<p>Weren't you the one who diagnosed her? Surely, you would know!</p>
<p>an EDIT for your EDIT: NACAC- Yeah, that was the place she called I think. LOOK, maybe she is a pathological liar and is telling her close friends and colleagues these things because there's something wrong with her head, or maybe it actually happened. People most of the time are not either ALL bad or ALL good. I believe there is some truth to her. You don't have to, just putting it out there.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, the media is not aware of any degrees, it does not mean that she necessarily has none. Even if she did I wouldn't expect now to be the time for her to speak up about it.
[/quote]
I think you need a reality check here. She claimed, and it is documented in a variety of places, that she had a BS and MS from RPI. RPI says that she was a part-time student for one year. Why in the world would you think there is a REAL degree somewhere else in her background? She somehow faked the RPI degrees, but chose to keep some other degrees secret? This is starting to sound like Stockholm syndrome. Give me a break.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, the media is not aware of any degrees, it does not mean that she necessarily has none. Even if she did I wouldn't expect now to be the time for her to speak up about it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If not now, when?</p>
<p>
[quote]
**Stockholm syndrome
[/quote]
**<br>
I grant you this is the most benevolent explanation. The most difficult part of what you opine is that it seems to become more and more documented. That sounds like "harm" to me.</p>
<p>Maybe it is not as good a college. But no matter that's all I'll say about this. I'm not here to try to change what you believe about people, especially someone I don't know very well at all myself. I think I've met her once or twice I cannot consider her a friend. I'm just trying to be objective and present to you things you may not have thought about. If it stretches your reality, don't believe in it.</p>
<p>"If not now, when?"</p>
<p>I assume when she won't be eaten alive...</p>
<p>Anyways, I'm gonna go take a shower. Happy posting!</p>
<p>
[quote]
**and present to you things you may not have thought about.
[/quote]
**
Run that by me again?</p>
<p>
I felt (and continue to feel!) like that too -- I wrote in my diary the day I was accepted that MIT was a place where "my roommate won't think I'm weird." But there are a lot of half-nerd/half-whatever-else hybrids around campus -- I mean, you have to populate Random, but you also have to populate the more pretty-boy/athletic subset of the fraternities. </p>
<p>That's another thing to love about MIT -- there's such an incredible diversity of types of people running around, all united by having techie hearts, even if well-hidden.</p>
<p>
<p>My point is that she is tough. She is obviously highly creative. She will survive hwatever verbal thrashing she gets. No one needs to sugar-coat their disgust because she is a really really nice lady. No one needs to keep her 'feelings' in mind at this juncture.
I'm not denying anybody the opportunity to snark on an internet message board. This recent line of my reasoning, as you may recall, was in defense of members of the MIT community feeling grief rather than rage -- some were calling the community morally bankrupt because we don't hate her for lying.</p>
<p>The rest of the world can pile abuse on her all they want; I'm just noting that it's not terribly charitable for you to do so.</p>
<p>
Oh, I didn't mean they were committing exactly the same types of hypocrisies. I'm just interested to see a few posters whose personal philosophies would seem to favor forgiveness and mercy tending toward the judgmental side, and I think it's interesting.</p>
<p>I don't understand how come everyone who posts in this thread must automatically be cast into one of two piles: people who attack Marilee and people who defend Marilee. I think most people (myself included) are neither. In a way the MIT community is really disappointed in her, some more on the angry side, others on the apathetic side. In no way are we a cult rallying under our fallen leader or any of that crazy imagery used. I post occasionally because I'd hate to see good people slander. You're entitled to your opinions, of course.</p>
<p>But Mollie--even the pretty boy athletes (and it's funny to me how certain names come to mind, even 30 years later) at MIT are gnurds! Seriously, the handsomest frat boys I knew then are now a) running a major consulting firm, b) a hand surgeon of some reknown, and c) a major cancer researcher. </p>
<p>MIT is just not like other schools. There's a reason my two Harvard-educated sisters and my Harvard-educated father ALL thought I'd be happier at MIT--as did my Harvard interviewer. </p>
<p>And some of us worried when MJ tried to change that by admitting "well-rounded students" whose interests lay outside science and engineering and math and other gnurdy fields. My reasons for disliking her were not related to the lack of degree, but certainly derive from her lack of knowledge of MIT, which is undoubtedly related.</p>
<p>(Note: when I interviewed at MIT, I interviewed with Pete Richardson, shortly before he was made Head of Admissions. My opinion of him is nothing but positive. I didn't pay attention to Behnke; I was busy with other things.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would like to know when that PhD appeared. We all know the incredible amount of effort and sacrifice that's involved in putting those three letters after your name. Dr. Jones seemed to acquire hers by osmosis. No one at MIT noticed that they had a newly minted PhD on their staff? Or found it odd? No one ever asked her the topic of her thesis? That's the first question I always ask a PhD. They're usually justly proud of their accomplishments and want to talk about their area of interest. MIT has acknowledged that MJ lied about her degrees from RPI and Albany but I haven't seen them actually confront the PhD attribution. Did I miss it?</p>
<p>What I getting at is that I think this situation wasn't just "discovered" or "uncovered". I think that MJ had enablers at MIT who were involved in a sorry coverup as it had gone too far to go back.</p>
<p>As usual, Shakespeare sums it up. In Hamlet 3.3, Claudius admits to himself that "[his] offense is rank" but when he considers coming clean he is prevented by his own covetedness: He can't be forgiven because "[he] is still possessed of those effects. . . My crown, mine own ambition, and my queen. May one be pardoned and retain th'offense?" In otherwords, he wasn't ready to confess because he would have to give up what he had gained.</p>
<p>And I guess this is what rankles me about this situation. The cumulative affects of 28 years of lying did bring MJ great prestige, influence and, presumably, income. Would she have accomplished as much without the deception? I don't think that can ever be answered. But she shouldn't able to have it both ways: be pardoned and retain th'offense.</p>
<p>^^^My impression is the PhD was attached by some careless reporter who just assumed that all university "Deans" are PhDs, as indeed are most academic deans. She could have, and should have, immediately corrected the mistake, right then and there. Once the transcript hit the internet, the next careless reporter or conference organizer just repeated the mistake.</p>
<p>The question of how no one she worked with ever figured out she had no science background is one that interests me. I get the impression the admissions office has a lot of undergraduates involved in blogging, etc, hanging around. Science students tend to talk about their research projects, ask other science types for advice or opinions. It seems strange that no one ever asked Jones what classes she took, what research she did as an undergrad or master's degree student. </p>
<p>I first encountered M. Jones on cc last fall, so I'm no expert on her, but I never believed she sounded like someone with science training. When I read the PhD title in a news story, I assumed she had picked up an education administration doctorate, definitely not science.</p>
<p>Only the 'forgiveness and mercy' crowd are PC crazed..</p>
<p>The transgression is old-fashioned lying to get ahead, end justifies the means, by whatever means necessary, etc etc. Jones made cold, calculated, mercenary choices that brought a world of hurt to the MIT admin. She is a saboteur of the highest order.</p>
<p>Mollie, we'll take that 'hypocrite' remark on the chin if you promise that you will show more backbone when you are teaching your children. students or employees right from wrong. Forgiveness and mercy have their place--after punishment.</p>
<p>For me, the 'resignation' is part of the deserved punishment--although I think MIT should ahve fired her--with cannon fodder. A good verbal thrashing from her peers--cyber or otherwise-- is the second part of the punishment. Mercy would mean leaving her daughter out of the conversation, leaving the credibility of MIT students out of the conversation, etc etc.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In no way are we a cult rallying under our fallen leader or any of that crazy imagery used.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>A "personality cult" is not quite the concept that you describe. </p>
<p>The implication is not that Jones commands an army of zombies, but that the ordinarily impersonal work of an admissions office came to be associated with Jones in an extremely personal way. She was "the face of MIT admissions" (or of MIT itself?), she "did great things for MIT", she was a "force for good", her subordinates write a post-apocalypse blog note saying that she made but a "youthful mistake" and that her glorious policies will continue unchanged under new management. </p>
<p>It's not clear how much of this was sought by Jones, though she certainly appears not to have discouraged it. But in an office with 40 percent turnover, it's not hard to evolutionarily select a Jones-compatible group of workers.</p>
<p><a href="pebbles:">quote</a> Also, the media is not aware of any degrees, it does not mean that she necessarily has none. Even if she did I wouldn't expect now to be the time for her to speak up about it.</p>
<p>Just some things. Not telling you what to think or anything.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>and</p>
<p>
[quote]
Maybe it is not as good a college. But no matter that's all I'll say about this. I'm not here to try to change what you believe ... I'm just trying to be objective and present to you things you may not have thought about. If it stretches your reality, don't believe in it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Reports have just surfaced that Jones (probably) has a college degree from a lesser college in Albany.</p>
<p>Pebbles, were you aware of that when posting the above?</p>
<p>This is another story about her graduating form the College of Saint Rose from the Albany Times Union.</p>
<p>From the Boston Globe:</p>
<p>Ex-MIT dean never cited actual degree</p>
<p>
[quote]
Saint Rose, an all-women's college that became coed in 1969, is best known today for producing a large proportion of New York State's teachers and for its nationally-ranked graphic design program. It is a respected school with roughly 5,000 students. U.S. News & World Report this year ranks it 68th among 83 top schools in the North with master's level programs. It tied with, among others, Wheelock College in Boston and City College of New York.</p>
<p>RPI ranked far higher -- 42 d among 124 in the top tier of research universities nationwide. When Jones arrived at MIT in the late 70s, RPI would have been a known and respected name, while Saint Rose probably would have been unrecognized, said Michael Behnke , who was Jones's boss when he was director of admissions from 1986 to 1997.</p>
<p>Jones told the Globe in 2004 that when she first came to MIT with her husband, who was in graduate school, she had thought she would get a job in a lab, where a degree from RPI might have meant more.</p>
<p>Behnke, now vice president and dean of college enrollment at the University of Chicago, said he recalled Jones saying that she had planned to go to medical school and had been a premed student. She was very knowledgeable about science, he said.</p>
<p>Of Saint Rose, he said, "they obviously did a good job."
[/quote]
<p>"obviously did a good job" at what?</p>
<p>When the original story broke, there was the irony that this wasn't just a case of an employee who lied on their resume but the hypocrisy that the employee did not practice what she preached, namely that padding a resume is not necessary and one shouldn't do it (with regard to college admissions). Now the latest is that she had a degree from St. Rose but changed the degree to be from RPI. Yet, as she is quoted in The Globe:</p>
<p>
[quote]
"The truth is that success and happiness are states of mind and have nothing to do with where one goes to college," wrote Jones in the 2006 book she co authored, "Less Stress, More Success: A New Approach to Guiding Your Teen Through College Admissions and Beyond." "Many of us did not go to top-tier colleges and have managed to lead happy, successful lives."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>there is MORE irony and hypocrisy because if not going to a top tier college can lead to successful happy lives (and I actually do believe that), why was it necessary to change the name of her college to one that had a more recognizable name? </p>
<p>To me, this case is about someone who lied continually on a resume in order to obtain jobs she would not have gotten otherwise. She is now suffering the consequences. It is further exaccerbated by the fact that she spoke widely and very publicly about NOT doing the things she chose to do herself. Those close to her, such as family members, would have known when reading her publicly mentioned credentials, that she had not gone to those colleges because most spouses and family members know where someone has spent a chunk of their lives. It is surprising this was not uncovered sooner. </p>
<p>As I wrote pages and pages ago, I feel this reflects on Marilee, NOT MIT. I can't believe all the discussion about MIT"s admissions process because Marilee did not work in a vacuum and admissions at MIT and all its policies were done by a group of people and approved by the university itself. I think some people are using this "fall from grace" of Ms. Jones to discuss what they like or not about MIT and its admissions. In my view, this is about Ms. Jones only. She paid the price. MIT should not. </p>
<p>I also think that one can think that Marilee has done some good things over the years, and still not support her with regard to her deception. What she did in this instance was very very wrong. I believe she is now paying for that. I don't think that erases any good things she has ever done or anything that MIT has ever done and so forth. </p>
<p>I hope that young people can observe that lying like this can come back to bite you. In fact, didn't Marilee preach that? Well, she is learning the lesson she preached.</p>
<p>BethieVT, I think Behnke (who used to head admissions at my alma mater) was saying that Marilee knew a thing or two about science and thus St. Rose did a "good job" in educating her. For what it is worth!</p>