<ol>
<li><p>Admissions is an institutional process. I don't think there's any question that Jones was an effective leader, but she would not have survived long, especially given how outspoken she has been, if the MIT administration, trustees, and faculty were not basically pleased with her work, her public views, and the student body her admissions program produced. The notion that the MIT Admissions Committee was filling the school with unqualified daydreamers and English majors is just monumentally silly.</p></li>
<li><p>Obviously, it turns out that you don't have to have a lot of formal scientific training or work to do an effective job running the MIT admissions process. (I'm sure Jones picked up a lot of informal scientific training over her years at MIT. I'm also sure she would not have lasted five minutes in any job there if people weren't convinced that she thought like a scientist and was on their wavelength. That's hard to fake, especially in close quarters for a long time.)</p></li>
<li><p>But MIT does want all of its high-profile administrators, or most of them, to have formal scientific training and work in their background. In a weird way, Jones supported that value, by pretending that she had the qualifications.</p></li>
<li><p>There is a lot of story left to be told here. When did those extra degrees show up? She worked at MIT for almost 30 years, since she was a very young woman. Surely no one thought PhDs materialized out of thin air? And why did she lie in the first place, since she probably didn't have to in order to get that first clerical job? Has she always been a con artist? Or did she retire at 23, but never manage to correct her last deception? Is this the first time someone has tried to expose her, or the last?</p></li>
</ol>
<p>The details don't hang together yet. I'm sure reporters are frantically dialing people right now trying to piece this together.</p>
<p>Berurah, I don't think you could pontificate if you tried. :)</p>
<p>I know that most posters are responding reasonably, and I certainly wasn't addressing everyone, not in the least. I am just objecting to some of the more egregious personal smears, and to the insinuations that MIT is at fault for Marilee's deception. It was certainly wrong, and I think everyone agrees that her resignation was the best choice for everyone. I just think the blame that some posters are placing on MIT, and on the admissions office, is unjustified.</p>
<p>FWIW, I am wondering whether the situation mentioned by 3Ks in post #295 was a catalyst for the discovery -- the timeline is a little too close for comfort, and as the poster of the "fact" that Marilee had degrees from RPI, I am feeling a little sick to my stomach about my possible part in the whole sorry situation.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There is no sympathy for a woman who lies on her resume to get a job she was not qualified for.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The odd thing is that I'm sure she didn't need those degrees to get the administrative job she applied for way back when. As someone else said, I'm surprised she didn't try to get more education in the intervening years if she aspired to a higher job at MIT. She certainly shouldn't have been accepted at her current position without more checking. </p>
<p>We seem to have a culture nowadays where people are willing to take shortcuts to get what they want. Just look at how many people are posting in this thread without doing everyone the courtesy of reading the whole thread first. Instead, they just want us to forgive them if their remarks are redundant. (Of course that's not on the level of Marilee's deception but I do find it interesting)</p>
<p>Wait a minute, (I believe) that people are complaining about her admissions policies regarding applicants who say they're passionate about something compared to those who actually persue those passions to some tangible end. The daydreamers vs. the over-achieving, adult-pleasing go-getters. Which is better? I don't even want to go there now, but it's a complicated question, and that question asked from the point of view of science/math/engineering may have a different answer than that for other fields.</p>
<p>She shifted the emphasis more towards evaluating such passion from reading essays and interviews over what was achieved in the classroom: taking the 'daydreamer' over the 'good student'. That's precisely de-emphasizing academics. Good or bad, it was different than before, so she had an influence.</p>
<p>As I said, my heart truly goes out to you and to all of those who are/will be affected by this whole mess. Trust me when I tell you that of all people, I <em>DO</em> know how you feel what with Duke having gone through so much in the past year. <em>sigh</em></p>
<p>
[quote]
FWIW, I am wondering whether the situation mentioned by 3Ks in post #295 was a catalyst for the discovery -- the timeline is a little too close for comfort, and as the poster of the "fact" that Marilee had degrees from RPI, I am feeling a little sick to my stomach about my possible part in the whole sorry situation.
[/quote]
Mollie, honey, do NOT feel this way, O.K.? There is only ONE person to blame for this situation. To pass the blame around is counterproductive, though I'm sure this will change the way that MIT (and many other places) check out the resumes of those who apply.</p>
<p>I can so totally imagine how you are feeling right now, and so close to graduation and very happy times ahead for you. I wish Ms. Jones could have realized how very much hurt her actions had the potential for inflicting BEFORE it got to this point. </p>
<p>Hang in there, mollie...everything will be just fine.</p>
<p>I admire the desire some people have expressed to show Ms. Jones compassion and forgiveness. The problem is that this is least appropriate when dealing with someone who, by the nature of her position, should be held to the highest standards of integrity.
One has to consider the position of rejected applicants who realize that their applications were reviewed under the leadership of a woman who lacked both appropriate credentials and the minimum level of integrity expected of applicants.
Unforunately, I will not be surprised if bombshells far more shocking than this emerge regarding specific applications presided over by Ms. Jones.</p>
<p>Mollie--unless you knew what Marilee's "real" background is, you should not feel like you had any part in this. Having the close ties that you do have to the admissions folks, this has got to be a very difficult situation for everyone involved. (actually, I was hoping that you'd post, you've been one of the voices of reason from MIT since I've been lurking on CC since last fall). As I said earlier, I think MIT will be fine, and I think that after dealing with this reeling blow, that all the folks in admissions will go about their job, being as fair as possible. With a school as prestigious as MIT, with as low of an accept rate, there's certainly never going to be consensus that the admissions process is perfect.</p>
<p>Edit: Oops--I cross posted w/ Berurah....as always, she was much more eloquent than I was. Great minds do think alike, however.</p>
I don't think it's necessary for all members of an admission committee either. It would be nice, though, for someone, who was in favor of radically changing who was admitted for a scientific education, to have some first-hand knowledge of what it takes to do good work in that field.</p>
<p>
This I would contest. How could you know what amount of work/intelligence/etc. goes into an IMO medal without some technical knowledge. How could you compare that difficulty to say, the difficulty of a playing a varsity sport: truly both are great achievements, but since they are so different, without really knowing what goes into an IMO medal, you can't properly judge which activity would lead to making the best future scientist.</p>
<p>I still find it hard to believe, given her visibilty the last few years, that this did not come to light sooner. I also feel she must have felt, because it had be "undiscovered" for so long, that she was immune from further scrutiny.</p>
<p>I wonder how she felt when George O'Leary was hired to be coach Notre Dame and then fired for days later when their background check found inconsistencies on his education record. Also, the highly visible newpaper plagerism stories that have made the front pages, especially out east, surely would have had her worried unless she felt she was bullet proof.</p>
<p>I feel for Mollie and all the good people at MIT. I will say though that there are those at the school who have been less than enamored by Ms. Jones, despite her good press. A former student, who knows her quite well, only two months ago questioned her competence and actually said he wondered he how she made it through college. Hmm...</p>
<p>Did the student achieve the grade through hard work? memorization? grade consciousness or brilliance?</p>
<p>I thought it was a very legitimate set of questions. </p>
<p>My best friend and I used to vie for #1 and #2 throughout high school (French schools ranked students for every class). But there was no doubt in either her or my mind that I was the more "brilliant" and that she achieved her success by dint of hard work. I was the one who came home every month with a report card saying that I daydreamed in class (but got top grades anyway). By the time we went to university, the differences in our approaches were quite obvious. My friend struggled at university and ended up as a personal secretary. I moved to the US and eventually got a Ph.D.
Granted, my field was not in math/science. But I've noticed the number of students who tried to major in math/science in college merely because they did well in high school in those subjects. College-level math/science is more than just hard work and memorization.</p>
<p>Why can't a non-scientist assess an AIME score? I know what a good score is. I know what an IMO gold medal is. It's better than a silver or a bronze or none at all. Why do I have to know how much effort goes into winning it? If an applicant is an IMO gold medalist, I'd bet any college would snap him or her up without a great deal of deliberation. Case closed. </p>
<p>My S submitted a college math paper he'd written as supplementary material to the two schools he applied to. I don't expect that paper to have been read by the adcoms. In fact, he got a letter and an email from the chairman of the math department of one college to which he applied.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I don't understand how Marilee Jones' lies were only now found out. She's in her 50s. Very few women when she was college/graduate school age were majoring in the sciences at the colleges that she claimed to have degrees from. Also, those colleges weren't that big, and as an MIT admissions dean who had published at least one book, she was in the news a lot. Also, people in the circles that she ran in as MIT's dean know lots of people in common including people who went to various grad schools at the same time. It's very hard for me to believe that she wasn't found out virtually immediately once she became admissions dean.</p></li>
<li><p>I'm wondering what other colleges' deans of admission fabricated their resumes.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Thanks, berurah and astrophysicsmom. I definitely don't feel responsible, but I would distinctly prefer not to suspect that I may have been involved in any way.</p>
<p>The whole situation just makes me very, very sad. I just don't even have the drive to contribute any salient points to the discussion, and I'm terribly glad that there are many posters who are saying what I would say if I weren't feeling like I had been stomped on by a steel-toed boot.</p>
<p>EDIT: I am quite sure that the admissions staff was not aware of Marilee's fabrication -- had there been any question in their minds, I do not think they would have forwarded me the information to post regarding her degrees. I did not ask for that information; it was given to me unsolicited.</p>
<p>I'm wondering why no news reporter, during her book tour, thought to telephone people at her supposed alma mater to find out about her experience as a college applicant and student, to compare that with today's situation. Yeah, this should have been found out much sooner.</p>
<p>*As associate director, Ms. Jones oversaw international admissions, transfers, the Special Students process, recruitment of women and academic superstars, and staff training. She was a member of the Student Services Reengineering Assessment team and has served on the national boards of the National Association of Foreign Student Advisors and the Women in Engineering Programs Administrators Network. She and Experimental Study Group associate director Holly B. Sweet are co-leaders of the Academic Administrator Professional Development Seminar at MIT, sponsored by the Academic Administrator Network.</p>
<p>As the interim director of the Admissions Office, Ms. Jones worked with Dean Behnke, who served as director from 1985 until last June. On the eve of taking on her leadership role, Ms. Jones spoke appreciatively of the preparation she received in working for Mr. Behnke and his staff.</p>
<p>"MIT is very lucky to have the best admissions staff in the country. Michael Behnke hired many of us and provided us with the authority and autonomy to be innovative, proactive and well-known in our field. I learned to be a professional while working for Michael, I learned the value of preparation and follow-through, and I especially learned to think strategically. He was a very good boss for me," she said.*</p>
<p>Oh Mollie, forgive me. I did not intend to implicate anyone in the thread for outing Marilee. I viewed that thread as an example of typical water cooler talk, and I can only imagine that many innocent conversations like the one in the thread took place over the years. I'm still surprised that others did not trip over this sooner in the same fashion as that thread. You are a well-reasoned advocate for MIT, and I thank you for your generous postings.</p>
Mollie, you posted something in good faith that was true as you knew it. <em>IF</em> anything came of that, there is <em>NO WAY</em> you could have known that it would. I do realize that this won't make you feel any better right now because all of this is weighing heavily on you, but it SHOULD make you feel better down the line. More {{{{{hugs}}}}}</p>
<p>Wow, I take my eye off CC for one day to fly across the country on business trip and I get to my hotel to discover that the whole admissions world has blown up while I was in the air!</p>
<p>Some observations:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I think she did an effective job as Dean of Admissions or else they wouldn't have kept her all these years.</p></li>
<li><p>I don't think she was fired because MIT requires admissions deans to have advanced degrees. She was fired for LYING.</p></li>
<li><p>I never cease to be amazed by the magnitude of the human capacity for hypocrisy, rationalization, and self-deception.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I am reminded of a similar situation at my company about 20 years ago. A senior R&D manager was fired when the company found out he didn't have the Ph.D. that he had claimed. Not that the company necessarily required all R&D managers to have a Ph.D. But they did require that all managers be honest.</p>
<p>The funny twist to this story was that the company found out about the lack of degree when the guy ran off and left his long time wife for a sweet young thing. The angry wife called up the company and told them about his big lie. He was fired the same day.</p>
<p>Let that be a lesson. Your spouse knows all your dirt. Plus it's not for nothing that the Greeks considered Vengeance to be embodied by a <em>female</em> diety -- the goddess Nemesis.</p>
<p>We never saw the guy again except once more about a year later: he appeared on The Newlywed Game with his new trophy wife that he had run off with.</p>