction and possibly his motives.
• It’s not my intentions to blame anyone or put down Clemson.  Everything I say and do, keep in mind that I have Clemson in my best interest.
• I have grown up with respect and love for Clemson since I was old enough to comprehend what Clemson was.  I’m a graduate of Clemson and a South Carolina native born and raised in Simpsonville.
• I will admit to you up front that I have been extremely privileged to be afforded the opportunities in life that have come my way.  I’m damn nearly spoiled and I feel guilty just bringing it up.  With that being said, I don’t think that takes any credibility away when part of my intention is to stick up for those South Carolinians who either can’t afford to go to Clemson with the hiking tuition or weren’t afforded great in-state education but are generally smart people looking to further their education at Clemson.  I’m not talking about the water heads that don’t deserve to get in, I’m talking about bubble kids who bring a lot to the table but get bumped in lieu of a kid that has never heard of Clemson until the application process started.
• What Catherine Watt did was absolutely not right.  She definitely threw Clemson under the bus and it wasn’t her place to say something like this.  I don’t condone what she did in the least, even if it kind of gave me a bittersweet happiness inside.
• If you’re an out-of-stater that stuck around the region after graduating: Good for you.  You’re the exception to the rule in this case.  I know you stuck around.  No need to tell me.
• Against my better judgment, I feel like doing something that I shouldn’t do but I feel that it is necessary at this point in time to do.  I don’t want you to think that some nameless coward is putting this out there.  My name is Will McCameron.  I graduated from Clemson in 2008.  I was there a little longer than I should have been and got a degree that I probably won’t use.  But I was and still am very active in Clemson life, club sports, etc. Don’t facebook me unless you know me.  Also, please don’t find me, kill me, and attempt to wear my skin.
• OOS = Out-of-state

Be warned, this is an essay.  It’s worth reading and thinking about though.  More after the jump.

Continue Reading “THE US NEWS COLLEGE REPORT IS A PAGEANT” »

Posted by Willy Mac

This is a verbatim repost from an article written by Diane Knich of the Charleston Post & Courier.  Thanks to BooArmstrong for alerting us to this in the forums.  My opinion is that finally someone said what a lot of people (including myself) have been saying all along. Clemson is slowly but surely losing the aura that makes it “Clemson”… C-L-E-M-S-O-N might spell the same thing, but soon it might not mean the same thing.

Magazine rankings rule, says official
Published statements ‘outrageous,’ school says
By Diane Knich (Contact)
The Post and Courier
Thursday, June 4, 2009

A Clemson University research official shocked a group of academic researchers at a conference in Atlanta this week when she spoke candidly about how the university deliberately reports data and makes decisions to boost its ranking in U.S. News & World Report.

Popular higher education publications The Chronicle of Higher Education and Inside Higher Ed reported Wednesday that Catherine Watt, director of the Alliance for Research on Higher Education at Clemson, made remarks about how the university focuses much of its attention and resources trying to reach President James Barker’s goal of landing a spot among the magazine’s top 20 public research universities.

It has reduced class size, increased faculty salaries and raised admission standards, which are all factors that could increase rank, the publications reported. They also reported that Watt said when reporting financial information, the university runs “multiple definitions to figure out where we can move things around to make them look best” in the rankings.

In a prepared statement Wednesday, Clemson officials called the published statements “outrageous” and said nobody at the university has engaged in unethical behavior to boost rankings.

Barker in 2001 set the goal to reach the top 20, according to the statement, but the university’s improved ranking is a “by product” of overall improved quality. The university ranked 38th when Barker set the goal. It has since moved up to 22nd.

Watt, Clemson’s former director of institutional research, said she made the remarks in a presentation at the annual forum of the Association for Institutional Research on how Clemson used strategic management techniques to boost its magazine rankings.

She said the point of the presentation was to demonstrate how Clemson set a goal, then put in the resources and effort necessary to accomplish it.

She said that nobody at Clemson has falsified any documents or done anything illegal. The university simply does all it can to earn as high a ranking as possible, she said, and that all universities trying to move up in the rankings use similar strategies.

Personally, she said, she has concerns about the nationwide emphasis on magazine rankings. And because she was among peers, she said, she freely conveyed those concerns in the course of her presentation.

Watt, like a growing number of higher education leaders nationwide, said, “It’s not a secret that I don’t agree with the power we give the magazine rankings.” Such a push could be especially harmful in South Carolina, she said. “I’m concerned that in a poor state, we aren’t doing enough to address the access needs of poor students.”

One of her most controversial comments, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education, was that some Clemson officials purposely rated other schools below average on a reputation survey, presumably so Clemson would be ranked higher. The reputation survey, which is based on ratings from administrators at peer institutions, makes up 25 percent of a school’s score.

Watt said she made the comment only to make the point that institutions don’t have control over the reputation survey, so they should focus their efforts on things they can change. That’s the strategy Clemson embraced and it has worked for the university, she said. She also said that many of the things the university has done to boost its ranking, such as reduce class sizes, actually has benefited students.

The reputation survey, which is completely subjective, was one of the things that pushed Furman University President David Shi to become “disgusted by the mania over rankings.” In 2007, Shi became a strong South Carolina voice opposed to universities’ emphasis on magazine rankings. He was one of about 80 private college presidents nationwide who decided to no longer participate in the ranking process.

Shi said Wednesday the university hasn’t had any negative consequences for removing itself from the process. “We continue to believe that the rankings mania distorts the actual integrity and quality of the college search and selection process,” he said. At the same time, university officials think it’s important to provide prospective students and their families with as much information as possible about a college. Furman does its best to make such information available in other ways, he said.