<p>I'm still reeling myself, even having read thoroughly only maybe a third of the replies.</p>
<p>Even before the whole globe "got cyber," I would never have been so bold as to misstate degrees -- or fabricate anything! I always assumed that degrees could be, would be verified with a phone call or in writing, and that things like "personal references" really would be called. No, I also wasn't tempted to lie on my rsume, but what I'm saying is, I took extra pains not to exaggerate, even -- meticulously checking dates, names, whatever, just so there would not be <em>even</em> an innocent mistake that would then "expose" me for misrepresentation.</p>
<p>But 9 years ago was certainly a cyber-researchable time, and What Was She Thinking to apply for such a high-profile position, albeit from an internal position? Obviously she really cooked her goose when she lied the first time. Had she never misrepresented the degrees, but done a bang-up job for the previous 19 yrs (did she have interim positions between a.a. & Dean of Admissions?), she could have lobbied for herself mightily as having proven her worth & having deserved promotion from within. She clearly is capable. Yes (someone said her job is "easy") -- yes, she doesn't have to search for great candidates; she could probably toss the applications up in the air. I'm not saying she hasn't selected great classes with care, or guided her staff to do so. I'm saying that someone clever enough to go from admin asst to Dean of Admissions, write a book (later), do yadayada, could have conducted an effective campaign for the position of Dean without fabrication. Yet (of course), having lied initially, she was in no position to apply for the Dean's job by "correcting" her resume (coming clean) at that point. Her competition for the job would have in fact several degrees, & she would have known that her lack of them would automatically make her odds quite long. (Although I do not necessarily think that MIT would have fired her for coming clean 9 yrs ago if she had a great track record there.)</p>
<p>It also strikes me that she must have been quite ambitious when she did apply to MIT initially. Others have pointed out that it's odd to represent 3 degrees when applying for admin.asst. I'll go further: I've found it to be a liability to apply "down" for a job. I've had potential employers say time & again that I'm overqualified, & that they're concerned that I will get bored on the job. (When I've looked for filler, temporary jobs, or jobs that really did state they were promotable.) When I myself have hired others, I've similarly been concerned about the over-qualification factor. When I worked in a corporation in the '80's, every female applicant applying for secretarial positions within our company was way overqualified. The corporation was heavily male & also had a policy of not promoting from within. So we always had to disclose the policy to applicants. Nevertheless. we really had no choice. No one barely qualified or under-qualified ever applied. We ended up with a pool of overeducated secretaries, 100% of whom were ambitious (even though they claimed not to be during interviews). To a person, they all sought promotion a.s.a.p. within the company (despite the policy). But had someone applied without multiple degrees, we would have taken her/him first, ahead of the over-educated ones!</p>
<p>Thus, this tells me that Marilee never initially had any intention of staying as an admin.asst. She must have known that one didn't need multiple technical degrees for such a semi-entry-level position. To me, it makes her misrepresentation worse because it shows, as they say in law, premeditation.</p>
<p>To those who say that the female admits were soft applicants, no way. From our h.s., they've gotten in on raw merit, & the admits are few, even when the applications are strong & plentiful. Again, this tells me that she's one capable gal and <em>didn't</em> need to fabricate back in the '70's, let alone 9 yrs. ago, to have achieved the position. She had the vision & brains to judge capability & talent, without multiple technical degrees. (I may be echoing sentiments of emeraldkity & JHS.) The fact that she felt she "had" to, to me reinforces the period of "desperate ambition" (not a judgement call, an observation) that I saw between the late '70's and mid '80's for women. A world of opportunity opened up, & the push for job equality & salary parity was huge. We saw that at our doorstep in the corporation.</p>
<p>Could this be more rotten timing? Just when we're experiencing the "most competitive application years ever"? (And will peak with the college grad. class of 2012) When there have been so many qualified applicants denied, for reasons having to do with glut of apps & glut of qualifications? When families have wondered about "the process"? Terrific. Just terrific.</p>