<p>
[quote]
I do not think that it is necessary for all members of an admission committee to have a scientific background.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Admissions is an easy target for impostors, as is Human Resources in general. It has no objective standards of performance, minimal prerequisites for functioning on the job, and very little supervision. That Jones could do her job without college degrees is not surprising; accepting and retaining a high profile position is. The idea that she could get away with it is diagnostic (in the psychiatric sense), and indicates that this is much more than a belated echo of an isolated error from her youth.</p>
I absolutely agree. Her adoption of a very high profile image (rather than her adopting a "hey, I'd better hunker down and keep mum so that there's less chance of this coming to light") is <em>extremely</em> telling about her psychological make up.</p>
<p>Every time I read about this scandal I get a headache!! NYTimes and CNN reports online say that MIT has no evidence Jones received any college degree at all!! Can't imagine how she slept at night knowing how deep a hole she'd dug!!
MIT Chancellor says "In the future, we will take a big lesson away from this."
That's laughable....and sad!!</p>
<p>"Get a grip. I know what it's like to feel disappointed about my children's application outcomes, but I don't personalize it as relating to any particular administrator's character flaws. And I would never attack a group of kids whose only sin was to have written better essays and presented themselves better than my children did."</p>
<p>JHS, I agree with your post 345, but this whole episode makes me wonder how many kids' applications did hide other sins. How many budding young Marilee's got away with not writing their essay because they plagiarized them or "presented" some imaginary person, not themself, because they made up their honors and ECs? How many other children's application outcomes did they impact with their lies? It is ironic that just the day before this story broke I read an article on my homepage about colleges adding "investigators" to their admissions staffs to check backgrounds of applicants.</p>
<p>Wouldn't it be ironic if the reason it was now was because one of the 3 schools she claimed to have graduated from, had decided to offer her an honorary degree as recognition/reward for her groundbreaking work in changing the admissions dialog? And when they did their own research on who were her professors, what pictures did they have in their archives from her time on campus etc....they realized she had not attended/graduated? </p>
<p>Also, someone else commented on the furor in some of the posts in this thread... which made me think of the behaviors of a crowd/assembly/MOB and how the murmurs start slowly and folks fan the flames... into a roar!!</p>
<p>Which makes me think of the role Marilee took....which was to truly confront a process and try to change it...introduce a human element. She did stand up to a large wall and put a lot of chinks into it. And I agree that perhaps part of her motivation may have been because of her own issues. I know I looked at all the applications that came into our house when my oldest was going thru the admissions process. I have said before that my favorite was the Columbia app.....but I liked the MIT app also. And my son definitely entertained the thought that it would be FUN to say he was on the ski team for MIT......we had the impression that folks who did sports at MIT were doing them for the fun of it....to play, not to WIN.....</p>
<p>I know I mentioned integrity many screens ago....Calmom mentions personal integrity....the articles today citing MIT spokespeople also talk integrity... is there a difference btwn integrity and personal integrity? All integrity starts from within......what do we do if no one is watching? </p>
<p>Jack responded to my earlier post that there have always been snake oil salesmen... I know these transgressions are not new.... I am just afraid that 28 yrs of living a lie has now tarnished an entire generation....of women who have earned their degrees....who will now face additional scrutiny... there is real work to be done.... and all of these "scandals" are such big distractions from the real work. UGGGGHHHH.... </p>
<p>I will say again that I appreciate the CC forums because they provide an interesting snapshot into a huge array of thoughts. I love the familiarity of the voices....knowing none....</p>
<p>Although someone else may have already mentioned this, I'm very very surprised that back in 1979 when she first applied for an "entry-level job" in the admissions office, that the fact that she had a PhD didn't raise any red flags at the time. I think that would be very unusual and a little suspect for a "PhD trained scientist" to apply for an entry level position (which sounds like a clerical job). No one asked any questions then about her obvious over-qualifications? I have to believe other people knew about this over the years. What about minor conversations, like undergraduate college roommates; college reunions; who I knew in college; PhD advisors; anybody ask to see her PhD dissertation? Were the parents in on it? Did they never question this? Any siblings? Something doesn't jive here.</p>
<p>maineparent: We just cross-posted; I agree about the "additional scrutiny" and what this does to a generation of women . . .</p>
<p>
[quote]
How many budding young Marilee's got away with not writing their essay because they plagiarized them or "presented" some imaginary person, not themself, because they made up their honors and ECs?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Someone I know got in with faked application materials a la Marilee, then got excellent grades and multiple degrees in one of the most demanding programs at MIT. The fraud was quite sophisticated, as one can imagine from a candidate with those academic capabilities, and I can't think of any tightening of the procedures that would have helped MIT to detect that particular fake.</p>
<p>Think of it as a "hack" before even getting on campus.</p>
<p>The only criticism of MIT that I have is of the Personnel Department for not having checked up on her credentials back when she was first hired. It's a routine thing to do. Unfortunately, it's also a routine thing for people to claim degrees and dates of attendance that they don't have. Princeton keeps a big file on people claiming Princeton degrees that can't be verified called "Doubtful Princetonians."</p>
<p>siserune and berurah, saddened and shocked as I am by this whole mess, I found myself thinking along the same lines. Public opinion tends to forget and forgive all too quickly so it is possible that Marilee Jones will be able at one point down the road to recover a modicum of public trust and lecture so eloquently again on a subject that she really is expert on - she may not have kept it honest but she does know what it means to pad a resume and misrepresent oneself. She also knows first hand the psychological price one pays for doing so and that includes living the lie. In any case, there are lessons to be learned here. One of them is that there is a new age of vigilance in academia as well as the workforce - and not just aimed at student applicants. The MIT administration turned admissions police and policed one of their own. Given the recent media emphasis on the use of background checks in admissions the irony is all too sharp and I am sure nothing can be more painful than this outcome - I agree with Garland it does indeed have all the makings of a classic tragedy.</p>
<p>Did Ms. Jones claim to have a Ph.D. from any of the 3 institutions she claim to have attended? I believe she only mentioned "receiving degrees" from... She was indeed often referred to as Dr. Jones and let it pass unchallenged, probably in order to not encourage further discussion of those three degrees. But I don't recall her specifically laying claim to a Ph.D.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I agree with Garland it does indeed have all the makings of a classic tragedy.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Adcoms as the gods on Mt. Olympus (they had their own character flaws, too). Applicants as the mortals acting out their fates; CC functioning as a Greek chorus.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I thought it was a very legitimate set of questions.
[/quote]
I thought it was an interesting question, but I was not at all convinced my son's teacher's knew the answer. Did they know he went home and spent five minutes on homework and five hours doing other computer programming stuff he thought was interesting? I don't think so. I didn't mind the application it was a little more interesting that some of the others. My favorite application is Caltech's with the Box and the question about an ethical dilemma.</p>
<p>I don't believe that she actually had any A.B., M.S. or PhD attached to her name in print.</p>
<p>While this is an awful situation, I cannot imagine that it does not happen in the corporate world. Unless you are hired by high-level head hunters, I don't know how intensively anyone checks credentials. Ofcourse, with today's technology cross-referencing claims, degrees and other qualifications is much easier. 28 years ago, the tools to do this just weren't available. Besides, she joined them at an entry level position. I would imagine though, that 9 years ago, when she bid on this important position, there would have been more scrutiny. But then again, she had ironically built up a trust for her work ethic by that time.</p>
<p>What about people who have degrees from other countries? I know that fake certificates can be obtained for a fee.</p>
<p>I agree that not every teacher could have answered those questions. They struck me, however, not only as legitimate ones to raise (a teacher can always reply "Not answerable") but also the main way in which the MIT application package differed from others we'd read except for the essay prompt.I was specifically wondering what those who have been critical of MIT admissions during Jone's tenure objected to.<br>
I also want to reiterate that whatever policy she advocated, she did at the behest of the MIT trustees. Sure, she was a strong personality and that must affected her hiring selections. But even an even stronger personality than hers, Summers, served at the behest of the Harvard Corporation. In sum, MIT admissions policies were not unilaterally initiated or implemented by Jones.</p>
<p>marite: Post #197 on this thread lists a blurb that attaches PhD to her name.</p>
<p>Usually, when someone refers to someone as "Dr," that usually means he/she is either a medical doctor or a PhD. I have no idea what was on the MIT web site, and haven't checked. That's probably been removed by now. She has certainly been listed as having 3 degrees. Are we to assume those were all undergraduate degrees? Usually, if someone is constantly referred to as "Dr," and he/she is neither a medical doctor nor PhD, wouldn't that person correct others? So what do you think these 3 degrees were supposed to be? I have no idea what was written on the inside cover of her book.</p>
<p>Years ago we (financial firm) hired an associate from a major MBA program at a prestigious midwestern university. We had interviewed him on campus. He had a remarkable resume for someone at that stage of life, and I distinctly thought after interviewing him that his persona seemed a bit at odds with his paper resume.......nothing alarming, but the idea that if you met this guy, you wouldn't assume he'd done all the stuff on his cv.</p>
<p>Three months after he started, the personnel guys were doing routine degree checks and learned he'd never received his degree. He claimed a misunderstanding and something about unpaid book fines or somesuch, and said it was easily straightened out. We suspended him w/o pay and told him to go fix it ( his work had been satisfactory, I believe). He never came back. </p>
<p>Fifteen years later I got a call from my college roommate's younger brother, who was working at a high level at a major West Coast financial institution. He had a guy applying for a position, and since the applicant's resume said he'd worked where I had, he wondered if I remembered him. Well, the last name didn't ring a bell completely, but the first name did. And when we compared notes on what he was saying, I told him the story of what had happened. He had had a similar question about the applicant, and just happened to have a resource available to check. It was the same guy with a modified last name. </p>
<p>If you pull this stuff, people do check and do remember. My great suspicion is that if this is "pursued" by reporters, other incidents of misrepresentation by this woman are going to be discovered. I do think this case has that feeling of someone unable to allow the truth to get in the way of what they think others would like to hear or believe.</p>
<p>I am sure that Marilee Jones did good work at MIT, but this is not the issue which concerns me about this situation.</p>
<p>As we all know, there are many opportunities to embellish or cheat in the quest for admission to college. Numerous articles have been published on the high rate of cheating among high school students, teachers require that papers be submitted to web sites which can detect plagiarism, students are tempted to exaggerate the time spent on ECs, etc. </p>
<p>The only academic OR non-academic factor which MIT considers "Very Important" (out of quite a long list) is character/personal qualities (as shown on the US News website). ALL other factors, including grades, scores, essays, ECs, interview, and others are "Important" or "Considered". Thus, MIT's message (which I believe is the correct one) is that honesty and integrity are valued in an applicant above any other accomplishment or achievement. </p>
<p>Marilee Jones, as head of admissions at MIT, was responsible for the admission process, including the ranking of the criteria mentioned above. The very person responsible for sending the message that integrity is of the utmost importance totally ignored the importance of integrity in her own life. This sends a very wrong and confusing message to today's young people who may be tempted to cut corners in order to get ahead.</p>
<p>EDIT: After posting, I read the NY Times article which contains this quote from Marilee Jones' book:
“Holding integrity is sometimes very hard to do because the temptation may be to cheat or cut corners,” it says. “But just remember that ‘what goes around comes around,’ meaning that life has a funny way of giving back what you put out.”
In my opinion, she should have also said that, in addition to the high risk of being caught, one should not cheat or cut corners because it is just WRONG!</p>
<p>she has served on College Board and Women in Engineering!!
[quote]
Dr. Marilee Jones, Ph.D., is the Dean of Admissions at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and has served on several professional boards including the College Board and the Women in Engineering Programs Advisory Network.</p>
<p>As a national spokesperson on the changes in today’s college admission climate, speaking out against the pressures it induces in both students and parents, she has been featured on CBS, ABC and National Public Radio and profiled in such print publications as USA Today, the Chronicle of Higher Education, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal. </p>
<p>She is the coauthor of Less Stress, More Success: Guiding Your
Child Through the College Admissions Process and Beyond.</p>
<p>Dr. Jones is the recipient of MIT’s highest award for administrators, the MIT Excellence Award for Leading Change, as well as the Dean for Undergraduate Education Infinite Mile Award for Leadership. </p>
<p>Dr. Jones is a scientist with degrees in biology and chemistry from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the Albany Medical College.</p>
<p>This is an absolute disgrace. There is no excuse for her. She has casted doubts on the integrity of the whole process and ill-served one of the best higher eduction institute of learning.</p>