So this is the story that one of the editors of The Claremont Portside hyped as a great big story on the supposed "sixth" Claremont College. They told us to wait until midnight, as if this were some Harry Potter book. Of course you have to actually read the story to know that the colleges are in talks with Singapore, rather than the done deal the lede and title "The Sixth Claremont College" portrays it as.
One of the editors of The Claremont Portside described this story as biggest ever broken on the Claremont campuses. Hardly. The Claremont Independent's stories on Petropolous or Dunn anyone?
We already covered the trip to Singapore on this blog. Here are the posts we wrote back in April, fully five months before The Portside decided to be The Claremont P.R. Office. (Here's mine and here's Aditya's.)
(On an aside point, don't we subsidize the Portside to the tune of several thousand dollars a semester alone? Oh, that's right. We do. Just look at the budget.)
Let's quote Aditya's post. It is fairly relevant, especially the bits in red. Read right down to the bottom of the post.
So as you can see, we broke the story first. But if you weren't convinced let's see some of the other places that have broken the story before The Claremont Portside.On March 28, Claremont Mckenna College President Pamela B. Gann and Pomona College President David Oxtoby were guests at the National University Singapore. Gann and Oxtoby spoke on liberal arts colleges in the United States and discussed the feasibility of an LAC in Singapore.
"There's sometimes the feeling that the liberal arts is too abstract, or too much in the ivory tower, doesn't relate enough to what's going on in the real world."Right, thats why our founder, George Charles Sumner Benson, created a school focussed on Economics, Government and public policy. If I remember correctly, it was President Gann who took CMC on a diversity bandwagon. (and might continue to do so in the future)
But I'm glad everyone agrees that CMC was successful because of its focussed approach, or do they? David Oxtoby in his speech to NUS says:"It would be a mistake for Singapore to create a liberal arts college with one particular area of focus. The fact that you're engaging in different fields, different disciplines and seeing those connections yourself, it really makes you an expert in a way that a narrow, technical education would not."I agree with Oxtoby that ultra-specialization has its disadvantages. But if we look at the Claremont Consortium, the fastest growing colleges here are Harvey Mudd College and Claremont Mckenna, not Pitzer and Scripps. What's common between Mudd and CMC? Both are specialized and focussed on certain areas, forming niche markets. We never tried to be everything to everyone. And as National University President Shih Choon Fong reminded us, "Claremont McKenna graduates are known to command the highest salaries among the Claremont-ers."
Oxtoby went on to explain a liberal arts education as a study in the 'skills of freedom' and the skills required to ''function effectively in a democracy'. The painful irony here is that Pomona prides its speech regulations and selective law breaking. Oxtoby's emphasis on building stronger relations between Singapore and the United States in education is undermined by their nonsensical aid policy.
And if you thought the irony ended there, Oxtoby even makes an indirect (perhaps unintentional) praise of the free market,"We in Claremont have much to learn from you [Singapore]. As a city-state founded on the principle of building links to the rest of the world, Singapore has been experimenting since its founding with the ideas of globalization that have come to the fore in recent years."Singapore, being the second most free economy in the world, competes with Hong Kong for their open trade policies and low barriers - all that good stuff CMC was founded on.
The 5C delegation was certainly influential. Singapore's Ministry of Education is planning its first liberal arts college on the island.
- The speech from the president of NUS on March 28, 2008
- See Page 12, of Scripps's Magazine.
- See what President Oxtoby said back on April in the Singaporean press, Said Prof Oxtoby: 'A liberal arts college would be an excellent development for Singapore...We have a great deal of experience in Claremont in starting colleges of the highest quality, and feel that we could be helpful in this regard. 'It is possible that we will become closer partners.'
Some scoop! It was only 5 and half months late.
Subscribe in a reader
11 comments:
I feel no need to defend our story over yours, Charles. You covered the trip, but we covered real developments that might make this possible. You can talk yourself up all you want, but I will let the readers decide who covered what.
I will, however, correct your claim that we receive several thousand dollars per semester.
We received $2,025 for the entire year from ASCMC. The rest of our funding comes from outside sources. Your casual relationship with the truth is starting to trouble me.
Actually, shall we discuss last semester? I believe it was slightly more than that. Also, the numbers are often reconsidered the following semester. They almost always award more.
That number has never reached "several thousand dollars" in a given semester. We have never spent more than three thousand dollars from CMC in a given year, let alone a semester.
Right now, our funding totals less than two dollars per student. At most, it could reach three (though this is unlikely). The majority of it comes from outside sources.
If you want to have a real debate on this, I will be happy to do so. We can record it and post it on our blogs.
"But if we look at the Claremont Consortium, the fastest growing colleges here are Harvey Mudd College and Claremont Mckenna, not Pitzer and Scripps. What's common between Mudd and CMC? Both are specialized and focussed on certain areas, forming niche markets."
Once again, with feeling:
Correlation!
Correlation what??
Correlation does not prove caustation!
Yaayayayyyy philosophy/rhetoric/english/statstics/really any class 101.
Your samples sizes are 2.
Think about that.
Honestly, if you're going to rip on every mistake everybody else makes, you might want to clean up your own blog.
Statistics*
The real question is why are you funded at all when you have a history of potentially being sued over false material. We are all on the hook if you print something that's false.
Several thousand dollars? What would you call $2025? A couple thousand?
That's fine about how everyone pays less than two dollars for you, but no one pays a dime for the CI. Why can't you get all of your money from outside sources?
2,025/yr =/= "several thousand" per "semester."
Back to your regularly scheduled partisanship.
CitizenX,
Let the following be a reminder to you for all future posts and comments: This is a blog, not an academic journal.
I never claimed that I derived a correlation from some multivariate regression analysis.
Also, I think you mean 'Correlation does not imply causation' The sample size maybe 2, but in this case, the population size is 5. Besides, you don't need to run a regression model to observe a trend among 5 entities.
Aditya, that is an incredibly weak cop out defense.
First, you're right. I should have written correlation doesn't imply causation, but I wanted to be clear I meant the more vigorous form of imply and not the layman's terms. Point, Bindal.
However, if you write shoddy material, I'm going to comment. You might be compelled to say it's not worth my time, but as long as you have this mechanism, you should take it for what it's worth.
You guys mercilessly rip on any liberal publication that draws a false conclusion or makes a weak argument, then play the "oh no, I'm just a little old blog" claim? That's absurd. Blogs have no immunity from stupid arguments.
I brought up sample size not to get into a pissing match about stats, but rather to note that there are so many differences between the schools that to imply that it's simply the focus of the curriculum is wrong. For one, Harvey Mudd and CMC are both better ranked than the others. For another, SCRIPPS IS AN ALL WOMAN'S COLLEGE. The fact that you're trying to defend the assertion makes me truly doubt your commitment to logic.
So, to sum: should have said imply, argument still stupid, you still make mistakes.
Allah bless you, and have a wonderful Friday.
Charles,
I think it should be noted that while the previous stories you cite show that the Claremont Colleges might have an influence in any liberal arts college set up in Singapore, none of them imply the level of closeness the school would have with the 5Cs, or the idea of a new school that is directly part of the consortium. The stories you refer to all seem to imply the Claremont colleges presidents as informal advisers, rather than directly involved in the operation of the new institution. In that way, I think the story adds to the body of news and is worth its hype.
Also,
I think there is something to be said for a variety of news sources on campus, and thus ASCMCs support for the publication. Obviously the Portside is a publication that speaks to controversial subjects, and as such may provoke responses (read: lawsuits) from interested parties in the stories. I do not however believe that that is reason enough to not fund the publication. Lawsuits are a fact of life, and you just have to march on in a somewhat cautious way.
From what I have heard (rightly or wrongly) there is an institutional requirement on the Independent's part that they not be funded by the school. If such a requirement were not in place, I would fully support the publication receiving funds as well because I think a multi-publication dynamic makes CMC a much more interesting and engaged place to be. Let's be honest, would you rather the Portside not exist and you not able to use their articles as a subject for multiple posts?
Aditya,
I know this is taking issue with an old post, which I think is pretty lame on my part, but recent comments have influenced me to say something. I think views of whether CMC is a "success" very much depend on how you define success. I personally love the focus of CMC, and that's why I came here. I consider the college successful in that it continues to attract people to maintain that focus, and continues to attract better students and grow its reputation for putting out hardworking and competent graduates. But that being said, that's how I define success. There's no doubt that the Pomonas, Amhersts, Williams, etc... of the world are also as successful if not more by other measures. In other words, we are extremely successful in the niche we have created for ourselves, but not necessarily by a universal measurement.
I would also like to add that assuming that we are growing fast because of our specialization, is a very simplistic generalization. I am certainly one who is as guilty of this as well on a daily basis, but I think it is important to point it out here. There are so many confounding variables involved like the hugely different cultures, facilities, costs, gender balance, administrations (Ms. Wood could have an effect, you never know) involved that making a statement like saying our specialization has made us more successful than them is unprovable without additional detailed research.
Post a Comment