<p>Here is a woman who gained the respect of almost everyone in academia. Despite not having a degree, she has managed to gain the top spot in an institution famous for its degrees and supposedly smart people. she must have been a lot smarter than all those people around her. If she is being doing a " fantastic job", why after 27 years, MIT now thinks less of her. Isn't MIT supposed to be all about substance. I believe everyone else. should have been fired, not her. I wish her the very best.</p>
<p>I feel the same.</p>
<p>Ethics, rules and laws are to contain a runaway talent in this case. In a sports analogy, Marilee committed a major violation of a league rule and thus is kicked off of the team. She was more than good enough performing her job and wasn't wise enough by challenging a prevailing moral standard.</p>
<p>I think she was very smart, but I still think they were right in firing her.</p>
<p>Why would you want a proven fraudster running a department at MIT? How could you trust her work? When she proposed some initiative how would know whether it was legit or she whether she was running another scam?</p>
<p>She is very smart. She did a stupid thing. She continued to hide the truth for years and years. She lost the trust of the department and the University. She really could have become a hero, but she chose to continue to hide the truth.</p>
<p>There are many smart people who loose their jobs making poor decisions. It was her credibility that, in the end, was the reason she lost her job. It was not that she wasn't smart. And she could have rectified the situation and gone back for degrees.</p>
<p>I do feel sorry for her. If she is as smart as we think, she will bounce back and redeem herself.</p>
<p>It was the choices she made that did her in.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>It was the choices she made that did her in.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Correct. Which shows that, in one very important way, she isn't nearly so smart as we thought.</p>
<p>Mariliee does have a degree--- she has a B.A from St Rose which she earned in 1973. But she chose a higher ranked college with credibility among scientists (RPI) to put on her resume. Why? Her boss mentions she was looking for a job in MITs lab when he first met her. One can speculate that was the reason. </p>
<p>Later, she updated her resume to include a degree from Albany Medical College, of which the college has no record.</p>
<p>Hate to be the heartless contrarian, but I both:</p>
<p>1) Don't admire Marilee, and
2) Don't see any evidence that she was particularly "smart"</p>
<p>On the first point: as A.S.A.P just mentioned, she didn't lie only on her first application, or merely repeat one already established lie. She lied again, later in her career, adding "Albany Medical College" to her record when it was almost certainly unnecessary. This is an odd combination of dishonesty and stupidity that should give pause to claims of admiration.</p>
<p>But that isn't all! Note this quote from the relevant Boston Globe article:</p>
<p>
[quote]
The later misstatement appears to contradict Jones's account last week that she made the false claims at the same time -- 28 years ago.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>She lied last week. First, this is inarguably stupid: once her deception had come to light, it would be hard to imagine a situation where reporters wouldn't discover this basic, highly relevant point. Second, it annihilates the whole "one mistake, long ago" narrative that has become so popular.</p>
<p>And what about her broader intelligence? The most commonly cited reasoning that supports the notion that "Marilee is very smart" hinges on the premise that anyone who could ascend to her position must be smart. Forgive my skepticism, but there are countless incompetents who manage to stay CEOs at Fortune 500 companies for many years. Our president is a hopeless incompetent. It's unlikely a much less prestigious leadership job -- college admissions director -- has some unique screening process that makes its holders uniformly intelligent. </p>
<p>In fact, my (admittedly limited) experience is that most of these leadership jobs are the same: they demand "visionary" ideas, strong public communication ability, and the ability to seem inspirational -- but they don't rigorously evaluate actual competence. This is particularly true in Marilee's case. Sure, her public musings about overcompetitive admissions and overworked students were compelling bits of writing. They don't, however, imply that her actual policies addressed these issues in the proper way. In fact, many discussions on this board suggest the opposite: that the admissions office engaged in a highly questionable and idiosyncratic brand of student evaluation, with admirable idealism but skimpy science.</p>
<p>Scientist, after some thought, you're an idiot.</p>
<p>Here is someone who claims to be a scientist and you have no insight at all into ethics or morality. You could gain a top spot in science (at least until your fraud is discovered) if you are willing to falsify the results of your studies. You aren't by any chance Hwang Woo-suk are you?</p>
<p>Scientist is toying with everyone. Scientist started the "Is MIT Losing It?" thread infused with Stanford boosterism.</p>
<p>Well, anyways, people on the MIT forum are supposed to be smart.</p>
<p>That means you have common sense enough to figure out that MIT had no choice. They couldn't let her stay after learning she lied on the principle of the thing.</p>
<p>"that the admissions office engaged in a highly questionable and idiosyncratic brand of student evaluation, with admirable idealism but skimpy science."</p>
<p>And how is that different from almost every other top college? I don't see why people choose to focus on MIT with that complaint instead whining in Havard's and Stanford's boards too.</p>
<p>My opinion of leaders isn't as cynical as randomperson's, so I applaud her for her ability to move up the ladder and become a (previously) well-respected admissions dean. Even with that, yes, she should be fired.</p>
<p>Na na na na.
Na na na na.</p>
<p>Hey, hey, hey goodbye!</p>
<p>Sorry guys. By brother hacked my account while i was away from my computer.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Na na na na.
Na na na na.</p>
<p>Hey, hey, hey goodbye!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>LOL .</p>
<p>gotta thank the brother for some much needed humor :)</p>
<p>Before you admire her, you should know her and she has done for MIT. Do you?
Is MIT better because of her?</p>
<p>
[quote=scientist]
Now it makes sense why MIT has not been able to keep up with its old reputation. Under a leadership of a liar things do not end up any better. Perhaps MIT should check the background of all its employees. Dishonesty is catching.<a href="%5Burl%5Dhttp://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?p=4041793#post4041793%5B/url%5D">/quote</a></p>
<p>
[quote=scientist]
In recent years, all major innovations are coming out ofplaces such as Stanford, Berkeley, and even Caltech. When I was going to school MIT was the only name in town. Now peopole have to think twicw between MIT and other places, some such as Olin which I never heard of. It certainly seems MIT is fast becoming a "have been." What do you think?<a href="%5Burl%5Dhttp://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?p=3781575#post3781575%5B/url%5D">/quote</a></p>
<p>You guys don't think he's being sarcastic in this thread?</p>
<p>l0l... either that or he REALLY changed his mind :P</p>
<p>Mmmmm warm cookies!</p>