<p>MoT~</p>
<p>Excellent post. (#378)</p>
<p>
[quote]
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!
[/quote]
Well, if she <em>is</em> a narcissist, this would not be a compatible thought process.</p>
<p>~b.</p>
<p>I've skimmed the entire thread and apologize if this has been brought up.</p>
<p>Didn't anyone at MIT think it odd that a young woman with a PhD was willing to take an entry level job in admissions at MIT? That there wasn't a post-doc somewhere that would have been more to her liking? Was she married at the time? Was she seeking a break on MIT tuition that she might have gotten as an employee (there's no report she took classes herself at MIT)? </p>
<p>I can't imagine the strain she's been living under all these years - even if it was her own doing.</p>
<p>Back when I applied to work for MIT in 1975, the Personnel department did require a transcript. I remember being annoyed because they couldn't get the transcript directly; I had to pay for a copy for them. I would infer that Marilee must have supplied faked transcripts.</p>
<p>I wonder if Jones got turned in for her resume embellishment after rejecting some student whose parent was about Jones' age, and was a graduate of one of the programs where Jones claimed to have gotten her degree. The parent could have realized that s/he should have known Jones during graduate or undergraduate school, and could have done some investigating, which could have been as easy as checking their alum directory.</p>
<p>It is extremely hard for me to believe that no one before had realized that Marilee Jones had falsified her resume. She encountered too many people whose lives should have crossed paths with her in grad school or undergrad school. There were relatively few women in such programs back then, and she has a larger than life personality, so many people had to have been noticing that something was amiss if they had gotten their degrees in the majors and at the places where she had claimed hers. This also includes faculty at such places. Seems that seeing her claims - -such schools would have been inviting her to speak or to get awards as a distinguished alum. That's another time when her lies would have been illuminated.</p>
<p>" Can't imagine how she slept at night knowing how deep a hole she'd dug!!"</p>
<p>The fact that she didn't bother to get her degrees (which would have been very easy particularly when she was rising through the ranks) and that she had no problems applying for high level, very visible positions, backs others' suppositions that she was higly narcissistic. Her actions do indicate that she thought she was invulnerable.</p>
<p>Most employer now do background check before they hire you. Usually they check that you have the degree you claim you have.
I think the book is what done her in, as in "My fair lady" speak.(:-)</p>
<p><a href="http://www-tech.mit.edu/V127/N21/jones.html%5B/url%5D">http://www-tech.mit.edu/V127/N21/jones.html</a></p>
<p>This is a link to an article in today's edition of MIT's newspaper, The Tech, about this story. </p>
<p>Here is another quote from Marilee Jones' book from The Tech article:
"If you do not live honestly, you will draw suffering into your life because you will always be afraid of getting caught." I guess she was speaking from personal experience when she wrote that!</p>
<p>In reading that article, it sounds like she did move there with her husband. (I assumed he met her much later.) I find it very hard to believe, then, that he didn't know about the fabrications. And if her resume listed only undergraduate and masters degrees, as the above article states, did anyone wonder (including Ms. Jones and her husband) why she was being called "Dr" and why PhD was often listed after her name. Someone must have wondered when--at what point-- she took the time out to get the PhD, while presumably still working full-time. Again, something is off here.</p>
<p>She is from Albany, N.Y., and alleged to have gone to RPI, Union College and Albany Medical School. I am from a place 15 miles from her hometown, and lived about a mile from Union College. That Upstate NY region where RPI, Union, Albany Med School are is filled with engineers, physicists, etc. It's also a place where everyone in a field knows everyone else.</p>
<p>She would have been one of the most prominent natives of that region. It is very hard for me to imagine that no one noticed her lies. Heck, I am a distinguished graduate of my high school there, and certainly haven't accomplished anything as remarkable as being MIT's admission dean.</p>
<p>I think that lots of people must have known she was a liar, but were keeping their mouths shut.</p>
<p>This quote in the MIT newspaper story was very telling. I'm sure this policy will be changed ASAP:
"Dean Hastings said, however, that it is not standard practice to confirm the credentials of individuals being promoted within MIT."</p>
<p>Also, unless her husband is a total social dodo, he'd have to have noticed that things didn't add up with her even if he met her after she allegedly got her degrees.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I wonder if Jones got turned in for her resume embellishment after rejecting some student whose parent was about Jones' age, and was a graduate of one of the programs where Jones claimed to have gotten her degree. The parent could have realized that s/he should have known Jones during graduate or undergraduate school, and could have done some investigating, which could have been as easy as checking their alum directory.
[/quote]
I find this the most likely scenario.</p>
<p>I was thinking last night that someone whose child was rejected might have worked at RPI or one of the other schools, or had a friend who did, and could easily check the alumni records that the schools maintain.</p>
<p>mootmom, I agree with you that a disgruntled parent is the most likely source of the discovery. I heard about this last night, and my husband and I were talking about what we would have done if we'd learned casually that she had falsified her credentials. Neither of us would have notified anyone, and both of us are academics, with MIT in our personal history, who believe that her fraudulent claims undercut the very essence of an academic institution. Of course, if I had been on a search committee considering her for a position, I would have felt it my duty to speak out. But if I had been, for example, an RPI grad from the same time period, and I read about her and knew that she hadn't been there, I would not have said a word. Probably a character flaw, but there it is. I could not have done it to her, and I could certainly not have done it to her family, her co-workers, and all the MIT students who are affected by this.</p>
<p>So who made the call? Who is more angry and wounded that a parent who is watching his or her child reeling from the disappointment of being rejected from a first-choice college? </p>
<p>I disagree with you, coureur, on this statement: "Bringing an end to an an on-going and outrageous fraud is something to feel GOOD about." I would argue that the revelation of her fraud has done much more harm than the fraud itself. Although the fraud was egregious, it was not hurting anyone but Ms. Jones herself as long as it remained a secret.</p>
<p>I agree with you, Northstarmom, that many people must have known she was lying and kept quiet about it.</p>
<p>I cross-posted with MotherofTwo. </p>
<p>My children are not yet near college age - the older is still in MS. But I am very aware already of the prevalence of resume-building among the children of the high-powered, ambitious people in our school district. I was vaguely aware that Ms. Jones was arguing against this distortion of childhood in favor of an unhealthy focus on building a strong application to a hyper-selective school. I was not under the impression that she was arguing against academic excellence, and I was certainly not under the impression that MIT was admitting unqualified applicants.</p>
<p>coureur, I agree with your post #320. And what a story about the wrath of the woman spurned! Unbelievable that the happy couple appeared on the Newlywed Game.</p>
<p>MotherOfTwo writes: "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>MIT must promote integrity in students, faculty and staff. </p>
<p>Integrity is important in every field. But I wonder if MIT was stressing this because of the consequences of faking in sciences and engineering. If the data are faked in a research study, with resultant false conclusions, the false information could be used with dangerous consequences. </p>
<p>Cheating in research is relatively rare. But when it does occur, researchers lose their jobs and can be legally liable if they received and employed grant money under false pretenses.</p>
<p>I think this is probably much more widespread than we realize- or want to admit & we have done it to ourselves.</p>
<p>While I don't condone lying in the workplace, and I don't know much more about the admission process of ultra selective schools than what I read on CC, I do think that we have gone crazy requiring multiple degrees to do a job that doesn't necessarily require even one degree.</p>
<p>I worked for a time as a college advisor ( peer) at a community college- since I was attending part time & I could do this job as long as I was a student, I worked there for quite a while.</p>
<p>I enjoyed it, and I like to think I did a great job.</p>
<p>But frankly, I didn't need a college degree to do so, although if I had wanted to be hired as staff, I would have.</p>
<p>But I wouldn't lie on my resume to get it.</p>
<p>I wouldn't even think about it- for one thing- liars have to have good memories. ;)</p>
<p>Its easier just to tell the truth.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I disagree with you, coureur, on this statement: "Bringing an end to an an on-going and outrageous fraud is something to feel GOOD about." I would argue that the revelation of her fraud has done much more harm than the fraud itself. Although the fraud was egregious, it was not hurting anyone but Ms. Jones herself as long as it remained a secret.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have to concur with Coureur on this--it's blaming the messenger, when it's the act itself which is the cause of the injury. That's like saying that an affair does not hurt a spouse unless someone tells him/her about it (and I know some people believe that.) I argue that the integrity of the marriage is egregiously harmed by the act itself, not by the one who reveals it, and I thnk the same is true here. Her actions were in themselves an injury to academic integrity--better to face that in public to affirm what the values should be and treat the injury, then to allow it to remain hidden and festering. If one person knew, so did others. Letting it continue breeds apathy and callousness.</p>
<p>I just happen to have Jones' book out from the library. Here's an interesting passage from it:</p>
<p>Becoming Your Own Mick Jagger
*I have loved the Rolling Stones since I saw them on their first US tour in 1966, and I"ve seen them on most of their tours since then. I realized recently, however, that the Stones' Mick Jagger is the poster boy for the concept of creating your own reality. After all, he can't really sing very well. He certainly has his own style and a unique and instantly recognizable voice, but it is not what you would call "melodic." He can't really dance well either, though he is athletic, and limber and is a joy to watch as he runs the entire length of the stage many times throughout the show. And he is not the world's handsomest man. In fact it's safe to say that he would never attract beautiful women if he wasn't, well, Mick Jagger. So how is it that he is a true superstar, an internationally known symbol of rock and roll well into his 60s when many of his peers are just old? I think it's because Mick Jagger has always believed that he is a rock star, and so he is, because his millions of fans worldwide have bought into his own inner vision of himself. He's a master at creating his own reality.</p>
<p>So what if you became your own Mick Jagger? What would that mean? Who do you yearn to be way down deep? Who is it that you know you are, but others have yet to see? The key to creating your reality is quite simple: if you can identify and acknowledge that true identity, you will bring it into being. And chances are, you will become the person you were meant to be, different from everyone else, with an important role in a world that badly needs you.*</p>
<p>You have a point, garland. I did not mean to imply that MIT should have ignored the information once they had it; they had no choice but to fire her and make the reason public. I would not be able to bring myself, having no official responsibility for her, to bring about her downfall. And there must have been quite a few people who had the knowledge and chose to keep quite. I suspect that the person who did make the call did so out of viciousness, not out of a sense of integrity.</p>
<p>Inexcusable. Indefensible. Unjustifiable. Disgusting. </p>
<p>Our family's personal experiences with Ms. Jones (Class of 2010):</p>
<p>At a summer information session she said that a student with SATs in the 600s and grades of Bs could still be accepted because her new way of handling admissions provided for higher subjectivity -- Tell us how this isn't a bold-face lie meant to influence MIT's yield by increasing apps from students who honestly don't have a chance? Double-speak. </p>
<p>We were hurt by her infamous EA "confetti-tube" FIASCO. In her blog in defense of herself, she said that she didn't get to become Director of Admissions at MIT without suffering a few bruises along the way and that people who couldn't let go of her incompetence would be eaten alive -- Very unprofessional. Double-speak.</p>
<p>At CPW last year, she talked at length in a giddy, flaky, unfocused fashion all about her daughter and how she was making her apply to 11 (eleven!) colleges -- Tell us how that many apps isn't stressful for a student? Tell me how that many apps equates with the themes in her book? Double-speak.</p>
<p>I find it hard to believe no one in the department questioned her incompetence, unprofessionalism and outright lies, but perhaps they were afraid of her bruises???</p>
<p>MIT should have fired her, NOT accept her resignation -- What has happened to integrity and credibility?</p>
<p>And Ben and Matt are perpetrating what looks like an attempted cover-up by going along with the ridiculous wording of "misrepresented" when the truth is she LIED and committed FRAUD. And her work is not "wonderful" because it is based on LIES.</p>
<p>The forensic psychology of her mind will make for a fascinating book or made-for-TV movie.</p>