MIT admissions dean resigns over resume fraud. Ouch!

Parents Forum
1101

<p>Xiggi, we've been down this road before, which prompted my response in this thread:</p>

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=1278678&postcount=49%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=1278678&postcount=49&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Start reading where I write "And this is where you all start saying that adcoms are talking out of both sides of our mouths: we encourage kids to follow their hearts in the choices they make, and then as adcoms we want to see that they've taken 'the most challenging courseload.'"</p>

<p>Just replace "the most challenging courseload" with "summer programs" or whatever else you feel like putting in there.</p>

1102

<p>Yes, Ben, we have indeed traveled that road before!</p>

<p>And that is also why my first post in this thread (Post 155) was:
[quote]
"I am sad for the wonderful people who worked for her and have shared so much wisdom and warmth with this forum. I did have more than my share of questions and comments regarding what Cheers calls the "doublespeak" but, in the end, I also listened to people like Ben Jones who knew her better and always defended her position. </p>

<p>MIT cannot afford to forgive her, but we sure can. Humans are fragile.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>However, I also believe we have to have the courage of our opinions. Opinions such as the ones I shared here:
<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=238355%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=238355&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>For the record, allow me to repeat that my biggest issue remains the interpretation of **the **message as opposed to the message itself. Simply stated, when taken out of the context of hyper selective schools and analyzed without subtility, the message becomes a rallying credo for all kind of self-interested individuals in search of an agenda of self promotion.</p>

<p>X</p>

1103

<p>Anyone care to interpret "being" vs. "doing"?</p>

1104

<p>andi: </p>

<p>In answer your question on another page, I don't think that Jones' deception will transform an ethical person into an unethical person. She's really not much more than a bit player in a rather large cast of many high profile people who have been revealed for their dishonesty, lack of ethics, and "white collar' crimes over the recent years. And, frankly, I don't think she has that much power.</p>

<p>That said, her particular brand of dishonesty and duplicity is more troublesome. Over the course of years, she held the trust of a lot of young people (and their parents), who believed in her words, in her office, and in the "admissions" system. </p>

<p>So I do think that when this sort of brazen and calculated dishonesty occurs (and I agree that she had "enablers" here), the cynicism just piles on--to an already fairly cynical society. More than that, I think this sort of behavior helps to instill a defeatist attitude, too. (What's the point? Business as usual . . . It doesn't really matter . . . Why bother.)</p>

<p>This kind of fallout is especially true, it seems to me, when people (even those with whom she worked and clearly duped through the years), make excuses for her (ie, she was just trying to carve a niche for herself; it was tough for women to get secretarial jobs back then; etc), or want to shut down any discussion of any wrong-doing. </p>

<p>To not be outraged by her actions and the implications of those actions, to my mind, encourages more of the same and also helps to build on that atmosphere of cynicism and defeatism. And maybe that last bit is okay for you and me, but for young people, I think that's awfully sad. </p>

<p>I have no doubt she was highly charismatic, smart, loyal, hard-working, and energetic--but then, again, so is my dog. Those attributes shouldn't excuse any of her actions, though. I think we should all be outraged, and we should continue to make big noises about it.</p>

<p>As far as the pension, usually the reason people are allowed to "resign," and not be fired outright, is so that they can retain a pension (and possibly even a severance package).</p>

1105

<p>
[quote]
So I do think that when this sort of brazen and calculated dishonesty occurs (and I agree that she had "enablers" here), the cynicism just piles on--to an already fairly cynical society. More than that, I think this sort of behavior helps to instill a defeatist attitude, too. (What's the point? Business as usual . . . It doesn't really matter . . . Why bother.)</p>

<p>This kind of fallout is especially true, it seems to me, when people (even those with whom she worked and clearly duped through the years), make excuses for her (ie, she was just trying to carve a niche for herself; it was tough for women to get secretarial jobs back then; etc), or want to shut down any discussion of any wrong-doing.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>jack, overall I understand and agree with much that you say.</p>

<p>However, I don't think people are necessarily trying to make excuses for her. I interpret those comments as trying to 'understand' or 'fathom' her justifications for why she would do the unthinkable. </p>

<p>And, I am not interested in shutting down any discussion of wrong-doing. What I object to is people ascribing to her more power and influence on the young people than I believe she actually had, disbelief that she could actually have had any good intentions and desire to improve the system, and attributions to her of having skewed the types of kids that MIT accepted such as artists, when this is patently not true if you read MIT archives back to the 1940s.</p>

1106

<p>
[quote]
I guess I'm not quite as exercised about this as some of you.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I am delighted and amused, not exercised, that MJ inadvertently illustrated the absurdity of credentialism in a way that no amount of lecturing from the admissions pulpit could have done. A once in a generation cultural spectacle.</p>

<p>It is sad that it happened at MIT, though. Wish it had taken place at a more pretentious institution such as that other school down the street.</p>

<p>The moral diatribes against MJ's bad, bad, bad behavior are boring to read after the first 500 repetitions.</p>

1107

<p>I wrote the majority of this post many hours ago but my keyboard bit the dust before I could finish and send it, and so I had to go out and buy a new keyboard. Thus my comments are out of sync in this "conversation" but I will put them up anyway...</p>

<p>A few things....</p>

<p>One, all this time I thought you were a dad, StickerShock! Lo and behold, I read your post that you have a husband! LOL! </p>

<p>The article in the Times today makes me want to say "wow" again, as I did when the original story broke. Once Marilee was caught, I find it hard to believe she did not come clean when asked if she had attended any other colleges and did not mention College of St. Rose. I mean once the jig was up, and she had been holding this in for years and likely even realizing that one day she might be caught, I can't imagine not coming clean at that moment.</p>

<p>Picking up on what Garland wrote earlier today....I wrote something about that on a thread that berurah started yesterday in the cafe about integrity and stuff like that. I had written about how if someone is unethical or immoral or lies, I don't think ill of their entire person, but more to do with just the thing they did. HOWEVER, I can forgive IF the person tries to make amends and acknowledges that what they did was wrong and acknowledges any pain they may have caused for others and makes attempts to make some changes in the future....because trust is not automatic...it must be earned and so the person who has broken that trust needs to begin contrition, and make amends by not simply saying "I'm sorry" but ACTING sorry, and demonstrating an understanding of why it was wrong and how their actions have affected others, and then hopefully demonstrate change in the future with regard to such behaviors. I haven't read anything about Marilee publicly making any statements or actions to this affect. It surely would help her image and I would think more of her. It also might even help her personally to move forward from this one bad thing she had done, so that it doesn't color anything else she has worked for and done that was good. </p>

<p>Andi...with regard to your most recent post, I also think that Marilee had good intentions in her work in college admissions and any reforms she espoused, and I also believe that MIT admissions is what it was before she got there and what it will be now that she has left. I don't think she skewed the process and policies there and didn't wield that much power. </p>

<p>While I agree she didn't have that much power or influence over youth or isn't some national figure, I do think that those who either have applied to MIT in the recent past or who follow college admissions stuff, are affected and will feel cynicism over the hypocrisy in her case. She isn't just someone who simply lied on her resume but it is the opposite from the messages she so publicly espoused. Also, when kids see people who lie or cheat to get ahead and SUCCEED in doing so, it does cause them to pause. She isn't the only one, of course. Hopefully, the youth who know about this case can take away from it that eventually she DID get caught and paid the price. </p>

<p>I thought what the new acting Admissions Director at MIT posted was well written. It has got to be a very difficult situation for Marilee's co workers to have to clean up the mess and defend MIT admissions and its practices, etc. due to someone whom they had trusted and where they themselves were not responsible for this mess. Truly, I believe the person who should pay the price for deceit is the person who committed it, not her co workers. As far as people who are above Marilee at MIT, I am sure they will re-examine hiring practices in the future, even from within, to avoid this kind of mess in the future. </p>

<p>Wisewoman...I agree a spouse is not going to turn their spouse in for resume fraud, at least not while still married. But he and others close to Marilee had to have known because this just isn't something she could hide....family knows whether you've gone to school or not and where. It is a shame that those close to her didn't advise her to deal with things differently on the way up. </p>

<p>I feel badly for Marilee's daughter and even for Marilee having to face her daughter. I don't know what the daughter knew but Marilee very well may have told her daughter that she went to these schools and had these degrees too. If that is the case, she has to face her own child about having lied to her, and that must be very difficult. </p>

<p>I hope maybe one day Marilee can use this situation and maybe even speak about it...the lessons of what it is like to lie to get ahead....and why that is not a good thing to do in the long run. Life is full of lessons and some are learned the hard way. She could use this lesson and all the ups and downs she has faced to speak to young people about why ethics and integrity are important and to learn from her errors in choices. She could make a difference and she could also make amends.</p>

1108

<p>Maybe we will see her on Dr. Phil...then the talk show circuit and then "How I overcame my resume fraud.. and found happiness" book....Unless she makes headlines in the National Inquirer : " I gave birth to an martian with a degree from RPI"</p>

1109

<p>"Hopefully, the youth who know about this case can take away from it that eventually she DID get caught and paid the price."</p>

<p>I think that IS what they will take away from it. The bigger picture is, she's finished; she's "ruined." She could write a book, go on the lecture circuit about lessons learned (but she won't make a bundle doing that; that's hardly newsworthy), but that's several steps down from Dean of Admissions at MIT. It will be something of a permanent price she will pay in ignominy, pain to her family, & early termination of any career of high profile. She could so something low profile, of course, but her reputation will remain with her. </p>

<p>Hopefully youth also see similar bad consequences for the white-collar crimes of people who cross the line in the financial business, in the energy industry, etc. Many of these people are behind bars now & will never retire in "style" or anything of the sort. It's very painful to be imprisoned by your own past, & I'm sure it is not lost on our youth to be able to imagine such outcomes for themselves, should they be tempted. </p>

<p>Many times before the MJ bombshell we've seen & read stories about rescissions of admissions offers & expulsion from college for students who played high-risk games with regard to truth & with regard to behavior. They weren't using MJ as a role model.</p>

1110

<p>
[quote]
She could use this lesson and all the ups and downs she has faced to speak to young people about why ethics and integrity are important and to learn from her errors in choices. She could make a difference and she could also make amends.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I really and truly hope she does.</p>

1111

<p>What a smarmy message from MIT blogger Schmill.</p>

<p>At least he didn't have the gutsto use the words 'extremely rigorous' in the same sentence as 'Marilee Jones'.</p>

<p>Knock, knock? Mit? You weren't bloody rigorous enough when you vetted and promoted that empolyee. THAT'S the problem. MIT's problem baby--not the communities' problem.</p>

<p>Being and doing. Give me a metaphysical break.</p>

1112

<p>Cheers, yes, MIT wasn't rigorous when hiring and promoting Ms. Jones and should have been. Given the statistics of 15% who lie on their resumes, I think that companies, organizations, and educational institutions need to be more thorough in going over credentials. I am sure that MIT will be now. I can see how this happened originally. Ms. Jones applied for a low level position at MIT that didn't require a college degree. Thus, the need to check her degree wasn't too great. As she kept being hired from within, they reviewed her evaluations of work on the job but didn't return to her resume. I can see this happening but am not making excuses for MIT. Things were a bit different way back when too. But I surely think NOW that they and other employers would be wise to check credentials. </p>

<p>I still think Schmill's statement was a decent one. He is not the one who had hired Marilee Jones. He is not the one answering to that aspect. He is speaking about how the admissions office will proceed in the future and so forth. He is not a spokesperson for how MIT dealt with Ms. Jones. I think his objective was to address how the admissions office will continue in the future and will be doing what it has been doing all along. The WHOLE of MIT admissions is not Ms. Jones. There are people there who have been doing what needs to be done and will still be working on the mission that MIT has set out for them to do in the admissions office. I'm not sure what you wanted Schmill to say in his blog statement. Perhaps some higher up at MIT can make a statement re: Marilee Jones and their hiring of her (if they have not already done so) but I think Schmill's objective was to address the admissions office's course in the past, present, and future. </p>

<p>I'd love to hear Marilee make a public statement beyond the one that speaks of her mistake of misrepresentation (not my words). Maybe one day she will try to make amends and also preach about these mistakes in choices she made in her own life vis a vis her many speeches/talks and book espousing the importance of NOT padding a resume, etc.</p>

1113

<p>Cheers, I appreciate your unvarnished view of the situation. I don't know what else Schmill could say, but this is a black eye on the institution.</p>

1114

<p>
[quote]
Anyone care to interpret "being" vs. "doing"?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Kelly Willis, an alt-country sort of singer, has a lovely song called "What I Deserve" that does just that in the middle 8:</p>

<p>I have done the best I can
But what I've done's not who I am</p>

<p>I think I can use my son as an illustration. He has one of those BWRK resumes commonly seen (and commonly derided) on CC: high class rank, high test scores, president of this and captain of that, jobs and volunteer activities, dancing. I suppose his resume is somewhat distinguishable from his classmates ranked on either side of him, but really not very -- almost by definition, they have done a lot of similar things. They spend 1/2 of their waking hours together, and they face basically the same set of opportunities. </p>

<p>The resume doesn't give any sense that he is actually a sort of dreamy, philosophical boy, who is given to pondering the Big Questions of Life, that he is a dedicated peacemaker among his friends, that he and some friends listen to random foreign music and try to guess what language a song is in, that he plays way too much Magic: The Gathering (or used to), that he loves Akira and The Satanic Verses but pretty much hates anything by the Brontes. That he is both cocky and insecure. That he can hold an intelligent discussion about John Hughes' Molly Ringwald films, or *My So-Called Life<a href="thanks,%20sis">/i</a>. That his dream is to join Medecins Sans Frontieres.</p>

<p>All of that is on the "being" side of the ledger -- it's who he is, and it bears only tangential relationship to what he's done.</p>

1115

<p>And if he lied big-time on his college application, that "doing" would pretty much sweep the ledger of all those fab "being" qualities. At least in my book.</p>

1116

<p>*Has he read 'Mountains beyond Mountains'? He'd love that book.</p>

<p>In my view, that lazy vetting isn't more than a scratch on the MIT cheek--but a scratch that needs examinationa nd attendance lest it leave a visible scar.</p>

<p>Schmill could have said what I think. <em>bats her eyelashes</em>
1. The vetting process has flaws and needs improvement.<br>
2. She is a pathological liar who has been a huge disappointment. Having constructed and maintained such a damaging pretense, we cannot take any of Jone's words at face value.</p>

<p>Nothing metaphysical about that view. </p>

<p>The moral waffling is almost as bad as the original crime.</p>

1117

<p>The interpretation of "being" vs. "doing" depends on whose mouth it is coming out of. The philosophy is, therefore, easily misapplied and perverted in the wrong hands. If Marilee Jones was applying this philosophy, it might mean that someone with straight "A+'s" was rejected in favor of someone with a "B's" in math just because they wrote a quirky or warm-and-fuzzy essay. I don't know for sure, of course. Even before this scandal came to light, my impression of Jones was that she was a flake.</p>

<p>However, I've met Stu Schmill and I was impressed with him. He seems like an earnest, serious guy; he was also a mechanical engineering undergrad so he knows what it takes to succeed at MIT. He is most definitely <em>not</em> a flake. One of his blog essays, "You don't have to take up the crumhorn to distinguish yourself," shows his philosophy. In other words, doing something weird to fit into a niche won't be an advantage. Likewise, founding a bunch of clubs that are basically useless won't be an advantage. I would guess that the quality vs. quantity means that if you think that person A is smarter and has more <em>meaningful</em> accomplishments than person B, you take that person. For example, if person A makes USAMO and aces all of his classes, you might take that person over someone who got straight "A's", did scientific research, and was in a bunch of academic teams and founded/was president of a bunch of clubs. I'm not sure how much Stu had to do with the way admissions has been run in the past, though--I think his primary responsibility was to coordinate the interviews of applicants with alumni. Also, he's only the interim director right now and presumably Jones hired many of the people in the admissions office. However, I think Schmill would be a good guy to take the helm.</p>

1118

<p>I'm sure Schmill is really really nice but if we're going to slice and dice Being and Doing as it relates to 17 year old applicants, then, for starters, we have to throw out all of Being and a chunk of Doing because 17 year olds do not have a fully formed cognitive function. They are missing the bit that tells them which actions will cause which consequences.</p>

<p>As a result, they are not fully formed Beings--in the metaphysical sense.</p>

<p>Perhaps mechanical engineers should shy away from metaphysical statements that are meant to paste niceties over a glaring deficiency.</p>

<p>I work with a ton of mechnical engineers. When they screw up, they front up. I'd tear out my hair if they started spouting Being and Doing nonsense when I called them on the carpet.</p>

<p>On the other hand, if my uncle, the Hegel scholar, wants to start talking about Being and Doing--then I'm all ears.</p>

1119

<p>
[quote]
The woman is not Ken Lay or some other major devil.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>MIT and its alumni have a big long-term effect on the economy, probably a lot bigger than anything related to Enron. Who those alumni are, is heavily influenced by admissions.</p>

1120

<p>"Who those alumni are, is heavily influenced by admissions."</p>

<p>But MJ's policies were not contained within herself. They were shared, institutional policies. The emphasis may or may not shift, and if they do shift, there's no telling how much. Besides, I was making reference to direct and long-term (permanent) harm. Losing your retirement, that's pretty permanent. Being disillusioned by the actions of people in authority & trust is an inevitable if unfortunate universal experience, happening later if not sooner.</p>

<p>If you think that suddenly now an entirely different category of people will get admitted to MIT, then I suppose there's possibly some indirect consequence of a change in authority, but it still does not compare with stealing & fraud on the grand scale of the energy crooks.</p>