<p>
[quote]
I'm sick of the male being discriminated against because of this.
[/quote]
It's my personal opinion that if you disagree that violently with the admissions process/mission of a school, then you really wouldn't fit well at that school anyways. But then, there is that magic word "fit" again, so take that as you will.</p>
<p>Completely agree with Russ' position on gender balance. It improves the undergraduate experience for us all...</p>
<p>"It's my personal opinion that if you disagree that violently with the admissions process/mission of a school, then you really wouldn't fit well at that school anyways. But then, there is that magic word "fit" again, so take that as you will."</p>
<p>:) You're right. I can't help but feel sympathy for a lot of my friends who wanted to go there, though. I personally dislike the school's policies, but I strongly feel they were cheated out of their rightful spot. I guess I feel an overwhelming duty to justify them by representing all of them in one message, even if the message concerns them more than it concerns me. I go overboard sometimes, as you can all tell. I've used 'report post' on that so that I can get it deleted. I really shouldn't post so late at night. :D I wish CC would let you delete posts after 20 minutes though. Geez.</p>
<p>"Completely agree with Russ' position on gender balance. It improves the undergraduate experience for us all..."</p>
<p>Yeah, it improves the undergraduate experience for all the people admitted. What about the people who were cheated out of a spot to make room for the gender balance though?</p>
<p>And Russ, I'm sorry, but what's wrong with your girlfriend now? You got a girlfriend from Yale, and what's wrong with that? If you're at MIT, you won't be limited to the girls at MIT... there are a million colleges in Boston, and you can pick any girl out of any of them.</p>
<p>
It's my personal opinion that if you disagree that violently with the admissions process/mission of a school, then you really wouldn't fit well at that school anyways. But then, there is that magic word "fit" again, so take that as you will.
</p>
<p>It's my personal opinion that the goals and ideas of the admissions office have very little to do with the actual education one will receive at a school.</p>
<p>I just want to say that no one "deserves" or has a "rightful" spot at MIT. It's not a God-given right or something, and the sad fact is that with the number of applicants vs number of spaces, no one is guaranteed a spot or can think that they deserve it over thousands upon thousands of other students without being absurdly egotistical.</p>
<p>Of course, userx, the numbers alone do not necessarily reflect the admissions policies of the universities represented :) This has been discussed rather extensively in the "MIT Admissions has become a complete joke" thread.</p>
<p>What will be the impact on straight shooting rejected applicants? One would have thought that if there was one last bastion of integrity it would be the office of admissions at a place like MIT. To discover that the director of admissions stooped to a level that 99% of rejected applicants would never consider is not just disheartening to a our young people; it is downright jading.<br>
MIT negligently placed this woman in a position to sit in judgment on a group of applicants to whom she was so morally inferior. For this MIT should feel ashamed.</p>
<p>I checked some internet spots where cleaning up is being done -- "Jones, PhD" is being replaced by a simple "Jones."</p>
<p>She is a huge black eye to MIT. She is someeone who comfortably lived 28 years in a world of lies about her educational past. She knew the importance of her fictional educational past. And her knowledge of its importance creates more alarm about her underlying motives to conceive this falsehood. Without her lies, she would never have been the director of admissions -- let alone anyone other than a clerk there. Her obvious volition to continue to comfortably enjoy the fruits from her fictional resume are even more deplorable. </p>
<p>Her brief statement of April 16 was far too brief when contrasted to 28 years of deceipt.</p>
<p>Most better known schools employ serious honor codes which would expel students for committing acts much less egregious than her own.</p>
<p>This is a massive breach of trust. Whatever people want to make of her good efforts or acts of the past must wallow because of her continued deceipt to those who dearly entrusted admissions to her obviously character.</p>
<p>As an author she wrote, "Holding integrity is sometimes hard to do because temptation may be to cheat or cut corners . . . " We now know how autobiographical this statement is.</p>
<p>I'd just like to remind everyone that, instead of quietly hushing up the situation like they were perfectly capable of doing, MIT chose to publicize the resignation and the reasons behind it by issuing press releases yesterday.</p>
<p>MIT could have asked her to submit her resignation, then told the outside world that she had chosen to retire after 28 years of distinguished service to MIT. Instead, the school chose to tell the truth.</p>
<p>I hope that counts for something.</p>
<p>Mollie, absolutely. MIT has handled this in an exemplary fashion. It's unfortunate that MIT was careless 28 years ago - but I can fully understand not checking a resume for a secretarial position. </p>
<p>I've got mixed feelings about MIT's admissions philosophy, which I fully admit are probably colored by the fact that Mathson didn't get in, and now has to consider going to that place up the river instead!</p>
<p>Do not read the publication of the resignation as something which MIT had a choice to do.</p>
<p>If they had chosen to be quiet and the matter had been leaked to the press -- the damage would have been insurmountable. And, believe me this was considered by the administrators who made the decision to go public. </p>
<p>Remember -- this deceit was not something internally discovered -- but delivered by an outside source. If she had quietly resigned, what would prevent the outside source from making the disclosure to others? Nothing.</p>
<p>I find it incredibly hard to believe that some in the administration at MIT did not know of Jones' bogus degrees. She is described on their website, describing her as a "guest author" as "A SCIENTIST BY TRAINING." Who in their right mind would describe her in this fashion without delineating her specific degrees which were obtained at such and such particular academic institutions, to substantiate the claim?</p>
<p>A scientist? I think not.</p>
<p>"Mollie, absolutely. MIT has handled this in an exemplary fashion. It's unfortunate that MIT was careless 28 years ago - but I can fully understand not checking a resume for a secretarial position."</p>
<p>MIT did not just make a mistake 28 years ago but ten years ago when, according to their press release, a committee at MIT with several PhDs on it did a "rigorous and thorough" search for a new Dean of Admissions.</p>
<p>I'm confused. usrx just posted data that showed Caltech admitting women at higher rates than MIT.</p>
<p>Also, rah rah rah.</p>
<p>Can anyon chek the credentials of Susan Hockfield ?</p>
<p>I hope the admissions system doesn't change. When I was applying to schools MIT was my 4th choice, I ended up going after I realized what a great place it is. When I got here I did not know what to expect, but I would say almost directly because of Marilee Jones' admission policy MIT has become a place I love (seriously, I live 3 hours away and I go home maybe 2 weeks total a year, I'm staying for the summer even). For the awful deceit she commited resignation was very appropriate, but to gloss over all of the good things she's done, to say somehow MIT's admissions is tainted because of it, is somewhat unfair.</p>
<p>I wouldn't want MIT any other way.</p>
<p>Mollie,
May I dissent with you ... I think MIT should have FIRED her as soon as it confirmed the fraud. Marilee was wrong many years ago and had perpetuated her wrong until last Monday. Accepting her resignation seemed like a compromise to me.</p>
<p>On a bright note, the admitted students that I know of have been able to keep the event in perspective and are not about to change their commitment to matriculating. My daughter's top reasons for attending MIT are: students, CPW and academics.</p>
<p>What are the positive things she has done for the university?</p>
<p>Actually, I was wondering that, too. I stopped donating to the alumni fund a few years ago after hearing her speak.</p>
<p>For those unhappy with the current MIT admissions process and how it is not like it was 30+ years ago, this 1997 [url=<a href="http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1997/jones-1217.html%5Darticle%5B/url">http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1997/jones-1217.html]article[/url</a>] shows that most of the changes took place under the previous Dean of Admissions, Michael Behnke.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Between 1985 and 1996, the number of women and minorities increased dramatically, with women comprising 42 percent of the last entering class (compared to 28 percent in 1985) and minorities comprising 17.5 percent (compared to 8.5 percent).</p>
<p>In 1996, MIT received 8,022 applications -- 40 percent more than in 1985 -- with females rising by 94 percent from 1,168 to 2,270, and minorities by 73 percent, from 364 to 631. The mean SAT scores for admitted students were 723 verbal/760 math, compared to 718/758 five years ago. Forty-two percent of this year's freshmen were high school class valedictorians, vs. 39 percent five years ago.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Meanwhile, the scholastic profiles of incoming MIT classes have continued upward each year under the process employed during Ms. Jones' tenure.</p>
<p>As for the MIT female applicant argument that has been going on for years on C-C, consider a school like Georgia Tech which is still 75/25 M/F. The top complaint from students at the school is that there aren't enough females!</p>