<p>For those who feel Marilee Jones is being treated too harshly, remember the case where U. Va. students were thrown out of school and graduates had their degrees revoked when it was discovered that they had plagiarized papers in an introductory physics course. They received severe consequences from their actions, which were very wrong, but, in my opinion, smaller in scope than lying about degrees they had earned.</p>
<p>Shirley Ann Jackson - a real pioneer of women in engineering - President of Renesselar Polytechnic Institute -
<a href="http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=108494&org=NSF&from=news%5B/url%5D">http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=108494&org=NSF&from=news</a>
<a href="http://www.rpi.edu/president/index.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.rpi.edu/president/index.html</a>
<a href="http://web.mit.edu/corporation/members/Jackson-S.html%5B/url%5D">http://web.mit.edu/corporation/members/Jackson-S.html</a>
[quote]
Described by Time Magazine in 2005 as "perhaps the ultimate role model for women in science," Jackson achieved many firsts in her career. In 1973, she completed the doctoral degree in physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), historically becoming the first African-American woman to receive a doctorate of any kind from MIT. Jackson was the first African American to sit on, and then chair, the NRC. She also was the first African-American woman to be elected to the National Academy of Engineering and to preside over a major national research university.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I can envision President Jackson wanting to honor a notable graduate, a fellow pioneer in women's engineering - maybe ask Marilee to be a Commencement Speaker at RPI. In this hypothetical situation President Jackson asked her staff to get the details on Marilee's undergrad degree at RPI.
If this happened, I can only imagine President Jacksons reaction.</p>
<p>JHS~</p>
<p>O.K, gotcha....</p>
<p>~b.</p>
<p>Here is a quote from Ms Jones' predecessor, Michael Behnke, currently dean of admissions at Chicago (from the WSJ)</p>
<p>
[quote]
"She's really been a leader in the profession. She was a leader when she worked for me. Very creative. Obviously, too creative," he said.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>^^That's a polite way of putting it...</p>
<p>I have long been troubled by many of Ms. Jones' statements and policies - I found her disingenuous at best and a fraud at worst. Additionally, I often wondered about her training/education/expertise. Her questions posed to teachers, for example, are quite problematic (and have been the topic of previous CC threads). Someone with her supposed background should have been aware of such issues. </p>
<p>However, more disturbing to me have been several posts on this thread. </p>
<p>Namely:</p>
<p>"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."</p>
<p>and:</p>
<p>"I suspect that the person who did make the call did so out of viciousness, not out of a sense of integrity."</p>
<p>How can this "self confessed academic" be so willing to ignore dishonesty and attack those who reveal such?????????????????????</p>
<p>I guess the same way she can claim to support Ms. Jones for "arguing against this distortion of childhood in favor of an unhealthy focus on building a strong application to a hyper-selective school." while visiting CC to help her middle school child?????????</p>
<p>I think the scenario presented in #422 is much more credible that a rejected applicant "outing" her!!</p>
<p>My two cents: if you want to understand how this happened, I suggest this book: The Sociopath Next Door, by Martha Stout.</p>
<p>This quote, post #392, is intriguing: "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>Perhaps this way of thinking is part and parcel of the problem in this country. To convince oneself that this fraud "was not hurting anyone" (which is obviously what Ms Jones was able to easily do), is a little scary.</p>
<p>So many posts here are first and foremost looking to cover for themselves somehow--their school, or their kid's school, or their kid's acceptance, or their feminist ideology, or their profession, or for prestige schools in general, or for colleagues somewhere, or for their own past or potential "mistakes." I like post #400 by HappyPoet, which rather lays it on the line, and I share holycow's amazement at some of the excuses which have been made for this woman, which is simply self-interest masquerading as forgiveness and understanding, in many cases. Anyone and everyone has every right to be outraged over this development. And yes, of course MIT shares some of the blame--much as no one wants to hear that for some reason.</p>
<p>As for MJ: this goes beyond narcissism, it seems to me, and involves a much deeper and more complexly disordered personality.</p>
<p>hereshoping~</p>
<p>Pathological narcissism (as opposed to the colloquial, everyday usage of the term) <em>IS</em> a highly complex and disordered personality. I should know...I grew up with several. See for yourself:
<a href="http://samvak.tripod.com/%5B/url%5D">http://samvak.tripod.com/</a></p>
<p>I've been thinking along somewhat the same lines as Jack and ReflectiveMom. What is it about our society that we are so reluctant to blow the whistle when we see wrong doing? Why do we look down on whistleblowers as tattle tales? Imagine how different this might have played out if someone had told on Ms. Jones long ago. They might even have kept her in her position and she could have risen through the ranks on her own merits. We think we are doing less harm by being quiet, but I don't think so.</p>
<p>Yesterday, early on, I was sad for M. Jones and the major mistake she made 28 yrs. ago. Today, filled with new info and direct quotes from M. Jones, I am absolutely appalled. However, I have no problem with forgiveness and I have no "self interest" ( my son did have the "goods" but was rejected)</p>
<p>"Perhaps this way of thinking is part and parcel of the problem in this country. To convince oneself that this fraud "was not hurting anyone" (which is obviously what Ms Jones was able to easily do), is a little scary."</p>
<p>I totally agree. Coincidentally, I just returned from a conference last night attended by professionals in my field from all over the country and some from overseas. One of the presentations was given by a high level administrator of a large agency. As part of one of his slides, he talked about a project that a technical group under him had done and how their results had influenced public policy, etc. The only problem was, the project he discussed directly relates to my work and I know far too much about the details of this topic (I am a member of an inter-agency committee overseeing work on the specific topic). What he presented about the work his group had done was totally (or at least 90%) untrue. I did not confront him in the public questions after his talk, as I did not see the point of embarassing him publiclly, but did speak to him privately afterwards. He seemed embarrassed and told me he was just presenting what he had been told by his subordinates in that technical group under him (which I believe to be true.) I searched the Internet and found that this tecnical group's website also had claimed in its listing of its accomplishments to have done this work and that their results influenced public policy on this issue, without providing any further details or a link to a technical report, etc. It really bothered me to hear something like this, and now I am wondering how much of everything I hear in my professional work is false!</p>
<p>"I can envision President Jackson wanting to honor a notable graduate, a fellow pioneer in women's engineering - maybe ask Marilee to be a Commencement Speaker at RPI. In this hypothetical situation President Jackson asked her staff to get the details on Marilee's undergrad degree at RPI. If this happened, I can only imagine President Jackson's reaction."</p>
<p>Sounds very possible.</p>
<p>What amazes me, though is that RPI's alumni magazine had never attempted to do a feature on Marilee Jones, who as the admissions dean at MIT, typically would have been the type of person profiled in an alum magazine. I truly don't understsand why Jones' fraud wasn't quickly discovered once she became prominent.</p>
<p>I remember how Janet Cooke, the former Washington Post reporter lost her Pulitzer more than 2 decades ago. She had made up a story about an 8-year-old heroin addict. Her lies came to light after she won a Pulitzer, and the articles about her said she was a Vassar grad. Vassar officials saw that info, checked their records, found out she had never gone there, and then Vassar officials called The Washington Post, who found out that not only had Cooke liked about her own background, she'd fabricated the story.</p>
<p>This leads to my also wondering how many other likes Marilee Jones made up. It's not likely that she lied only about her own background. I also find it highly unlikely that no one had stumbled upon the truth before now. I want to know who else knew and why hadn't they spoken up.</p>
<p>The biggest mistruth that is rampant on this thread is the insistence that this new information has not affected Mrs. Jone's work. There is no definite proof that Jones's lie was the cause of her untypical personal admissions philosophy, however it is quite naieve for people on this board to state that her work has been great regardless of the fact of the lie. All of the facts currently point to the idea that there was something wrong in Mrs. JOne's personality; the way she could so vehemenly campaign against lying in an application, and yet be guilty of her own crime! THe point is, although there is no proof she did anything else, if Jones was capable of that, it is not out of the realm of possibilty that she distort other aspects dealing with MIT.</p>
<p>Jones was in a position of power; the HIGHEST position of power in the admissions office. People relied on her for guidance and for a philosophy. THe influence of the dean of admissions cannot be underestimated: she might not read every single one of the applications, but through her guidance she affects all of them. For example, during a committee meeting she might vote to reject 5 of one kind of applicant, and vote to accept 1 of a different kind of applicangt, which would affect admissions. This right now is PURE SPECULATION; there is no proof to alot of what I am saying, but these are the questions that need to be asked! If she could do that, what else could she do? For instance, and remember this is pure speculation, is very interesting to me to see two defenses of Mrs. JOnes on the MIT admissions blogs by people such as Ben Jones ; was it Mrs. Jones who installed the men who carry out their general's orders even after her 'death'? </p>
<p>Finally, to everyone who attacks people thinking they are just 'rejected MIT applicants' ; please be quiet! That is an ad hominem argument, and should not work. I did not apply to MIT, i am simply an observer of that situation. And to the person who said "every parent of an admitted student said that Mrs. Jones does not make mistakes".....lol x 1000. </p>
<p>This lie rightfully brings everything about MIT admissions from the time she was appointed Dean under scrutiny. Nothing is proved yet, yet do not be angry about questions nor speculation people.</p>
<p>berurah--</p>
<p>Me, too, sorry to say (or they were chosen relationships---gahh). Narcissistic PD is in the Cluster B group of personality disorders, along with histrionic, borderline, and antisocial (or sociopathic). People with one PD can show overlap of behaviors from other PDs in the cluster. Check out that book.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I did not confront him in the public questions after his talk, as I did not see the point of embarassing him publiclly, but did speak to him privately afterwards. He seemed embarrassed and told me he was just presenting what he had been told by his subordinates in that technical group under him (which I believe to be true.) I searched the Internet and found that this tecnical group's website also had claimed in its listing of its accomplishments to have done this work and that their results influenced public policy on this issue, without providing any further details or a link to a technical report, etc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I like your story but I can only wonder. Did you call the NYtimes and have this research group ousted? You didn't raise your hand in the middle of his lecture and embarrass him publicly. Instead you went and had a private chat with him (and did not then procede to report him to his superiors, whomever they are). I imagine you would have responded differently had they plagiarized data that you collected or are attempting to publish or take credit for things that you have contributed. I think your actions are not much different from what the previous poster (sorry, I don't know what page it was originally on) was talking about. I don't think she was devaluing integrity and honesty, just saying that most people do have a sort of compassionate restraint when it comes to things like this. We are not little moral barometers rigged with alarms trained to go off at certain absolute values of immorality that we encounter, there are outside factors involved, too, such as one's own part in the situation and just how ticked off we are (a certain threshold level of vindictiveness we must reach).</p>
<p>There's a major misconception that many of Jones' defenders and apologizers seem to be basing their arguments on.</p>
<p>She did not just lie once on her job application 28 years ago. She perpetuated and expanded her lies for her own benefit, including claiming to have a PhD and allowing the general public to refer to her, erroneously, as a doctor. This shows a total lack of respect for the amount of work necessary to actually obtain a PhD, and the students who do that work. That she profited off of a book containing this false information is, though wrong, not the worst of her offenses at all; she is basically a charlatan, selling admissions-snake oil as she grandstands about topics on which she has no right to act as an authority.</p>
<p>In the scientific and scholarly spheres, integrity of research and facts is paramount. Jones clearly does not understand this, or care about it; quite frankly, her conduct should be offensive to every honest, hard-working PhD, scientist, or student.</p>
<p>Isn't it funny that the same group of people who are trying to find excuses for Ms. Jones' fraud turn into rigid moral police when a non-white person commits fraud? I am comparing the reaction to Kavya Vishwanathan and other Asian people who commit fraud. I remember in one discussion on CC whole nations (like India and China) and their culture was blamed for the actions of a few! Where is the same moral police now?</p>