<p>Administrators were not able to say exactly how long the university had been reporting the incorrect numbers or why the practice began. They did note, however, that there were individuals within the responsible departments while the practice was taking place who questioned the practice but never reported it other than to their supervisors.</p>
<p>But while the two cases look similar, there are significant differences. At Claremont McKenna, a single admissions dean admitted to misreporting data to appease administrators’ expectations while following a different enrollment strategy that placed less emphasis than the top administrators wanted on grades and test scores.
The Emory case was more systemic. Emory officials said they could not determine why the misreporting happened, but the practice spanned the tenures of at least two admissions deans and also involved the university’s director of institutional research. Staff members in those offices were also aware that the practice was taking place.</p>
<p>Read more: [Emory</a> misreported admissions data for more than a decade | Inside Higher Ed](<a href=“Emory misreported admissions data for more than a decade”>Emory misreported admissions data for more than a decade)
Inside Higher Ed </p>
<p>Read more: [Emory</a> misreported admissions data for more than a decade | Inside Higher Ed](<a href=“Emory misreported admissions data for more than a decade”>Emory misreported admissions data for more than a decade)
Inside Higher Ed </p>
<p>[Emory</a> misreported admissions data for more than a decade | Inside Higher Ed](<a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/08/20/emory-misreported-admissions-data-more-decade]Emory”>Emory misreported admissions data for more than a decade)</p>