<p>epiphany,
CPW is Campus Preview Weekend, when accepted students visit, and Ben and Matt are on the admissions staff.</p>
<p>Oh thanks. I thought CPW was a high school.</p>
<p>Post 283:
There's a lot of cognitive validity in those observations.</p>
<p>Post 291:
What some people are forgetting is that with the current applicant pools, particularly to elites like MIT, the chances of high-quality results with even a random process of selection, is extremely strong. Even IF many think that her policy direction went down the wrong path, I'll bet that the vast majority of the admits are outstanding "despite" whatever policies she employed. </p>
<p>I also agree with latetoschool's earlier post (prior to 544) about the wrong & unnecessary strategy that MJ used to position herself for the job, and agree with LTS' assessment of a possibly effective & honest path to the promotion. Sort of the point I was trying to make in my long post, but hadn't yet read LTS's.</p>
<p>Does anyone know personally of students who have either rescinded their own MIT acceptance because of this, had delayed a decision & now changed their minds (preferring another school to MIT), or are rethinking whether to apply, if they're h.s. juniors now?</p>
<p>(And again, sorry if that info is in the thread. Hard to read all 30-something pages.)</p>
<p>I can't imagine any student changing his/her mind about MIT based on this. The faculty hasn't changed overnight, and the mission is the same as it was two weeks ago.</p>
<p>The only potential legal action, in my mind, would be on the part of MIT against Jones, which I'm sure they won't pursue. I don't see any case for a student or applicant against the university.</p>
<p>I’ve been reading this thread since the news broke two days ago and to me it exemplifies the worst in on-line discussions. It’s as if some posters take all the rage they’ve harbored for years against anything remotely connected in their minds to this situation and unleash it in venomous attacks against not only Marilee Jones but her family, her school and her colleagues. Suddenly she is responsible for all the ills ever faced by any kid who ever applied to MIT and her colleagues are evil losers who cover up for her. She’s responsible for discriminatory admissions policies that have caused hundreds of brilliant future scientists to get rejected. Let’s keep some perspective here. </p>
<p>It seems to me that this discussion would be more constructive if it stayed focused on the issue of this person’s flawed actions and the issue in our lives of ethics.</p>
<p>I have deleted several threads that were personal attacks against other posters or were responses to those attacks. It's fine to disagree with other posters' opinions, but attacking posters' characters is considered flaming and isn't allowed here.</p>
<p>Should you see any terms of violations on our boards, please don't respond to those posts. Instead, use the "report problem post" button at the bottom of the posts to let moderators know. Most moderators are regular posters who volunteer their time to help keep College Confidential a friendly, supportive place to get college information. We rely on your using the "report problem post" button to let us know about inappropriate posts.</p>
<p>
[quote]
**the issue of this persons flawed actions and the issue in our lives of ethics
[/quote]
**
Do you ascribe flawed character=flawed actions?</p>
<p>It is sad that some people still think Marilee Jones did a good job at MIT.
Being the head of admission, her fraud has done serious damage to MIT's reputation and cast doubt on the integrity of the entire MIT admission process. Her action has unfairly tainted the qualification/accomplishment of admitted MIT students, as reflected by many posts on CC. Our sympathy should be directed towards these MIT students and the tens of thousands high achieving rejected students who may feel (rightly or not) victimized by an fraudulent admission process.</p>
<p>As part of MIT admission, Ben Jones and Matt McGann should foremost be concerned about the reputation of MIT and its students, not their former boss and friend. Their whitewashing post/blog for Ms. Jones and all this "We love Marilee Jones" crap will only cause further damage to the entire MIT community.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Her action has unfairly tainted the qualification/accomplishment of admitted MIT students, as reflected by many posts on CC.
[/quote]
I think this is a little silly. Anyone who has ever known ANY MIT graduate would know that there's only one way to get that degree -- the hard way.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Being the head of admission, her fraud has done serious damage to MIT's reputation
[/quote]
I agree with this. Her actions were unethical and set a horrendous example for young people.</p>
<p>
[quote]
and cast doubt on the integrity of the entire MIT admission process. Her action has unfairly tainted the qualification/accomplishment of admitted MIT students, as reflected by many posts on CC. Our sympathy should be directed towards these MIT students and the tens of thousands high achieving rejected students who may feel (rightly or not) victimized by an fraudulent admission process.
[/quote]
While I do believe that her actions may have 'tainted the qualification/accomplishment of admitted MIT students'
I don't believe her lying about her qualifications directly hurt any one specific applicant. She may have illegally and unethically got her position by lying, but IMHO it does not definitely follow that she ran the department in an unethical way. One may or may not agree with her theories of admissions but that 'theory of admission' is not directly related to her lying about her resume. Presumably all directors of admissions have goals as to whom they may or may not accept to their schools and these goals work to the advantage or disadvantage of different applicants.</p>
<p>Well, I really don't see how her lies about her degrees would have any effect on any student. If the quality of graduates had been questioned in recent years, that would be some evidence. But I've never heard anyone comment that MIT graduates aren't what they used to be. The reality is that the applicant pool is self-selecting, and that there are WAY more qualified applicants than there are spots. If a student is accepted, and succeeds in those classes, then they were qualified. If she hadn't lied about her credentials would anyone be questioning the pool of admitted students now? I think that her approach (which I don't necessarily agree with, by the way) has been hailed as a welcome change in the admissions climate for the last couple of years. Is that any different now, just because she doesn't have the academic qualifications she claimed? Why would this approach have been considered a good idea two weeks ago, yet now come into question?</p>
<p>I was a female student at an engineering school long before the current concerns of political correctness. Professors often made comments about women not being able to "cut it", not being able to pass their class, never having a female student who make above a C in his class, etc. </p>
<p>At the time, we often complained about having to be twice as good as the male students in order to make the grade - but, in a way, it was a blessing. No one would have ever thought we might have been admitted/passed/graduated because of being female. They knew that we had earned our diploma!</p>
<p>I have to admit, if I were a female student who had been admitted at MIT and other comparable schools - I might choose one of the other schools, in order to avoid the type of suspicion and commentary we have seen on this thread. Please understand me - I am not insinuating that women or any other group admitted to MIT were not qualified - only that some may view their admission as less deserving than it would otherwise be. Why put yourself in a position where others might question your qualifications if you have other choices.</p>
<p>Ms. Jones did all of these students a disservice.</p>
<p>I rather doubt that the Admissions Dean has anywhere near the power some attribute to the position.</p>
<p>At most universities, this dean would report to the chief academic officer, the provost. The provost reports to the president. The president reports to her or his board. The admissions dean must keep everyone above informed and must have approval for admissions policy. </p>
<p>Jones was by no means surreptitious when it came to admissions philosophy and policy. MIT decision-makers must have signed onto the policy. And it was implemented by the full admissions office team. Therefore, she neither had overwhelming power over admissions nor should you expect anything much to change in her absence.</p>
<p>If I were a female student admitted at MIT, I would not worry about my qualifications.<br>
It does a disservice to ALL students, male and female, to call in question admission decisions made by an entire committee.
The decision to encourage more women to become scientists was not made by the admissions office. It was a matter of MIT policy, probably made by the Board of Trustees and reflecting similar policies at other colleges.
The performance of female students AT MIT has not been challenged. Their graduation rate does not seem to differ one whit from that of male students. There is no indication whatsoever that female students (or any other student for that matter) or graded more leniently than male students.</p>
<p>Marite -- yes!!!</p>
<p>I most certainly doubt if ANYONE who graduates MIT will have their qualifications questioned because the admissions dean did not have the degrees she claimed.</p>
<p>Part of me says that this is fundmentally a personnel matter within MIT. They've dealt with it and the wrongdoer is gone. Fine. Time to move on.</p>
<p>But then the one thing I keep coming back to as I turn the matter over in my mind is this: How many times over the course of her long career of looking at thousands of applications from hopeful kids did she dump some kid's app in the reject pile because she thought the kid had fluffed his qualifications or achievements in some way? And not just her personal review of the apps, but I'm sure that was her policy for the whole department - when you smell a liar, pitch him.</p>
<p>And after I think about that tableau for a while I keep coming back to this: How could she do that and live with herself? Does she have any blood in her veins at all or is it all ice water?</p>
<p>I find the whole idea of lying about degrees, where one went to school, etc. bizarre. I know a person who has done this, though I have no idea what she puts on her resume. I wonder . . .</p>
<p>However, one bizarro thing like this is not going to taint the school. MIT's reputation will remain intact.</p>
<p>If Marilee had not had such a high profile and made such a name for herself promoting a <em>kindler, gentler</em> admissions process, she would not have been caught.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Part of me says that this is fundmentally a personnel matter within MIT. They've dealt with it and the wrongdoer is gone. Fine. Time to move on.
[/quote]
Yes I think so too.</p>
<p>Coureur I'm sure she dumped many fluffed applications in the trash, but in the end, so would have any reviewer. </p>
<p>
[quote]
How could she do that and live with herself?
[/quote]
I think mstee has the answer to that
[quote]
If Marilee had not had such a high profile and made such a name for herself promoting a <em>kindler, gentler</em> admissions process, she would not have been caught
[/quote]
She just kept upping the risk factor until she got caught. Kind of reminds me of a compulsive gambler.</p>
<p>I just have to add that this goes a long way towards explaining the sort of anti-merit (or maybe more precisely merit-neutral) "soft" admissions, with heavy affirmative action, that she and MIT have been recently (and inexplicably) advocating. I recall reading once that she said with pride that 10% of the students she admits now would never have been admitted to MIT in the past. (I frankly take that to mean that that 10% would not meet the academic standards of the old MIT, which I don't think is anything to be proud of.) Maybe she saw herself in those students and that is why she became such a strong advocate of "taking a chance" on those who are not objectively the most qualified for admission?</p>
<p>I also think that by pushing the "soft factors" so much, she's (ironically, given all of her publications on the subject) stressed out students MUCH more than in the old days when academic achievement was what tipped the balance. At least everyone understood what that meant; now high-achieving students who would have been taken in MIT's heyday but are now rejected in favor of Ms. Jones' "special" 10% are left wondering variously "what in the world else might I have done?" and "does this mean I'm a 'bad person'?".</p>
<p>Let me add this as I'm sure the question will arise, especially given my username:</p>
<p>I was accepted to MIT for undergrad in 2000 and again for a PhD program in 2004, so I have nothing against the place personally. I met Marilee Jones briefly at MIT CPW and thought she was nice, and also had a decent (although frustratingly vague compared to the corresponding Caltech conversation) conversation on the phone with her when I was in the process of applying.</p>