<p>update on the former MIT admissions dean, from The New York Times this afternoon:
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/08/education/08jones.html?_r=1&hp%5B/url%5D">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/08/education/08jones.html?_r=1&hp</a></p>
<p>I imagine she’d be excellent at helping students “create” resumes.</p>
<p>Indeed. Have weak ECs - no problem<br>
Need good rec letters - sure.<br>
Have an ethical dilemma - forget about it</p>
<p>I tend to believe that if she refuses to comment on the scandal, that means she hasn’t learned much from it. You can’t truly repent until you’ve confessed. Anyone else feel that way?</p>
<p>This is how it is going to work–she’ll use her connections to help students get into school. Instead of refusing her phone calls, the rest of the admissions community will be GLAD to help her. Want to bet?</p>
<p>I agree, mantori.suzuki!!
Call it sour grapes, but I’m disappointed even to see her getting her name out there in the Times. No doubt there will be plenty who will take her bait, regardless of her lies.</p>
<p>I certainly don’t approve of her lies and deception, but I do like the message she is spreading… :)</p>
<p>Personal and professional ethics seem to be well down the list of traits people value.</p>
<p>It seems as if only the saps have those traits at the top of their list. </p>
<p>I’m a sap.</p>
<p>I am embarrased for anyone and any institution that hires her.</p>
<p>I love this Marilee quote from the article:</p>
<p>“Failure is practice, and we seem to want everything perfect, the first time. It’s important to learn to fall and get back up again. And if I can do it, anybody can do it.”</p>
<p>If her first set of misrepresentations was only practice, imagine what she’ll be able to accomplish on this next go-round!</p>
<p>If any major institution wants to use her services in a behind the scenes consulting role, that’s their business. However, for any college to put her front and center again in any public role in admissions, without a public acknowledgement from her about the deception she put forward? That would be outrageous.</p>
<p>Ugh, what the hell is wrong with society?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is the title of the NYT piece. I didn’t think it was up to <em>her</em> to “leave the scandal behind”. Does one just declare when the scandal is done and gone?</p>
<p>She sounds just as arrogant in this piece as she ever did.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>On the contrary…I think she has probably learned a great deal from it. And part of that is that it is not in her interest to discuss things that are not positive for her. I’d have to hear a little more, but the quote about “putting that behind me” may reflect the astute knowledge that if the details and circumstances of her deceptions and their origins were known and dissected, it might raise more questions than it answered. There is an excellent chance that there is more to the story and she is smart enough (now) not to be the one who stirs it up.</p>
<p>Hmmm…maybe we could all take some lessons from those folks who crashed the State Dinner.</p>
<p>Well, good point. I should have said, hasn’t learned anything positive…</p>
<p>I read the New York Times article. A comparison is made to Martha Stewart. I feel sorry for Martha Stewart.</p>
<p>^^^ LOL quantmech. </p>
<p>While I agree that she has a right to make a living and she no doubt has admissions knowledge/skills acquired in her many years at MIT, I thinks its audacious of her to return to the field of college admissions, when the very premise of what it is all about-- presenting yourself, your credentials, what you bring to a school in an HONEST and FORTHRIGHT fashion is all, in her case, based on lies. Guess she could teach others the art of padding a resume, as Billy Pilgrim said. Strikes me as another smack in the face to the admissions process.</p>
<p>Some of you are very vindictive.</p>
<p>She was a good dean - I worked part-time in the MIT Admissions office as an undergrad, I had personal experience with her. She has a lot of knowledge. She did a bad thing, and it was necessary for her to leave MIT. But if she can help people, what’s the point of denying them that?</p>
<p>I wouldn’t advocate a college making her a dean again, but if she wants to be a behind-the-scenes consultant? If she wants to be a college counselor for teenage cancer survivors, as the article mentioned? She has the knowledge and experience to do a lot of people a lot of good, and I don’t mean that in a snarky “Yeah, she can tell them exactly how to cover up their lies” kind of way.</p>
<p>And she’s a real-life example of how lies can come back to bite you in the butt.</p>
<p>If she would even just apologize for her mistakes, that would go a long way toward forgiveness. But she hasn’t done that, has she?</p>
<p>Folks -</p>
<p>What do I not understand here?</p>
<p>She lied years ago to get her job.</p>
<p>She did what many people called really good work thereafter.</p>
<p>She resigned after she was caught.</p>
<p>Now she’s working again in that field.</p>
<p>Most of you all appear to believe that she should not work in college admissions again.</p>
<p>My questions:
1 - what action must she take so that YOU could accept her working in admissions again?
2 - must that action be taken in public?
3 - Why should she not be allowed to have a second chance?</p>
<p>Kei</p>
<p>P.S. For post #19 . . . why does she need to apologize in public?</p>