<p>SV2, That quote is downright creepy. This whole saga is a bit like "Catch me if you can". I never much liked Marilee's message; found her disgenuous, contradictory. Like Polonious, she advised others "to thy ownself be true" while being anything but herself. What a movie this is going to make!</p>
<p>From MITs admission website:</p>
<p>"In the face of serious disappointment, children (even very mature 17- year-olds) suffer more than adults because they have less perspective. Help your child look around at other adults you know living happy, fulfilling lives. Almost certainly, they did not all attend the "perfect" college, nor did their lives proceed "perfectly" after that. There are many, many paths to becoming an interesting, successful person; one of life's hardest but most useful lessons is that we don't always get to choose which one we take."</p>
<p>Marilee Jones had a choice (and she was more 27, than 17, when she made her choice). What she did with that choice speaks volumes.</p>
<p>Wow. There's so much that's more poignant in that passage today than it was last week.</p>
<p>That's almost exactly what I've been imagining this morning: In her early twenties, after not quite clicking anywhere, she stumbled on what she yearned to be down deep. She created her own reality, acknowledged her true identity, and brought it into being. And she became the person she was meant to be, with an important role in a world that badly needed her.</p>
<p>I do not understand the outpouring of sympathy for this woman (although her daughter truly deserves to be left alone). If one were to name an administrative position at a school where absolute integrity about credentials is vital, an admissions director would be at the top of the list. The damage she has done to to others and the institution is significant. Should we revel in her troubles? Of course not - people falling on hard times is not a good thing by any means. But Ms. Jones must be accountable for her actions. Not so sure she can easily ever make things right.</p>
<p>I too have found many of her quoted statements in the past oily and disingenous, and don't think they served MIT particularly well. But others may differ, and that's fine.</p>
<p>The sordidness of the tale does not stem from her having lied about her credentials. (If anything, they suggest her credentials didn't matter in her ability to do her job, which is a commentary in itself.) Rather it stems from overseeing a department where part of the job is to make judgments about tens of thousands of students as to their character and integrity. So it taints everything she touched, and it should.</p>
<p>That's not a happy thought, nor is fair to the dedicated staff, and hardworking students and applicants. But the fact that it isn't happy doesn't change the reality.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
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.
[/QUOTE]
What was the "confetti-tube fiasco"? I've read Marilee's blog before and went back to look for the reference and didn't find it. In one entry, she did say that the post office processed the tubes separately from their decision letters, but unless they sent them to the wrong students, I'm not sure I'd call it a fiasco.</p>
<p>The only place where I think she mentioned suffering a few bruises was when talking about her daughter's application process. The entry is completely separate from the one that mentions the tubes.
[QUOTE]
I really wish I could comfort you better. I want more than anything for my daughter to be admitted everywhere so she will not feel that sting of rejection so familiar to me at my age and level of experience (you don't get to be Dean of Admissions without some bruises along the way), but as a pragmatic dean, I know that she will probably get some rejections because of the laws of probability. After all, you are all at the crest of the huge demographic bubble, applying to many more schools than students used to, so everyone's probability of acceptance goes down.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Does anyone else here suspect that there are other administrators, at other institutions, who are shaking in their shoes right now? </p>
<p>I don't think that "misrepresentation" on resumes (i.e. lying) is rampant, but I don't think that Marilee Jones is the sole perpetrator. I wonder if in light of the MIT situation universities are going to ask their human resources departments to make a sweep through the resumes of current employees. Sadly, I wouldn't be surprised if there is further fall out.</p>
<p>M J did not lie just once, she perpetuated the lie. She went from adding on lesser degrees to allowing herself to be called Dr." The first time that was done, she could have corrected the error. Even if she made up initial degrees to get the MIT slot, she could have taken on-line course to actually earn a M.S.</p>
<p>Did she lie to her husband? her daughter? How many other corners did she cut? What about her parents?</p>
<p>As I said before, her actions do not belittle MIT. My sympathies are directed at their admissions dept.</p>
<p>"Sadly, I wouldn't be surprised if there is further fall out."</p>
<p>I anticipate that, too -- at MIT and at other institutions, including prominent ones.</p>
<p>"She created her own reality, acknowledged her true identity, and brought it into being. And she became the person she was meant to be, with an important role in a world that badly needed her."</p>
<p>I don't buy that. Nothing prevented her earning those degrees instead of lying about having them. I imagine that as a staff member at a private college, she even could have gone to MIT for free. </p>
<p>Indeed, many ambitious college secretaries get their degrees that way. </p>
<p>Of course, it may be difficult to do that if one lied to get a secretarial job. Back when she was hired there were many smart women with masters and BAs who were working as secretaries. One of my friends who had at least a BA back then was working as a secretary at MIT while her husband got his doctorate. This was probably a few years after Jones started her secretarial job there.</p>
<p>It's very disappointing to say the least. A very large portion of the MIT student body loved Marilee Jones (including myself, I'm not sure I would have gotten in without her change in institute admissions, and MIT has turned into my dream school) and it's hard not only to see that she was untruthful, but also to see how the story is now being reported. She lied about many things, and her resignation was justified, but her accomplishments are seemingly now tainted and being glossed over.</p>
<p>I'm just hoping the next admissions director continues her good work.</p>
<p>A general note:
Please, for a moment, put yourselves in our shoes. (By "we" I mean current MIT students, stuff, admissions people, etc.) Imagine that someone you knew personally, who spoke out vehemently for a cause you truly cared about, in whom you had tremendous amounts of trust, respect and admiration, turned out to be, for lack of nicer words, a liar and a hypocrite. Chances are, you'd be highly disappointed, disoriented, and upset. Your immediate instinct would probably be to jump to that person's defense.</p>
<p>That's not to say that her behavior was appropriate or excusable in any way, I'm just pointing out that not only is she human, but so are those of us who know her. The revelation that she lied does not suddenly make her a horrible person. We don't wish for her to be destroyed, we (rather childishly, I'll admit) wish for it to be not true. Imagine if this were a close friend of yours. Would you be outraged and calling for a lawsuit (which, by the way, is probably top of the list in terms of insane suggestions I've heard on this site, which is impressive), or would you be more inclined to be hurt and disappointed? I can imagine that there are those who would feel both ways, obviously people will react differently in the same situation. My point is simply this: allows us our compassion. If you want to make her into the Anti-Christ for this, that's your business. If you want to declare your opinions of how wrong and inexcusable her actions were, I'll completely agree with you. But please, allows us to process our shock and disappointment without your "what is wrong with you people for not wanting to crucify her?" comments. (Or at the very least, I hope I've answered the "why all the sympathy?" questions.) </p>
<p>If there anything that people on this forum should learn (and hopefully some of them have), it's that there is very, very little in this world that is black and white. Here is a prime example: lying on her resume was absolutely wrong, but all of the good she's done to de-stress college admissions was absolutely right (in my personal opinion, trust me, I know how many of you disagree), so...what? Where does that leave everything?</p>
<p>I disagree with comments about how "comfortable" she was with lying, making money off of hypocrisy, or whatever else the comments are. This may very well have been eating at her every day for the past 28 years. It also might not have, but the point is, unless you're telepathic, you have no way of knowing, so I suggest you keep "statements" about her intentions to yourself.</p>
<p>To those who are commenting on the future of MIT admissions and such, you should understand that the dean is not the sole driver of admissions policy. In fact, if you read the Tech article carefully, it mentions that she was assigned the job of increasing the number of women students at MIT. Suggesting that the female undergrads are only here now because of someone who was dishonest is completely unfair on several levels. In terms of the current admissions policies, I am sure that they will continue. I've said this before, and I'll mention it now: I know those guys and girls personally, and they believe in what they're doing. Whether you agree with their policies is a completely different story that should not at all be affected by this situation. People don't agree with each other, they agree with each other's opinions. Marliee lying about her degrees does not change the the philosophy she supported, so it shouldn't change your opinion on that philosophy either. Right now I'm just sad that such a strong voice for what I feel to be much-needed change in the college admissions process has been silenced, however rightfully. I still believe the work she did was valid, and again, whether or not you agree with the statement shouldn't much change as a result of recent events.</p>
<p>Also, whatever your opinion on AA is, I hope everyone here realizes that even female MIT students aren't too stupid to operate a computer. We even know about this thing called the Internet and hey! guess what, many of us even read this very website. So it always amazes me that people will write things like this:</p>
<p>
[quote]
I never understand people like you. You'd cheat a deserving male out of a spot just so that you could have a undeserving female around that you could have fun with. Great policy... it sounds really fair!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I doubt that my constant reminders will convince anyone to change this habit of publicly bashing me, but I just thought I'd throw it out there again. Just to let you know: I am a female, I got to MIT, and I am not underqualified, I am not here just to be somebody's girlfriend, and it makes me really, REALLY ******* mad when people like you make uninformed (and quite frankly, idiotic) statements like that. I'd really like it if you'd stop. I doubt you will, but maybe if I say this often enough someone with a conscience will hear me and will stop publicly insulting all female MIT undergrads.</p>
<p>EDIT: Sorry for the long post, it's been a day in the making. =)</p>
<p>Dean J,</p>
<p>The confetti-tubes contained acceptance letters, which arrived first. </p>
<p>The rejection/deferred letters arrived well after the tubes, extending the stress and anxiety of waiting for the decision... looking and hoping, day after day, to see a tube, that is filled with confetti, in the mail carrier's hand was not easy for students or parents. Read all the blogs (Ben's, Matt's) to feel the true extent of the pain. </p>
<p>Actually, her statement is not specific as to whether she gave or received bruises, is it? Perhaps it was both.</p>
<p>I do feel compassion and hope she and her family will have support through this time. And I also believe in forgiveness, and I know I will get there, with time.</p>
<p>Now Jones will have time to pursue all those degrees she claimed she had! (heh! heh! heh!)</p>
<p>
[quote]
I would argue that the revelation of her fraud has done much more harm than the fraud itself.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, I think it is better for the staff at MIT (who must feel quite beleaguered today) and for the admission process at MIT (and other colleges) for all of this to be out in the open. I have heard MIT alumni say that the special thing they learned at MIT is an analytical framework of looking at problems realistically as they attempt to solve them. MIT needs to be more in touch with reality, evidently, and after it gets in touch with reality on this point it will be a stronger university.</p>
<p>For all the mit people who are reading this website: This is an excellent cross section of the way people are thinking after mit's disclosure. At least you have an idea of how different and varied peoples views are.</p>
<p>Yesterday, early on, I was feeling more forgiving. Today, after reading many new facts and reading some quotes from M. Jones, I am appalled.</p>
<p>
Whereas she DID "create her own reality," in NO way did she acknowledge her true identity. To the contrary, she FABRICATED the identity she WISHED to have, at SIGNIFICANT cost to many, herself and her family included. I don't understand this statement, JHS. To her, all of the world was a stage, and she but a player in it......</p>
<p>~berurah</p>
<p>"I disagree with comments about how "comfortable" she was with lying, making money off of hypocrisy, or whatever else the comments are. This may very well have been eating at her every day for the past 28 years. It also might not have, but the point is, unless you're telepathic, you have no way of knowing, so I suggest you keep "statements" about her intentions to yourself."</p>
<p>LauraN, I, for one, thank you for your post and know that this must be difficult for those of you who know Ms Jones. It is unfortunate that you will also bear some of the burden of this. </p>
<p>Nonetheless, her motivations are also unknown to you and you are not telepathic either so you lack the very attributes you desire before allowing anyone to comment about her. Criticizing people on this board will not salvage Ms Jones reputation and make everything go away. People have a right to criticize someone who is, as you put it, "a liar and hypocrite." Rather than lashing out at people on this board I would go and talk to Ms Jones herself and tell her how you feel.</p>
<p>Why do so many people today want to grab the role of victim. Some MIT students seem to want to be cast that way. If there are victims they are the deserving students who were rejected because of the circus Ms. Jones made of the admissions process.
For the most part current MIT students are those who dodged the effect of the circus; some may actually be there because of the circus.</p>
<p>berurah -- I was paraphrasing her book. In the context she used it there, "acknowledge your true identity" is describing an internal psychological process by which you resolve to be who you really are. Of course it's ironic in the current circumstances: Her "true identity" was to be the admissions guardian/crusader for America's great technical university. The only inconvenient problem was that she didn't have the necessary credentials and had lied about them. Lacking those credentials didn't change her true identity, it meant she had to engage in some highly dubious "reality creation" to "bring it into being."</p>
<p>Her example of Mick Jagger is great: Yes, Jagger, a middle-class LSE student, reinvented himself as the sexiest man of our generation and an American blues singer by sheer force of will and creativity. Or think of Cary Grant or Humphrey Bogart, the ultimate self-made men. Had Jones pulled off what she did in the entertainment world, or even in business, she would be a star. Unfortunately, her true self popped up in a context where self-invention requires external certification, because that's the business they're in.</p>