<p>Now I’m confused. Was Marilee doing college advising (eg helping current students decide what courses to take) in addition to overseeing the admissions process at MIT? Those are separate issues, and agreed, it doesn’t require direct knowledge or training in a course subject to be familiar with the faculty and/or curriculum at the school. That is a separate issue from claiming to have attended schools she did not and having degrees she did not that may have been requisite to her initial job acquision at MIT. Anyone notice that her educational background is conspicuously missing from her website?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>It’s worse than simple lying for many years. It’s the huge hypocrisy. Just think how many times over the course of her long career Ms. Jones, either individually or as part of a committee, must have denied admission to some applicant due to evidence or suspicion that they had fluffed their achievements. What sort of person is it who can do that over and over again, year after year, while personally living the same lie?</p>
<p>If she had been caught in some lie unrelated to her work, I’d be happy to let her “put it behind her.” But her lie was different. Very different.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It also might call into question the entire credibility and integrity of MIT, so it is actually more professional of her not to discuss details publicly. JMHO.</p>
<p>Ah, the shield of professionalism. Convenient for all concerned.</p>
<p>[edited out - Mod JEM]I wasn’t describing the referenced quote as a “shield.” I was describing it as something that in the public square would be required of one to show any current professionalism.</p>
<p>Just because I personally don’t think that it would “repair” anything (except for those possessing excessive Schadenfreude, not to mention giant quantities of revenge) to perform the equivalent of the Catholic sacrament of Penance publicly does not mean that I approve of what she did, or that I know for a fact what her current intentions are (if they’re honorable or not), etc. I was speaking strictly of the boxed comment by dadx, nothing else.</p>
<p>[removed insults, per TOS- Mod JEM]</p>
<p>epiphany, </p>
<p>in no way was I impugning your integrity! I’m amazed you read it that way. The parties I was referring to are Jones and MIT. (And, I didn’t really mean to impugn MIT, just pointing out that it is convenient for them if Jones says little. It would be even better if she says and does nothing to draw attention to her former role.)</p>
<p>Sorry, but MIT is all over her website. She could have just as easily put “former director of admissions at a top university”.</p>
<p>Post 126: Then you seriously misunderstand the whole of realm of public perception and what is expected of those who leave an institution. In fact, if one has left “under a cloud,” it would be more honorable to sever all public discussion of that relationship, especially any that would reflect poorly on the institution itself – such as rehashing, publicly, what occurred, even if you believe that it would reflect poorly only on yourself. This is what’s known as not burning your bridges behind you. It is also what’s known as respecting the fact that the entire reputation of an institution should not be linked with your name, your “fall,” your bad behavior, etc. It is way beyond “convenience.” </p>
<p>As to your “amazement,” I really wish that some posters would be a little more aware of the first rule of writing, which is that the sequence of your words is huge. It provides meaning. Your “convenient” remark followed immediately my comment - not an MIT comment – about professionalism. One can reasonably assume when posts follow each other in immediate order, and quote or lift words from them, that a direct reference is made to the poster’s comment – not to some oblique thought that is not being directly referenced.</p>
<p>Be careful. I’m very logical, and I assume logic in writing. It’s up to my arguers to be accurate, not up to me to read minds that I’m later told are in contradiction to what was actually written.</p>
<p>Edited because cross-posted with Billy Pilgrim’s. I wasn’t referring to her website. I was referring to the article, in which she declined to discuss the MIT history. Agreed, if she discusses it by name on her website (which I haven’t visited), she should not – to be consistent.</p>
<p>I have to step in for mismo here, epiphany. It was absolutely clear to me that his remark was directed at Jones, not you. And there was nothing in the “sequence of his words” that implied otherwise. Yes, his remark followed your comment about professionalism, but that comment was about Jones’ professionalism, not your own–therefore any reflections in mismo’s response about using professionalism as a “shield” were directed at her, not you. At most, his comment suggested that your take might be a bit naive. It certainly did not impugn your integrity.</p>
<p>No! Not “absolutely clear.” Posts 123 and 124. No intervening posts. No seances, no thought-transmissions between these two posts. I referred to professionalism. She referred to professionalism as a “shield” – and as “convenient for all concerned.” There was nothing in the NYT article that referred to the professionalism of not discussing MIT, or the “convenience” of such a (supposed) “shield.” That midmo later back-tracked is neither here nor there.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In what way? Could you expand on this statement?</p>
<p>
Actually, the point I find interesting is that Marilee has proven that, at least in regards to admissions directors, credentials are not necessary. This is no surprise to me; I have always believed that you could randomly pull MIT applications from a hat and “build” a terrific class. These top-notch applicants are self-selected at a school like MIT. I’m always amazed that Marilee (or any admissions director at a top school) gets credit for this so-called “building.”</p>
<p>Post 131: I only meant the fact that when/if she resurrects her association with them (MIT), one’s personal integrity is often projected onto the integrity of the institution. And there are people small-minded enough to attribute guilt by association. Even educated people. 
(Not you! – to be “absolutely clear” 
)</p>
<p>I want to move on here, actually. What would satisfy some of you? Do you believe that she deserves to have no career? That she should self-flagellate and apply for a job waitressing, or live as a homeless person and continue only to volunteer at the teen cancer clinic? Should she internalize the hatred that many of you have for her? Would that satisfy you? Apparently some of you think that she is unredeemable, no matter what she does.</p>
<p>Personally, I would never hire a publicist. I’m uncomfortable with the idea. I suppose if I were a writer? An entertainer or performance artist? A politician or aspiring politician? Then I would consider it. But for the huge category of “other professions,” it’s difficult for me to see a legitimate need for “publicity.” And as someone in education, it is definitely not something I would do, even if someone provided it to me for free.</p>
<p>So the publicist angle strikes me as a misstep from that perspective. But I do not believe that everyone who has ever made a serious mistake is unredeemable. For example, I think that John Dean has redeemed himself. This may sound like a philosophical aside, but I think that it’s important to mention it because it affects assumptions. It sounds as if some of you believe that she deserves to revert, in 2009, to a clerical position such as she had “originally,” and to do so “until she earns all those degrees” she lied about on her previous resumes.</p>
<p>She cando whatever she wants (just as Tiger Woods can). But my impression her from the public record is that she is a shameless, self-promoting scum, and for that reason a) I would no hire her b) no one should hire her and c) any admissions officer who receives a professional call from her should simply hang up.</p>
<p>But in the real world, I think that people will be impressed by her much overhyped accomplishment, empty pontification about the admissions process and most importantly, their impressions of her connections in the admissions world which will (one again in the real world) work for her.</p>
<p>For an analogy in the world of finance, see the recent rehabilitation of Henry Blodgett.</p>
<p>Well judging from this thread alone, EMM1, it would seem that people will not not</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just my impression. ;)</p>
<p>In the interest of disclosure, I’m only acquainted with her fall, not with accomplishment (hyped or not). And in that respect, I don’t think she can be compared with Tiger Woods, who is much more a “household name.”</p>
<p>I think you are right, Epiphany. People aren’t buying it.</p>
<p>The article in “Inside Higher Ed” ended with this:</p>
<p>"Joyce E. Smith, president of the National Association for College Admission Counseling, said she thinks Jones’s return will be widely appreciated in the admissions world. “I think she’s proven through having risen through the ranks in the admissions office that she’s a professional, and has learned if not by degree, then by experience,” Smith said. “I don’t feel that she’ll be met with any ill will in the community, because people know her.”'</p>
<p>However, if you read the reader comments, they are overwhelmingly negative.</p>
<p>So long as people hear the message of Joyce Smith (“we don’t care that Marilee Smith is a lying cheat. She’s one of us and so we love her and she will have influence”) people will come to her. They’ll just do it quietly.</p>
<p>If that’s true, EMM, then that is more a reflection of our expedient and amoral culture than of anything else. It’s a free country. No one has to buy a publicity statement if it’s distasteful and hollow. Time was in this country when people who committed reprehensible acts were abandoned by their entire community – and beyond. Marilee Jones is hardly the first person to try to resurrect her image. Anyone on this thread should be able to think of way worse examples than her: people who have committed high crimes & misdemeanors, people who have been immoral as all get-out, yet managed to re-invent themselves to an adoring public. Sports figures, people in finance and politics, much more. Why do people buy superficial changes? I don’t know, since I’m not one easily impressed by image. </p>
<p>She wasn’t accused of a crime, apparently. So she’s entitled to make a living in whatever way is legal, and if controversy imperils that attempt, so be it.</p>
<p>I don’t disagree with anything said in the last post. Its a free country.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There were a total of six comments in the month since the article appeared. Of those, two were favorable. Of the negative remarks, two were anonymous and two were explicitly from outside her potential clientele. That’s underneath an article with no negative comments and an endorsement from the president of NACAC. There is also the puff piece in the New York Times, and not at all negative articles in US News and the MIT Tech on her attempted comeback. </p>
<p>Jones herself claims to have some paying customers, and one of them (a college admissions dean) went on the record in the NYT as a satified client. </p>
<p>Any prospective consulters would have an easier time vetting Jones than any of her competitors. There is far more information about her in the public domain, and incomparably more information authored without any influence by Jones. There might be ethical issues for some of Jones’ clients in deciding whether to hire her (or the New York Times in deciding to write about her), but none for Jones as a purveyor of services. I doubt that MJ feels any shame in peddling her wares, College Confidential moralists notwithstanding.</p>