<p>I feel sorry for Marilee Jones, but I'm also ticked off about the whole situation.
I do think that she has undermined the legitimacy of recent female admits. Whatever her supporters may say, the fact remains that she did have a considerable influence on the philosophy behind MIT Admissions. She was very public about insisting that there was a considerable degree of subjectivity in the selection process. Her emphasis seemed to emphasize "fit" over raw intellectual power and talent. And it's obvious that "FIT" can mask a constellation of weaknesses.
Does anyone else, admitted recently, feel the same way?<br>
Having worked incredibly hard to get into MIT I now feel irritated that people are going to view me as a beneficiary of a highly questionable admissions policy. Incidentally, my scores and other ed. credentials are beyond reproach, so, yeah, I am furious that the achievement of getting accepted by MIT now seems to have been sullied.
I also think that MIT should be more contrite. They should not have let this happen.</p>
<p>Troll?</p>
<p>10chars</p>
<p>No, I'm not a "troll."
Why can't the initial question be asked?</p>
<p>Well, she was hired in the first place to help MIT get female admits. Regardless of her education and her truthiness (to quote Colbert) she did her job, and there is no undermining of the legitimacy of the female applicants, since MIT has wanted the male to female ratio it has now since the late 70s in order to be a more well-rounded institution.</p>
<p>As far as being viewed as a beneficiary of a questionable admissions policy, maybe, but a lot of people have always viewed MIT admissions with a degree of skepticism simply because of how they admit students, and although this will briefly give those skeptics something to point to and question I don't believe anyone in their right mind would see this as somehow diminishing MIT's reputation as one of the leaders in engineering and science. The students are important, and admission affects it, but curiculum and professor are what truely makes a college the best in its field, and MIT, for now, remains the top in most of the fields of engineering.</p>
<p>Now as far as the situation itself goes, MIT should have been more cautious, yes, but she was hired in 1979 as a secretary and did not get to the position she resigned from recently until 1998. Work at MIT for nearly 20 years and the scrutiney of your resume just about goes out this window since your job performance can be assessed by a 20 year portfolio of work, not by degrees you earned (or not in this case) decades ago.</p>
<p>It's a sad situation, and hopefully it doesn't affect yield and applicants because honestly I love MIT and I would never ever wish its reputation to be anything but stellar. I can see why you feel the way you do, but admissions does not make MIT, anyone who applies here is some of the best students in the nation, this does not change a thing in my opinion.</p>
<p>She was tasked to increase female admits, the institute gave her that task. Thus the issue was not just a priority to her, but to the institute at large. I for one am very glad we have a more even ratio.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Having worked incredibly hard to get into MIT I now feel irritated that people are going to view me as a beneficiary of a highly questionable admissions policy.
[/quote]
If you mean "people" like people on CC, well, that's life. If you mean "people" like graduate school admissions officers and job recruiters -- they don't view MIT graduates that way.</p>
<p>A student's achievements at MIT are respected regardless of "why" (and I am air-quoting the heck of that word) that student was admitted.</p>
<p>
Marilee Jones' non-existing degree does not imply undermined legitimacy of recent admits. While I can understand that there are a lot of highly qualified rejects who are angry because they think they would've made it into MIT if there had been a more meritocratic admission policy, I think the "fit" is still more important than most people seem to acknowledge - it maintains the MIT culture and the community certainly benefits a lot from it. However, importance of certain characteristic does not make the admits less talented or academically able - no one with a 500 SAT and a 2.8 GPA will get in because she is a fit.</p>
<p>As long as the women are getting better grades at MIT even with slightly lower scores, I'd say the admissions process is working.</p>
<p>I know a girl with a C in calculus who got in. Early too.</p>
<p>I know a white male with a C in math who got in.</p>
<p>How do you get a C in HS math and still do well at MIT?</p>
<p>You got a C because you were bored in high school and had better things to do. You do well at MIT because you can take classes that interest you and you actually enjoy.</p>
<p>Because how you do in high school doesn't infallibly predict how well you'll do in college? And because you can get bad grades in high school for things unrelated to your actual academic performance?</p>
<p>I got a B+ (or an A-? they were equally traumatizing to me in HS) in a genetics class one six-weeks in high school because the teacher "wanted to see what {I} would do" if he ruined my perfect GPA.</p>
<p>EDIT: Cross-posted with Timur, sorry. :)</p>
<p>l0ll mollie. That would make me soo mad :P</p>
<p>I know an asian male with many C's in all sorts of subjects (even science) who got in. :P</p>
<p>Oh boy I guess there's affirmative action for him, too.</p>
<p>I see we can dignify a thread titled as such... The girls and boys our HS has sent to MIT were equally strong, GPA, SAT, EC, etc. except that more girls were varsity players (and we know MIT didn't recruit them for their athletics, in fact my D is not planning on playing varsity at MIT). And I wish we could track their stories at MIT and beyond for academic curiosity. At this stage though all I ask my D to do is follow her passion and an MIT education will take care of the rest. Actually what's the need to worry about who's better or worse than you?</p>
<p>On the other hand there were fewer female applicants from our HS. And the counselors routinely don't discourage students from applying to MIT as long as there is a safety school on his/her list. Therefore I think girls are more self-selective for MIT applications.</p>
<p>My Son just accepted for 2011. He did not apply at Caltech or Georgia Tech because they were +70% males. I hope MIT keeps doing whatever they have been doing and keeps the classes balanced.</p>
<p>
[Quote]
Merilee Jones is now fired..</p>
<p>Can a female student with mediocore SAT, GPA, EC's can be admitted in the future ?
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>Not in the past or future....</p>
<p>Seefoxrun: Congrats on your son accepting MIT. He will definitely like it here :)</p>
<p>Seefoxrun: true that</p>
<p>I think MIT has every right to increase the number of women, just as most colleges, including MIT, seek out well-qualified applicants of all races and economic strata. I am on faculty at another top research institution. In my area of work, biomedical research, I would say that half of the current Ph.Ds and physicians being trained are now women. It was not like that 30 years ago. If MIT seeks to be a leader in other scientific areas (I also would include areas like economics, psychology, linguistics, for which it is well known) besides engineering, and it certainly wants that role, it needs to admit students who will take advantage and excel in those programs. The demographics in those programs may have equal female and male representation. If MIT is perceived as only an engineering school, and if there is a major male to female discrepancy, top students in these other fields many not decide to attend.</p>