<p>
[quote]
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>
[quote]
As I recall her big reform breakthrough was removing the number of lines on the MIT app in the academic honors section - what a paradigm shift!</p>
<p>I criticized it at the time right here on CC as an empty gesture - a phony reform. Now it turns out not to have been the only phony thing operating at MIT admissions.
[/quote]
This made me laugh....I thought the same thing about Jones. A big, loud, self-promoter. A school as prestigious as MIT no doubt gets ten times the number of qualified applicants as openings. So picking a qualified class could be accomplished by monkeys throwing darts. Or me. I could have successfully picked a freshman class. And I'd have done the job for half her salary.</p>
<p>Was it Hazmat who called this Hubris? Berurah who called it narcissism? Both are spot on. Who would be able to carry on this charade for almost 30 years if she weren't suffering from this or a similar ailment. (Or compulsive gambling, like andi suggests.) Her entire professional purpose was to evaluate credentials & readiness for academic life --- yet she posessed neither. How ironic. And to further call attention to oneself with the book and endless speaking engagements is really fascinating, yet totally perplexing. She must have wanted to get caught or had a few screws loose.</p>
<p>I was a young woman in an engineering school in the late 70's. Believe me, I stood out like a sore thumb, as the ratio was men to women 10:1. And I don't have red hair. Perhaps she wasn't turned in because not everyone is as focused on the college admissions world as CC posters are. Really, how many people actually give much thought to college admissions unless their kids are gong through it?</p>
Actually, the graduation rates of male and female MIT students are different. The females graduate at a higher rate.</p>
<p>As for questioning the qualifications for female MIT students, I can honestly say I've never heard the questioning anywhere but CC (and certainly not from other MIT undergraduates). To be blunt, I am uninterested in what some CC posters think of how I got my MIT degree, considering that professors at top PhD programs in my field are acutely aware of what it means to graduate from the school.</p>
<p>^^ROTFL, can I be "Latetoschool, Ph.D."??? That's ONE way to get it, right????</p>
<p>Edited to add: Mollie, I am quite sure no one really thinks that; I cannot imagine how any rational, thinking person could possibly think that. I have the highest regard for everyone who attends, let alone graduates from MIT and other colleges, and I cannot imagine that the overwhelming majority of people think so too. There might be one or two who would think otherwise, but if so, they're probably dealing with some serious insecurities of their own and thinking in derogatory terms about female students and graduates may give them some small, temporary way to feel better about themselves: therefore not worthy of notice.</p>
<p>Oh, and congratulations on your accomplishments.</p>
<p>
[quote]
**Total first-time, first-year (freshman) men who applied<br>
7608
Total first-time, first-year (freshman) women who applied<br>
2832</p>
<p>Total first-time, first-year (freshman) men who were admitted<br>
758
Total first-time, first-year (freshman) women who were admitted<br>
736</p>
<p>Total full-time, first-time, first-year (freshman) men who enrolled<br>
531
Total part-time first-time, first-year (freshman) men who enrolled<br>
0</p>
<p>Total full-time, first-time, first-year (freshman) women who enrolled<br>
465
Total part-time first-time, first-year (freshman) women who enrolled<br>
0
<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>There has recently been a long discussion in the MIT forum on this subject, and what you posted was very well said. Personally, I completely agree, and I have certainly been led to wonder what, exactly, was the problem with my application that, by the time a final decision is reached, it will have been sitting in the admissions office for seven months.</p>
<p>That's another unfortunate consequence of this scandal: Though I doubt my application would have been what Jones was looking for if she had been the one to read it, now that admissions has one less person reading, waitlist decisions will probably take even longer to be made.</p>
<p>
[quote]
To be blunt, I am uninterested in what some CC posters think of how I got my MIT degree, considering that professors at top PhD programs in my field are acutely aware of what it means to graduate from the school.
[/quote]
Mollie, in some quarters you will no doubt face questions about how your degree stacks up against that of men. If Ms. Jones was promoting a heavier admit rate for women, and the school embraced that, it will be a lingering question: "Did the women get special treatment, beyond an easier admission gauntlet? Were they held to the same standards?" That's inevitable. Regardless of how brilliant and worthy you may be, it goes with the territory.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Although many many more males applied, the number of male and female admitted students is nearly the same. Which means either</p>
<p>a) The female applicants are extremely self-selective.
b) There is something else going on.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh come on. Let's not start conspiracy theories here. How many times have I heard the top schools say that they could fill the class several times over with qualified students from their applicant pool. If that's the case then they could still take a higher ratio of girls and have them all highly qualified.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Actually, the graduation rates of male and female MIT students are different. The females graduate at a higher rate.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Mollie:
Terrific!</p>
<p>Stickershock. As Summers found at Harvard, no one can dictate to members of the faculty what they should do in their classes, how they should grade, etc... While there was a policy of encouraging more women to enter science fields, I defy anyone to show that there was a policy of treating them more leniently. It would have been suicidal to have one from a PR point of view, and totally unenforceable,</p>
<p>"If Ms. Jones was promoting a heavier admit rate for women, and the school embraced that, it will be a lingering question: "Did the women get special treatment, beyond an easier admission gauntlet? Were they held to the same standards?" That's inevitable. Regardless of how brilliant and worthy you may be, it goes with the territory."</p>
<p>That was my point in an earlier post. And, that does a great disservice to these fine students! </p>
<p>Based upon the numbers hazmat posted, there does seem to be some evidence for at least investigation of "bias". The fact that the admissions director has now been ousted for the fraud she committed - will cause more to question the basis of her admission decisions and point to these statistics as evidence.</p>
<p>What this means is that there is an attempt to "balance" the number of males and females attending MIT by imposing a tougher admissions standard on the males.</p>
Uhg, you don't really this statistic answers any of the questions being asked? You at least need to consider that males and females (on average) self-select to different majors which may or may not have differences in difficulty.</p>
<p>Nothing is keeping those males who choose difficult majors from switching out. Comon. Failing out in math or getting a degree in Management. I don't think anyone at MIT is going to choose the former, male or female.</p>
<p>Re post 574: Really? The range of majors at MIT is not as widespread as at liberal arts colleges. It would be hard for females to go into easier majors in significant numbers at MIT.
Re: post 572: It does not mean any such thing. It is very possible that the pool of female applicants is far more self-selecting than the male pool because it takes more self-confidence on the part of women to see themselves as scientists and apply to MIT. One would have to do a study of the profiles of male and female applicants to make any sort of judgment about the relative qualifications of males vs. females.</p>
<p>I've just heard from my S. His chums at MIT (all males) are extremely upset about the trashing of Marilee Jones insofar as it impugns their qualifications for being at MIT. It's not only females whose qualifications are being questioned. Since Marilee Jones became Dean of Admissions, two entire classes of MIT students were admitted and have graduated. There is no reason to challenge their qualifications, whether they are male or female. They were not graded by Jones.</p>
<p>QUOTE:
"How many times have I heard the top schools say that they could fill the class several times over with qualified students from their applicant pool. If that's the case then they could still take a higher ratio of girls and have them all highly qualified."</p>
<p>
[quote]
His chums at MIT (all males) are extremely upset about the trashing of Marilee Jones as it impugns their qualifications for being at MIT. It's not only females whose qualifications are being questioned.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As I pointed out in a previous post, it all comes down to "number one," doesn't it?</p>
<p>Disparate outcomes is the standard for determining discrimination. If 1 in 10 male applicanys are admitted but 1 in 4 female applicants are admitted then that is ipso facto proof of discrimination. Discrimination on the basis of sex is illegal. The Grutter decision at U Michigan Law School OKed reverse racial discrimination but not discrimination on the basis of sex.</p>
<p>MIT has very deep pockets in case any of you tort lawyers out there are wondering.</p>
<p>Mind you I am not saying the female admits are not qualified. What I am saying is if you have two qualified candidate, one a man and the other a woman you cannot use gender as the tie breaker.</p>
By that argument, then no one should not graduate. Clearly as that is not the case, there is some number of people who are unwilling to switch out of such majors (and would risk graduation). If that number is uncorrelated to sex (as you seem to be claiming, and I won't argue), then you still have a graduation rate that is dependant on how people's majors are initially distributed which, again, could be skewed by gender.</p>