<p>
[quote]
marite and mof2--- if it had been MIT students, they would have written a complicated computer program which would have reworded the grammar so that no 2 tests were the same.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>LOL! That sounds like support for the "Marilee does not make mistake" spiel she gives to self-doubting first-years at MIT.</p>
<p>
[Quote]
Let's hope that "all" is a serious exaggeration. I certainly wouldn't hire *********. (#845)
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>Obviously whoever said that is NOT speaking for all of MIT students nor are they speaking for the vast majority of that group. I can't believe others are suggesting otherwise... but then again it does show this anti-MIT sentiment that appears to be prevalent in this thread.</p>
<p>MODERATOR NOTE:</p>
<p>Please do not post here copies of posts from facebook or any other discussion site, and do not include peoples real names. </p>
<p>Moderator Amistad</p>
<p>Heres the curious logic revealed by many of the posts on the various MJ threads:</p>
<p>MJ lied on her resume, and kept that lie on her resume through the time period she applied for the Deans job and beyond;</p>
<p>Therefore, she was unqualified to be Dean of Admissions.</p>
<p>Therefore, all of her admissions policies regarding the screening, qualifications, outreach to women, etc., have zero integrity to them. (Because she lacked moral integrity, she also lacked intellectual integrity.)</p>
<p>Therefore, we may now question the right of the students accepted to MIT under her term to have been admitted.</p>
<p>And therefore, since better gender balance was one of MJs goals, its open season on female applicants to MIT (even those who were also accepted to supposedly merit-centered CalTech but we wont talk about that because it doesnt support our position)</p>
<p>But whoops a few guys were admitted while she was Dean, too, so .hmmmm .I guess this means the guys must have been unqualified, too. (No, no, cant suggest that; that would undermine our argument)</p>
<p>One of the great losses in the disappearance of Classics curricula in our highschools has been the resulting disappearance in the study of Logic. While this fact is apparent on unrelated discusssions on CC, it is equally apparent in the discussion of the MJ incident.</p>
<p>Mini and a few others got jumped on for suggesting that her ability to do the Deans job casts doubt on the necessity of a college degree for every possible position of authority, policymaking. But the fact is, it is indeed a separate issue.</p>
<p>There are several separate issues here which people with agendas, and other people who are merely understandably angry or shocked, are merging</p>
<p>(1) Whether a college degree is necessary to be a Dean of Admissions for any particular college or segment of college, including a college degree in the colleges specialty.</p>
<p>(2) Whether the previous lack of <em>recognition</em> of the potential of females in science has deserved closer scrutiny in admissions to technically oriented Universities (or just to MIT, which before her term had an extreme imbalance)</p>
<p>(3) Whether holistic admissions in general, and/or MJs style of holistic admissions, is valid (whether it produces a less qualified, equally qualified, or more qualified student body). Usually missing in these arguments, btw, is the definition of qualified. One can be a major brainy nerd, but be academically non-adventurous, and therefore actually lacking an important intellectual component; or lack the social comfort necessary to be an effective team player (critical to engineering); or lack the ability to lead such a team; or be so imbalanced in a non-recreational lifestyle that personal & academic successs is at risk in a highly demanding environment. (Balance promotes productivity, ultimately.)</p>
<p>(4) Whether a controversial style of leadership and controversial personality should equate with the content of policies under that leadership.</p>
<p>Many of the statements in previous posts are the products of illogical leaps. What can be said is that her lack of integrity about her own credentials made her position as Dean of Admissions insupportable, since that position <em>anywhere</em> (not just at MIT) implies judgment over the accuracy, veracity of applicants credentials, not to mention the ethical role-modeling implied by that position. The outrage in some quarters, and disappointment in others, over that hypocrisy, is well-founded.</p>
<p>Secondarily, the irony about her hypocrisy is that it has undermined the very accomplishments for which she strived: recognition of true female ability in the sciences, as well as recognition of the variety of student qualities that make for an excellent engineering school. Were I one of her female admits, I would be major annoyed at her, for such casual disregard of the consequences of that hypocrisy on my credibility as an MIT student & graduate. I would be major annoyed at her for the resulting public perceptions <em>and</em> for the fuel it is giving to detractors of females in the sciences. Shame on some of you men for your smugly superior attitudes. The assumptions of some of you cannot be supported, given the number of impressive cross-admits among any MIT female subset. From our highschool, I have yet to know of a female admit who was not also offered acceptances to the following: Stanford and/or several Ivies and/or one of the military academies and/or Berkeley. Yet none of those institutions has experienced a recent meteoric rise in accepted females (vs. males) due to a change in gender policy. (Oh, but wait: maybe they were qualified for all those reaches but unqualified for MIT.)</p>
<p>People's real names??? What?</p>
<p>Not anymore :P</p>
<p>so it becomes MJ?</p>
<p>No, l0l... I think THAT would be safe to say.... I think.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>Love the sinner, hate the sin?<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Sure, Mollie, but the first step in seeking redemption from sin is to admit the sin and repent. To her credit, Ms. Jones has admitted to the first, rather smaller, "sin" of lying about her qualifications 28 years ago. But she (and MIT and the Facebook support group) have conveniently ignored the huge "sin" of 28 years of incredible hypocrisy as she rejected and rescinded applicants for padding their qualifications too.</p>
<p>FWIW, this is what MIT's previous Freshman Crew coach told us about MIT admissions:</p>
<p>There are five categories that a student is rated on, and the scale is 1 to 5.</p>
<p>The categories are: Academics (GPA, course load, teacher recs), Athletics, ECs, Test scores (APs, SATs, ACT, contests etc.) and the Essay.</p>
<p>A score of 2 in any category means immediate denial. </p>
<p>After totals are computed, then other factors play a role, such as gender, AA, demographics, etc.</p>
<p>hazmat,</p>
<p>I think the moderator means real names from people's facebook postings. Obviously, Marilee Jones is fair game.</p>
<p>"Jones is married to Steven R. Bussolari, an engineer at MIT's Lincoln Laboratory. MIT Lincoln Laboratory, also known as Lincoln Lab, is a federally funded research and development center managed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and primarily funded by the United States Department of Defense. Lincoln Lab is located at Hanscom Air Force Base in the town of Lexington, Massachusetts, and was founded in 1951."</p>
<p>This story gets stranger and stranger.</p>
<p>One would think his above position certainly required some level of "security clearance." Typically, "hiding" any aspect of your life is reason to deny one for a clearance, as it is believed that one might compromise one's ethics to protect the "secret". Hard to believe no one uncovered such duplicity.</p>
<p>A 2 in Athletics means immediate denial? to MIT? ! Seems absurd to me that they would care.</p>
<p>Better not have Stephen Hawking apply....</p>
<p>StickerShock, at our elementary school, the PTO treasurer also embezzled a lot of money from out PTO funds (as well as at her job). Indeed, she DID go to jail for this. She was a parent of students in the school. She is now out of jail as this was a while ago and now her kids are in college.</p>
<p>I think the differences in viewpoints expressed in this thread are a perfect example of the difference between "thinkers" and "feelers" as described by Jungian psychologists. </p>
<p>Thinkers focus on the objective truth. They emphasize logic, facts, principles, scientific reasoning. They believe the best decisions are made by removing personal concerns that lead to bias. </p>
<p>Feelers value subjective value-based decision making. They emphasize mercy, and loyalty, and social relationships. </p>
<p>One of the reasons this issue hit MIT so hard is that typically the physical scientists, mathematicians and engineers are thinkers. </p>
<p>Much of what M. Jones emphasized (or said she emphasized) was an increasing incorporation of the "feeling" aspects which are typically associated with the biological/medical fields and non-science/engineering fields. </p>
<p>It's not surprising that "the Globe" would take a "soft" stand on her actions. Typically writers are "feelers". Most of what "feelers" criticize in their editorials are the tough stands taken by thinkers. </p>
<p>As a sidenote: the majority of males (75%) are thinkers. The majority of women (75%) are "feelers". </p>
<p>It is not surprising that those who support her "vision" also encourage "forgiveness" while those who did not support her "vision" voice outrage. Goes with their personality.</p>
<p>If you look at the recent promotional literature sent out by MIT - you can definitely see a "tilt" to the "feelers".</p>
<p>She "lost her job and is publicly humiliated." </p>
<p>I'm not sure she has been publicly humiliated, has she? She never admitted she completely fabricated her background; she merely admitted she "misrepresented" her academic degrees. The story was on the front page of the NY Times, but except for what I read here, I've never read or heard any more about it. </p>
<p>Those who have worked with her, as well as students, still seem to greatly support her. She did lose her job, but she was allowed to resign (which, in essence, allows her to keep her pension and to more easily find another job). She'll probably write a tell-all book and make a lot more money. </p>
<p>So . . . where's the humiliation? She has yet to even acknowledge she did much wrong, and she seems to be receiving great support. I would not be at all surprised to learn she received a severance package, in addition to her pension.</p>
<p>She was basically thumbing her nose at the entire educational establishment over 28 years (in my opinion), and from where I'm sitting, her actions appeared to have neither hurt her, nor "humiliated" her. Interesting role model for young people . . .</p>
<p>Sorry, I should have added that not having a recommendation from the Athletic Dept does <em>not</em> hurt one's chances, but having one does give athletic students a chance for extra points.</p>
<p>This is a link to the Letters to the Editor section of the MIT newspaper, The Tech. There are three letters from students and faculty on this issue and each gives a totally different perspective. Interesting!</p>
<p>All in this family of engineers and mathematicians are definitely 'thinkers' and not 'feelers', yet we can forgive Marilee Jones on a personal level without condoning her actions. Just the thought that anyone would consider us 'feelers' makes me laugh out loud! If you knew us, you'd see exactly what I mean.</p>
<p>Marilee Jones is a human being, after all, and humans make mistakes.</p>
<p>The worst part of this whole debacle is the fact that the qualifications of MIT students are now being challenged. Two of my kids chose to attend MIT, although they had other wonderful college choices. Over the past few years, I've met many MIT students. To a person, they are insanely intelligent, engaged, passionate, and exceptional human beings (just like you, Mollie!).</p>
<p>I distinctly remember a dinner I had last year with a group of my daughter's friends from MIT. These kids, both male and female, represented countries from Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Middle East, as well as the US. As the conversation turned to problems facing some of those countries, I remember thinking how proud I was that MIT afforded my daughter the opportunity to make friends such as these. These kids were learning as much or more from their interactions with one another as they were from their academic experience.</p>
<p>It didn't surprise me one bit when two of the kids at the table said they planned to join the Peace Corps after graduation. What surprised me was the fact that one of the kids was my daughter.</p>
<p>Clearly, MIT is accepting the right students to fulfill its mission of "generating, disseminating, and preserving knowledge, and to working with others to bring this knowledge to bear on the world's great challenges."</p>
<p>Marilee Jones performed her job effectively and to the satisfaction of the Institute. If she hadn't, she would have been history long ago. (Read the Letter to the Editor in today's Tech.)</p>
<p>One other thing....is it possible that Ms. Jones emphasized integrity "because of", and not "in spite of", her lies?</p>
<p>I don't like that thinker vs feeler split. (does that make me one or the other?) Values which mean anything need to be based on clear-eyed thought; principles mean nothing if they don't exist to uphold human values. Thinking without feelings is mechanical and inhuman; feeling without thinking is empty feel-goodness.</p>
<p>After reading much of what is here, what comes to my mind is a recent quote by Lewis Black on the Daily Show:</p>
<p>"Wouldn't it be great if cars could run on cognitive disssonance?"</p>