<p>I'd like the MIT admissions staff to continue with the completely appropriate direction Ms. Jones has sent them down. And as noted in the blog</a> entry from Ben & Matt today, that's exactly what will likely happen.
[quote]
But we pledge to you that as we recover in the days ahead, we will continue to celebrate and uphold all of the good that Marilee has brought to our office and to our field, and we hope that others around the country will do the same.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>MISTAKE????????????</p>
<p>The woman lacked any undergraduate or graduate degree. She lied to get a job she was not qualified for. She is like someone who has been practicing law or medicine without having gone to grad school.
She always seemed like a duplicitous hypocritical self righteous ***** when I saw her interviewed. I also heard she was involved in applying inappropriate pressure regarding the application of a member of her family.
Unfortunately, under this lunatic's leadership MIT admissions have descended into an abyss of ludicrousness. The whole mess kind of reaffirms negative stereotypes about the level of common sense associated with MIT as an institution. Good luck to the school in cleaning up this mess because there are some really fabulous things about the place. MIT will have to confront the reality that it allowed its admissions philosophy and direction to be completely revamped by a woman who was not qualified for her position and had acquired the position through fraud. A fraud that was not discovered because of extraordinary carelessness in MIT's hiring process.<br>
By the way, the only member of my family to apply to MIT was accepted so this is definitely not sour grapes.</p>
<p>Some seem to object to Marilee Jones'comments about daydreaming. As one who was described throughout my entire high school career as a day dreamer, I'd like to make a comment.
Daydreaming does not necessarily mean slacking. It is a sign that one is disengaged from the topic at hand. This can happen because of boredom (I know the stuff already, why should I fake paying attention? It's not my fault that the rest of the class needs to review when I don't). Or it can be a sign of being engaged in something far more interesting and potentially productive. The aha! moment comes after the apparent daydreamer. I expect that Archimedes' "Eureka!" came after a period of intense focus that appeared to others (especially those who might have wished he'd hurry up with his bath) as daydreaming.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Unfortunately, under this lunatic's leadership MIT admissions have descended into an abyss of ludicrousness.
[/quote]
Could you elaborate? My S did not apply, so I have no horse in this race, just asking out of curiosity. I thought the application form my S considered but did not send out was quite appropriate.</p>
<p>Admissions is a bit less of an exacting field than medicine. I don't defend what she did but doesn't anyone else think the deep insecurity that made her do this was why she spoke out for what she did?</p>
<p>On another note: nogardder, your comments about a class action lawsuit disgust me. Litigation isn't the solution to everything - and it is DEFINITELY not a solutoin here - even if you could argue that there was some conceivable way that Marilee's misrepresentation selectively biased her in favour of some people, I would find anyone who actually sued based on that kind of crappy argument (and it would have to be rejected applicants) morally bankrupt.</p>
<p>Mistake???</p>
<p>What about our current president who wasn't really elected, has started an immoral war resulting in horrible deaths and injuries, etc., has taken away our rights, appointed Supreme Court justices who will plague us forever and so on.</p>
<p>Yes, she did bad things, but, in perpective...she'll suffer for it way more than George W, who is clueless and has the whole world in his hands.</p>
<p>Well, I agree this is sad, and I can also believe she did her job well. That said, having this described as a "youthful mistake" is a bit of a stretch. After all, she did fabricate her entire educational background completely out of whole cloth. Think about that-- a PhD trained scientist who would have been addressed, everyday, for 28 years, as "Dr." I'm sure there were many times, as she rose in the ranks, that she could have corrected this fabrication, but she chose not to do so. That was an active choice. So, at what point is this not a "youthful mistake" anymore? At age 35? Maybe 40? How about age 50? I agree with the post above that this is especially offensive to those who actually are scientists and who worked hard over many years to earn their honest credentials.</p>
<p>A few comments after reading 19 pages...</p>
<p>MIT has 41 varsity sports, the most of any NCAA D3 school, and only behind Harvard's 42 in the country. 20% of MIT undergraduates play a varsity sport (!).</p>
<p>MIT has the most open admissions process of any selective college. The highly visible blogs explain the MIT admissions process.</p>
<p>To be admitted, an applicant's folder is read and reviewed between 12 and 15 times by multiple admissions officers. Ms. Jones could not have that much individual control of who was admitted (unlike schools such as NESCAC or Stanford where athletes, for example, by pass the committee review). </p>
<p>The next few MIT admissions classes will likely be very similar to the past few years unless the entire admissions staff is replaced. I doubt there will be a "house cleaning" of the admissions staff. From what I've read, most of them are young, recent MIT graduates, who do know exactly what it takes to succeed at MIT when reviewing applications</p>
<p>The applicant pool today is stronger than it's ever been in MIT's history. MIT has a high freshman retention rate and a high graduation rate; I suspect higher than in the days before Marilee Jones got there.</p>
<p>I can't imagine that someone who would do this wouldn't be false in countless, everyday small ways as well. It is difficult to believe that people around her couldn't detect this.
She had to have inspired loyalty among many. How many people must have known her during the years she was supposedly earning her degrees? And none came forward?</p>
<p>oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive
double, double, toil and trouble...</p>
<p>
Students in this situation should take college classes, do indendent reading, get involved with research, or anything that involves taking some initiative to further one's own personal learning. When students do that, then they tend to accomplish great things which are recognized as useful for all college applicants.</p>
<p>What people are complaining about, specifically for high school science education, is that actually learning requires not only the ability to ponder and daydream, but also sometimes requires just flat out hard work. She has de-emphasized the importance of doing in well in such classes. Whether or not that is a good shift is debatable to be sure, but without some formal education in a technical field, she should not have ever have been part of the discussion (in my opinion).</p>
<p>This surely has been a shocking revelation. Marilee Jones did something very wrong and she is surely now paying the price in a big way. I hope there is a lesson to be learned with how a big lie often comes back to hurt you. I sorta feel badly for her at the moment because of the disgrace this has brought to her. Yes, it is her own doing. Still, things for her and her family are likely very rough from this fallout of her lie. </p>
<p>Many people lie on resumes. It is so very very wrong. But I think what is so stunning in this case is the nature of Marilee's job. The fact that she was charged with basically evaluating others' "resumes" is ironic. Further, in her case, the things she advocated for so publicly in speaking engagements and in her book, make it hard to fathom that personally she had chosen to lie about credentials when she was trying to get a job. So, I think that this is more than a lie uncovered but there is shame in that her own actions do not jive with what she "preached." </p>
<p>I also wonder how she was able to pull this lie off for so long. Yes, I can see how her credentials were not checked on an application, particularly 30 years ago. But I am also wondering who in her family or close circle of friends knew of this lie because I don't quite get how a spouse at the least, but also close friends, would not know whether you spent many years in college or graduate school or not. I mean most know what you were doing all those years. </p>
<p>I don't think the fact that she lied, which is she is now paying for in her public "fall" and loss of her job, erases all the good work she has done on the job and in the changes she tried to make in admissions beyond MIT. A person can do and achieve good things, even if they have done some very bad or stupid things as well. So, while her reputation is now tarnished, I don't think it negates some good work she has done over the years, and may continue to do in some fashion in the future. </p>
<p>I also don't think this reflects on MIT at all, nor on who got admitted or who didn't in the past. I think this turn of events ONLY reflects on her personal integrity. She gambled and she won for a while, but now she lost. She is paying the price. I don't think MIT is at any fault whatsoever, nor are its past admissions results to be questioned, but rather it is a personal loss for someone who made a very poor choice that came back to hurt her.</p>
<p>I know that I don't post on CC very often anymore (mainly because I don't have time and/or don't have anything to add), but damn... I wasn't expecting to see a thread on this topic when I decided to check the forums today. The MIT admissions process is no secret here, and I find it admirable that they make a point to make themselves so available to their applicants. Unfortunately, one of their own has been lying for many years, and that reality has to hurt. </p>
<p>I personally hate people who deceive me. Trust me. I've met my fare share of these people, and once in a while, one poses as a "friend." (I'm actually still reeling from one of these encounters even after some time has passed since the "falling out" took place.) The actions of these people don't hurt as much as the fact that one has been violated. In the long run, the deception also hinders future relationships with other people (who actually have the best intereests at heart) because its difficult to learn how to trust again after being deceived by to a trusted person. I'm sorry that this has happened to the MIT Admissions Staff.</p>
<p>On the subject of Marilee Jones... I'll reiterate. What she did was terrible, and I believe that it's a good thing that she resigned. However, she's human, and NO ONE is perfect. So, we should not be the ones to pass judgement upon her.</p>
<p>
[quote]
She has de-emphasized the importance of doing in well in such classes.
[/quote]
Not at all. She added emphasis on areas that formerly were not always considered indicative of traits important in those whose scientific and engineering endeavors might help change the world for the better.</p>
<p>I rarely post on these forums, but I am a long time reader and a parent of an MIT ’10. I am saddened by the news and view Marilee Jones’ actions as a complete breach of trust on so many levels. My S loves MIT and for the most part has always been rather dispassionate about MIT admissions, blogs, and personnel, yet even he e-mailed the news this morning with the exclamatory “Wow!” He loves the school and the experience he is having, and I don’t expect this to affect him directly. In fact, he places a high value on integrity and specifically chose MIT for its meritorious character, and I believe his faith in MIT will remain intact.</p>
<p>Still there are many questions, and I really don’t know how this did not come out sooner. As an MIT parent, I enjoy casually following the various threads. Recently there has been a rather contentious thread debating the merits of MIT admissions on the MIT forum: <a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?p=3995621&highlight=Marilee+Jones#post3995621%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?p=3995621&highlight=Marilee+Jones#post3995621</a>.<br>
And though I am a casual reader who finds some of these long threads tedious, I have to say that the question of Marilee Jones’ credentials in posts #229, 230, 233, and 242 certainly registered with me. </p>
<p>One poster suggested she had a MIT Sloan degree, and another seemed to take that at face value and inquire who else was on the admissions staff with an MIT degree besides Matt McGann. Finally a poster reported the names of the staff members with MIT degrees, and reported Marilee’s two supposed RPI degrees and mentioned that the source was direct from the admissions office. Now I am just a parent who made a mental note of this discrepancy, how is it that professionals in the office, at various conferences, or among competing colleges such as RPI failed to note this? I am truly baffled by the extent of Marilee’s duplicity, but I’m even more baffled that others did not trip over it sooner.</p>
<p>{{{{{{{Mollie}}}}}}}~</p>
<p>I'm so sorry that the MIT community is reeling from this surprising and disappointing revelation. I sincerely hope that you are not interpreting what I have said in my two posts as "smug pontificating." In fact, I and many others have very legitimate concerns about any person who has been granted the esteemed (and very responsible) position that Ms. Jones had been granted having based her career on a fabricated resume. </p>
<p>This was not a "mistake." No way it could have been. Ms. Jones chose to do something which she knew was VERY wrong and persisted in perpetuating this lie until she was "outed" by someone. The deliberate deception is a difficult thing for some of us to get past.</p>
<p>That she functioned well in her capacity is beside the point at the moment. I keep thinking (and asked my dh just tonight)---how would you feel if someone who performed surgery on one of our children disclosed later that s/he had no medical degree? Even if the person did a great job, the fact remains that we would have put our trust and faith in someone on the basis of a lie, and if I had had an MIT applicant, I'd have felt the same way about this.</p>
<p>I fully recognize the contributions Ms. Jones has made to MIT. That said, she is the one who has put herself in a very public position, more so than many admissions officers. She has published a book, gives talks, and has spoken out forcefully (and eloquently) about the elite admissions process. All of this has caused more eyes to be cast upon her and upon MIT. In taking this road, she put both herself and MIT at even greater risk. </p>
<p>My heart truly goes out to the admissions office at MIT and to all who so diligently strive for excellence in their work there. The responsibility for this lies with Ms. Jones, who made an exceedingly poor decision--and chose not to correct it and take the responsibility for it. MIT is and will always be a superb institution and a place of great honor. The actions of one person do not detract from the wonderful reputation it has earned. </p>
<p>Many of us do understand where you are coming from on this, Mollie. But one can be stunned by this revelation and not be smug....just terribly suprised and sad.</p>
<p>fondly, ~berurah</p>
<p>She purposefully changed the school's philosophy on admissions. The fact that MIT allowed this to be done by someone who was unqualified for the job, and had acquired it by fraud, reflects very negatively on the school. In addition the fact that MIT failed to discover the fraud during the hiring process is pathetic.</p>
<p>mootmom,</p>
<p>It's sort of a zero sum game. With a fixed number of acceptances, emphasizing one area more inevitably means de-emphasizing other areas. Admitting more people because of athletics, all of a sudden, means that some people without athletics but have "stronger" (whatever that means) academic records won't get in. Beyond that, it's just semantics.</p>
<p>I don't feel that it's necessary to get into the discussion about whether her policies 'might change the world for the better', but I'm just pointing out that she should certainly not have been the one (or one of the ones) to make that assessment. How can she possibly understand what attributes are important for a technical education without having gone through it?</p>
<p>I'm not trying to be judgmental - I do understand that people make mistakes and how easy it is for them to perpetuate. All I'm trying to point out is that there were probably more capable people to lead MIT admissions, and it's possible that their policies would be drastically different had she not been there.</p>
<p>I'm surprised (possibly astounded) at the qualitative level of her fraud. No degree, but you invent three!!!!. Was this done in one fell swoop of bad judgement, or was it augmented over time? </p>
<p>One wonders, now that hindsight becomes available, who might have suspected this, and who might have known about it.</p>
<p>I think the narcissist comment made earlier applies. Why the devil would you write a book, where anyone with a thimble of grey matter would know that the author profile would include your degrees. </p>
<p>[BTW........some of the earlier posts that imply that a highly educated, competent female in 1978 was somehow disadvantaged are completely off the mark. Organizations were falling all over themselves to hire qualified women. And there had to have been some dissembling in addition to the degrees to explain why she was seeking/ needed the admin assistant job]</p>
<p>My quick opinion on this without having researched it much is that there will be a reasonable amount more to come on this situation. Perhaps not "a lot" , but more than one might think. I am speaking about facts, and not about the continued outpouring of opinion.</p>
<p>cghen:</p>
<p>No, that's not what people are complaining about Marilee Jones. And she is not responsible for science education in this country, whether it emphasizes knowing the basics or not. I specifically commented on objections to her encouragement to daydream. It was not meant to be a prescription for what to do; merely an observation that daydreaming is not the same as slacking or a refusal to learn. It can be absolutely the opposite. </p>
<p>Did Marilee Jones actually de-emphasize academics? I did not think so.
I agree with Cheers that she spoke from both sides of her mouth. In the admission session I attended, she mentioned SATs in the range of 600-800 and grades of mostly As and some Bs. But the stats of admitted students do not bear out the claim that MIT admitted students with weak academics.</p>
<p>
[quote]
but I'm just pointing out that she should certainly not have been the one (or one of the ones) to make that assessment.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree with this completely.</p>
<p>
[quote]
How can she possibly understand what attributes are important for a technical education without having gone through it?
[/quote]
I think Ben Jones did not graduate from MIT and does not possess an engineering/math/science degree. Nonetheless, I do not think that it is necessary for all members of an admission committee to have a scientific background. I can evaluate the importance of an AIME score or an IMO medal as well as the next person despite my own lack of such a background.</p>