<p>This is my logical construction: Virtually nothing in the MIT admissions process is unique and therefore cannot be attributed to a particular admissions dean who lied about her educational background.</p>
<p>From an AP article that Matt McGann has posted at MIT Admissions.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Jones hopes someday to see MIT make standardized tests like the SAT optional for applicants.
[/quote]
She wanted to make things even more subjective.</p>
<hr>
<p>
[quote]
None of which is to say Jones is dumbing down MIT. Interesting but indifferent, creative but lazy, still won't cut it. Intel Science Fair winners and other academic superstars still prowl MIT's campus, and average SAT scores are still through the roof. Very few applicants outside the top 10 percent of their high school class get in.
[/quote]
She really couldn't make too many mistakes due to the richness of the applicant pool.</p>
<hr>
<p>
[quote]
But Jones, Edwards says, won't hesitate to reject an accomplished student if she doesn't feel the personality and MIT fit each other. She's also set aside about 10 percent of her precious admissions slots for people with some kind of spark that the system generally does not reward.
[/quote]
Is this what she did on her "last read" of Admitted Students? Pulling out kids that didn't match her preferences, and replacing them with those she favored? </p>
<hr>
<p>
[quote]
"There are 70 students in each class (of about 1,000) who would never have been admitted in the old days," Jones says. "They don't have to have a million activities. They don't have to have cured cancer. They just need to be the right match."
[/quote]
Just explain that quote to a "Defered ED" then "Waitlisted RD" applicant that had top scores and activities. </p>
<hr>
<p>The truth is, "Life isn't Fair'", so why should we expect College Admissions to be "Fair". Marilee just put her thumb on the scale to give those students she favored an edge, and maybe MIT is the better for it.</p>
<p>Is there a selective university in the U.S. that doesn't care about fit? I haven't found one yet.</p>
<p>Again, virtually nothing in the MIT admissions process is unique and therefore cannot be attributed to a particular admissions dean who lied about her educational background.</p>
<p>What was unique was how much of a self promoter Marilee was.
Frequent Newspaper interviews, speaking at Conferences, flogging her book.
I can't think of any other Admissions Dean that was putting themselves in the public eye as much as she was.</p>
<p>But what is "fit" if not a euphemism for "whoever I like and who fits in with my prejudices" - it just so happens (not surprisingly) that Jones's preferences fit in with the PC trends du jour. 70 years ago Harvard and Yale noticed that they were getting "too many" Jewish applicants so they stepped away from a merit based system (until then admissions at most top schools was based on a entrance exam - I think MIT had this system also back then) and decided to base admissions on "fit" - the start of the modern "holistic" approach to admissions. And surprise, surprise a lot of high scoring Jewish applicants did not have the right "fit" - too hard working, grade grubbing, not wholesome and athletic and outdoorsy, etc. The exact same thing is going on right now, especially with male Asian applicants - somehow you can have 2400 SATs and not be a good "fit" for MIT - color me suspicious.</p>
<p>OK, you are probably right about the self-promotion. But none of that has to do with the myriad complaints here about MIT's admissions process and the claim that it is somehow different from and flawed in comparison to others'. All of them state that fit and constructing the class are part of how they go about their work, with all the potential contributions and mischiefs associated with such goals.</p>
<p>I Agree :)</p>
<p>If CalAlum thinks that 675 out of 1851 AIME qualifiers should be accepted by MIT, then out of 6589 male AIME qualifiers, then 2400 should be accepted. Furthermore, the male score is 25% higher.</p>
<p>In re-reading the press clippings, it sounds like "Dr" Jones's big accomplishment was to reduce the number of lines on the application for listing EC's from 10 to 6 - big deal. She was able to build a surprisingly high profile for her "relaxed" approach off of very little substance. And one has to page Dr. Freud to figure out why someone who would have been better off keeping a low profile given her deep dark secret chose such a high profile instead? Subconscious desire to be discovered?</p>
<p>If you view her approach as fundamentally damaging then I suppose it's a good thing that she really was more sizzle than steak. If only 10% of MIT admits were based on Marilee's personal notions of "fit" then the other 90% must have been admitted on more or less conventional notions of "merit". I think even the most wild eyed radical in the admissions system of a top class university like MIT, those who look forward to the abolition of SATs in the distant future (just like Communists wanted to abolish the notion of money eventually, just not yet) are constrained by the need to work within the USNews and other ranking systems and aren't really in a position to implement their "reforms" fully - they do as much social engineering as they can get away with, but there's a limit. And they can get away with a fair amount because the other schools that they are being compared with are doing the same, but there seems to be a sort of market level of discrimination that is allowed - you can, for example, spot URMs 200 or 300 SAT points (on the 2400 scale) but you can't spot them 500 or 600 points.</p>
<p>
She was instructed to increase the number of females at MIT, and she did.</p>
<p>Among other duties, she was charged with devising a plan to increase the number of female undergraduates. Thirty-nine percent of the undergraduate student body is now female, compared to 17 percent when she joined the office.
<a href="http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1997/jones-1217.html%5B/url%5D">http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1997/jones-1217.html</a></p>
<p>Kemet -Thanks for the link to the Article announcing her Hiring as Dean at MIT
<a href="http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1997/jones-1217.html%5B/url%5D">http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1997/jones-1217.html</a>
Here's some more from that article:
[quote]
Ms. Jones, who holds the SB and SM in biology from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, came to MIT in 1978 as a graduate resident tutor at Burton House. Her husband, Steve Bussolari, is the Group 42 leader at Lincoln Laboratory.
[/quote]
Where's the Union College or Albany Medical College Degrees? No Doctorate?
[quote]
Professor John B. Vander Sande, associate dean of the School of Engineering, chaired the search committee.</p>
<p>"The search committee and the associated support team worked extremely hard to find the richest possible pool of applicants for this position. This high level of activity reflects the committee's appreciation for the very important role that the Admissions Office plays in attracting world-class students to our undergraduate program. We had more than 65 applicants for the position, most of whom were highly qualified. Marilee Jones was at the top of this list and we are very fortunate to have her as our new dean," said Professor Vander Sande.</p>
<p>"Marilee impressed us with her deep knowledge of the admissions process, her energy and enthusiasm, her understanding of the future challenges for admissions at MIT and nationally, her vision, her abilities to manage the complex process known as admissions and her talents as the manager of a large office. All of this with a smile on her face," Professor Vander Sande said.
[/quote]
Was that a smile, or was she laughing at the Search Committee?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Other members of the search committee were Professors Harold Abelson (PhD '73); Lawrence S. Bacow (SB '72); Evelynn M. Hammonds (SM '80); and Robert J. Birgeneau, dean of the School of Science. Tony Chao, a junior in electrical engineering and computer science, and Michael Wong, a graduate student in chemical engineering, were also on the committee.
[/quote]
Wonder if they checked the Resumes and verified the Degrees of the other 65 applicants? </p>
<p>Good job Guys. :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
She was instructed to increase the number of females at MIT, and she did.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes we know. Which is why it's wrong. If you have to push someone up artificially, then that implies that they couldn't have made it own their own. </p>
<p>There are two ways to increase the number of females at MIT:
a) Somehow make more females apply.
b) Somehow make females more eligible.</p>
<p>"If you have to push someone up artificially, then that implies that they couldn't have made it own their own. "</p>
<p>Wrong.</p>
<p>There are so many factors that conspire against someone meeting their potential, I won't even bother listing them all. Gender is one of them. There are many capable and qualified women who in the past wouldn't have dreamed of being a scientist or engineer and so didn't apply to MIT. </p>
<p>I think you might have just exposed your bias there. Are you suggesting that women are just not meant to be scientists like men? </p>
<p>By accepting more women, MIT will graduate more women. And those women will become scientists, mathematicians and engineers, and teachers. Role models for girls. So that those girls will realize that they, too, can apply to MIT and be successful in those careers. But the first step is getting them to apply and getting them accepted. That was the assignment given to Jones, and she accomplished that. Even with no degrees.</p>
<p>Discrimination and affirmative action....the difference being?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think you might have just exposed your bias there. Are you suggesting that women are just not meant to be scientists like men?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not at all. In fact, I believe that both genders and all races can be scientists, engineers, etc. I also believe it would be great if everyone was evaluated according to their merits and abilities, but I don't see that happening soon. My only bias is against favoritism and discrimination, for or against anyone.</p>
<p>
[quote]
...getting them to apply and getting them accepted
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's my point. Why do they need to hire someone to get females accepted, but not for males? Obviously you'll counter that there are already males at MIT, and that MIT wanted to increase female enrollment. Agreed.</p>
<p>And that's great. But what kept women from getting in to MIT in the first place? And what did Jones change to overcome that?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Even with no degrees
[/quote]
I don't think it was tough to increase female enrollment at all. No degree needed.</p>
<p>Sly hauls out the "sexist" flag to end the debate. </p>
<p>We're not talking about the past, we're talking about now. If women have equal "potential" as men (and they for the most part do, though there is still some question as to whether at the extremes of IQ at either end women have a more closely grouped distribution than men) then why isn't this "potential" reflected in their scores and grades so that applicants could be judged on a gender blind basis? What is holding them back at this point? You can posit some invisible "discrimination" that no one can quite find any examples of any more, but in fact it seems like the opposite is true - that people are going out of their way to favor girls.</p>
<p>So, sly - someday there will be a point where there are so many female role models that AA will no longer be required and male and female applicants can be treated equally, right? Can we trust you and other AA proponents to tell us when that day has arrived or will their always be obstacles that justify AA in your view, so that the promised land never quite arrives?</p>
<p>Getting more women to apply to MIT has nothing to do with IQ. There are more than enough women with high IQs to fill half or more of the slots at MIT. However, there have been many, many years where girls were discouraged from developing their math and scientific potential and discouraged from careers in engineering and science. Plus there are many years of discrimination against women scientists, something (as I pointed out above), MIT itself suffered from -- in the form of uneven resources, including scientific equipment, lab space, and support for grad students to staff one's lab. These are factors that affect how many women apply to schools such as MIT and it takes a focused strategy to overcome them. To be successful, the admitted women students must be quite capable of doing the work -- and I haven't seen ANY evidence that they are not.</p>
<p>Another point: I know several professors of engineering who argue that their male students suffer when they don't have the experience of working in teams with women. It is quite likely that they will have women bosses and women team members and staff. As at least some male engineers can have the tendency to have, let us say, undeveloped social skills (and my engineer profs say the same!), as students they need the practice of working with women if the males are to be successful in their careers.</p>
<p>I don't think two wrongs make a right. (Cliche, but it works.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
As at least some male engineers can have the tendency to have, let us say, undeveloped social skills (and my engineer profs say the same!), as students they need the practice of working with women if the males are to be successful in their careers.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I know you don't mean it this way, but you make it sound as if MIT needed to increase female enrollment just to give males "the practice" of working with women. As if women were admitted just because the males needed them to enhance their social skills. </p>
<p>Reminds me of The Sims.</p>
<p>Momfrmm - this is the question - should the class be made up of people with "high enough" IQs and then the class is selected based on other criteria, including race and gender? This is absolutely the system that we have now. Or would it be better if we judged people only based on "the content of their character" as MLK said (their grades and scores and accomplishments and achievements) and paid no heed to their X or Y chromosomes or skin color? Which is a fairer system? Does your answer change if the "other criteria" favor the group you happen to belong to? What if the "other criteria" included say belief in Jesus as your savior. There are more than enough Christian believers with high IQs to fill the # the slots at MIT that are proportional to their % in the general population. Would it be OK with you that MIT set aside a certain percentage of slots for Christians and admitted them at 2.5 time the rate that they admit non-believers? If not, why are some kinds of "positive" discrimination OK and others aren't? How can you construct a logical and defensible system out of this or does it come down to might makes right?</p>
<p>So, are women to be admitted to alleviate the "suffering" of men from their absence or should they be admitted on their own merits?</p>
<p>The hiring and promoting of a non-qualified admissions driector indicates that MIT has an ambivalence, at least, toward women scientists. </p>
<p>'Accidently' forgetting to vet the credentials of a key hire--for a bloody decade--is a form of sabatoge--concious or otherwise.</p>
<p>To the MIT board and admin--thanks for that. It's so easy for female scientists in the field. They really needed that kick.</p>
<p>Jones gave as good as she got--I'll say that for her.</p>