<p>Yeah, that's probably what he meant Soozie, but I was thinking somebody didn't do such a great job on the values piece!</p>
<p>Her talk about the suffering involved in living a lie at least suggests that she's gone through some discomfort, but her piling on the additional false degree at a later date seems to give the lie to even this.</p>
<p>soozievt: good posts!</p>
<p>^^^ Yes, thank you.</p>
<p>Sooz
well said.</p>
<p>Suzie - While Jones did not set the policies all by herself, I think it's fair to say that (1) that she had SOME influence over policy as Admissions Dean , (2) that people in high executive positions who are tasked to carry out policy can shape the process even further according to their personal preferences - they can carry out the policies that they like zealously and drag their heels on others, they can bend the rules, etc. and that (3) Jones's attitudes were shaped by her own personal experiences (which included the deceptions) - this is the #1 argument of the proponents for why we need "diversity" on campus so it's funny to start arguing now that your attitudes have NOTHING to do with your life experience.</p>
<p>So, obviously a lot of what went on at MIT (e.g. the emphasis on affirmative action for women and minorities, etc.) was in tune with not only the consensus of the MIT administration but the broad national consensus among the elite (if not the majority of common people). But some of what went on was driven in part by Marilee's own personal demons - we'll never know exactly how much. But I'll bet that over time, esp. as the Marilee loyalists leave due to turnover, you'll see some shift in direction or emphasis by the admission office. It may not be in the direction that some people here want - for all I know they'll like the new regime even less, but don't be surprised if things change a little.</p>
<p>This post is in reponse to earlier claims that during the past 15 years, MIT has been admitting students who are not interested in science and engineering. If you look at the most current enrollment data (web.mit.edu/facts/enrollment/html) you'll see that the majority of students are enrolled in engineering and science. In fact, only three percent of students are enrolled in humanities, arts, and social science courses, and the majority of those are in economics. It's true that MIT's Sloan School offers a degree in management, but since the Sloan School was founded in 1950, it's impossible to construe that change as having occurred "recently." Yesterday I spoke with the head college counselor at the local high school, and she stated that during her ten years in that position, the only students who'd been admitted to MIT (about two per year) were the top math and science students at the school. About 50% of those admitted students were female, by the way, and as far as the high school knows, they all went on to careers in science or engineering. I'm not a defender of Marilee Jones, but I don't see any evidence that she has altered the student body at MIT in terms of its passion for science and engineering.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In my view, this is about Ms. Jones only. She paid the price. MIT should not.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Doesn't MIT deserve some flack for never checking the credentials of people it hires, especially senior administrators in very public roles? In PR terms, at least, they get a black eye from this, and I can't see why that isn't at least partially deserved.</p>
<p>avwh...you are right that MIT is to blame in so far as not having checked her credentials on the resume. That is not too unusual and particularly not back then and possibly also not for the type of job she originally applied to which did not require a college degree in the first place. Yes, they should have checked. But what I am saying is that there is a LOT of talk by SOME about MIT this or that with regard to admissions practices, and so forth, and I don't see Marilee's lies reflecting on MIT itself or its admissions process. </p>
<p>Also, all the talk about admissions of women, etc......not only have those women been qualified and graduated successfullly, but the admissions policies and practices were not set by Marilee alone in some vacuum and I feel certain in the future that they will be admitting women in the same way as under Marilee's tenure. I find it offensive to be calling it unfair that women are admitted at a higher rate than males. That doesn't make them less qualified for one thing. But the reason for the higher admit rate is because college admissions at ALL selective colleges, attempt to create a CLASS and are not simply a matter of taking the top SATs and top GPAs, ranks, etc. off the pile. OF those that ARE qualified, including women, they attempt to build a class of a mix of individuals, balancing out many factors, including gender. I see no problem with this. But besides the fact, THAT issue is not an issue specific to Marilee. Some are using Ms. Jones' ouster as an opening to attack all of MIT's policies and practices. </p>
<p>I also agree with CalAlum that the majority of students at MIT excel at science and math and many are majoring in related subjects. I see no problem with the fact that there may be some students there studying in other fields that MIT offers in the first place. Whether MIT does or doesn't want to offer these majors, is not up to Ms. Jones. </p>
<p>Percy, yes, Ms. Jones had input in admissions policies and the process itself. But it was not in a vacuum. She had to answer to the needs the university expressed. I believe her co workers had ample say in who was admitted and also claim to plan to carry out admissions in the future as has been in the recent past, with or without Marilee at the helm. I find the questioning of MIT's admissions practices not all that relevant here. A leader of a department was WRONG and a LIAR and she has been removed. The shame is with Ms. Jones, and painting her colleagues or their practices with the same brush is offensive. I do agree that Ms. Jone's attitudes about which she spoke pubicly, as well as in her book, are influenced by her own background and issues. I think the policies of the MIT admissions office reflect MIT's mission, more than Marilee Jone's mission. I suppose the proof will be in the next admissions cycle. I don't expect many changes in how they do things there.</p>
<p>by dmd77
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is another case of attributing any and all gripes to Marilee Jones. </p>
<p>Gyory Kepes taught arts at MIT from 1946-1974 and founded the Center for Advanced Visual Studies at MIT in 1967. He believed that an understanding of science was intertwined with study of the arts. This was nurtured by the university and carried on today by Nobel Prize winning author and MIT faculty member Alan Lightman among many others. Author of "Einstein's Dreams" </p>
<p>A bit before Marilee Jones's time.</p>
<p>Andi and Soozie: I agree.</p>
<p>I agree with posts 986, 988, 989.</p>
<p>And as to the intertwining of the arts with the sciences, this is certainly something that CMU caught on to some time ago. It would seem that MJ didn't invent that. She just may have featured that more, & thus can take some credit possibly for making MIT a place where the musically gifted scientist would be more welcome than previously assumed.</p>
<p>CMU has a College of Fine Arts as well as other genre-specific schools. When I went there, we had to stick to our own college within the university for the most part and were advised against taking classes in the other schools.</p>
<p>Even Caltech has majors outside the sciences. I believe most majors are kids who are double-majoring - but I'm sure from time to time there are kids who realize they don't really like science as much as they thought they did, but still like the school overall.</p>
<p>I got the impression that the amount of cross-pollination at CMU varies by department, but that there is some by virtue of distribution requirements and of course sharing living spaces.</p>
<p>Post 992 is not current information.</p>
<p>"The BSA Program was launched in 1999 as a joint venture between the College of Fine Arts and The Mellon College of Science. Based on the successful BHA model, the BSA curriculum is carefully designed to allow students the ability to balance studies in the fine arts with studies in the natural sciences or mathematics."</p>
<p>
<p>I think the policies of the MIT admissions office reflect MIT's mission, more than Marilee Jone's mission. I suppose the proof will be in the next admissions cycle. I don't expect many changes in how they do things there.
</p>
<p>Isn't that the truth! Despite its leader's self serving publicity and burning desire to stay in the limelight, very few discernable changes can be attributed to MIT Admission's office in the past decade. Inasmuch as someone seems to lament "another case of attributing any and all gripes to Marilee Jones" more attention should be devoted to the accuracy and justification of the ... credits. It is ridiculous to use Mrs. Jones' fraud to question the policies of admissions at MIT, and especially the admissions of women or special admits. As ridiculous as attempting to elevate the role and contributions of a resilient employee to a lot more than they were. Had the committee responsible for finding a bona fide and hireable replacement for Behnke not be fast asleep at the wheel, the identity of Doctor Jones would never have been known, expect for a few international students. Just think if you could name the Assistants Deans working for Fitzsimmons, Rapelye, or Shaw without looking at the web sites? </p>
<p>Lots of talk does not equate to a lot of action or changes.</p>
<p>I agree that MIT has not changed it's admission policies dramatically--not according to the scattergrams that I've seen. Gnerds are what they want and gnerds are what they are getting.</p>
<p>However, there have been HUGE changes in the way that MIT interacts with prospective students--the blogging, the website, etc. In the last five years, MIT has been at the forefront of a communications revolution for prospective college students. Presumably Jones had something to do with that effort. She gets a check mark in that box.</p>
<p>Likewise, Richard Nixon accepted Mao's deceptive invitation to visit China--and consequently was credited with 'opening' China. However, that accomplishment did not prevent him from being impeached--nor did it dim his reputation as a sleazy deviant.</p>
<p>Jones will not be able to wipe the slime off of her CV--no matter what she did for MIT.</p>
<p>Apparently Shakespeare was wrong.</p>
<p>"Misidentifying" your undergraduate College Just Smells :rolleyes:</p>
<p>^^^ good play on "Rose"</p>
<p>Hazmat - your post #197 had linked to the National Association for College Admissions Counseling - NACAC - where Marilee was listed as Dr. Marilee Jones Phd. and a scheduled speaker at their meeting in September 2007.
Since your post on April 26th they have removed reference to her "Doctorate", but apparently she's still on the agenda to speak.
<a href="http://www.nacacnet.org/MemberPortal/Events/NatlConference/Speakers/%5B/url%5D">http://www.nacacnet.org/MemberPortal/Events/NatlConference/Speakers/</a></p>
<p>The 2007 Harvard Summer Institute on College Admissions, has removed any reference to her at all for their upcoming conference, June 24-29, 2007.
She had been listed on the "faculty". (See the previously posted CV in post #511, page 35)
<a href="http://www.fas.harvard.edu/%7Esica/faculty.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~sica/faculty.htm</a></p>
<p>Now you see it - Now you don't :)</p>
<p>Does anyone have the stats on how many women were working at MIT in the year she was hired? Do they keep data like that?</p>