MIT admissions dean resigns over resume fraud. Ouch!

Parents Forum
1141

<p>soozievt: "siserune...I really have a hard time with your analysis. Who cares who got admitted to MIT? They all had to achieve to make it through to graduation. They all received an MIT education and apparently the college's high graduation rate demonstrates that all these students were able to hack the level of MIT and make it through. </p>

<p>Beyond even that, many people who come out of the many other schools a tier down from MIT also can achieve similar success and similar levels of economic output. Geez.</p>

<p>At the most selective schools in the country, of which MIT is one, they can fill the class two times over and have a fairly comparable level of student body. So, even the next 10% of kids on the list at MIT who don't make the final cut, are usually just as capable of the level of work at MIT and as capable of similar levels of economic output once they graduate. I believe ALL the students accepted to MIT were capable of the work and most were able to graduate. Enuf said by that fact alone. Who cares what their SATs were? They graduated, didn't they?</p>

<h2>EDIT...I cross posted with sjmom but kinda said the same thing! </h2>

<p>This mentality is so typical of college counselors. Hey, if they can "do the work", then what's the difference? It's true that the prominence of selection criteria other than intelligence is a staple of most elite colleges and has little to do with MJ...However, MIT's criteria used to be intellect and work ethic. If one candidate was significantly smarter and/or harder working than another candidate, then the former candidate won out. Determining who was smarter requires more than SAT and GPA: also academic competitions, recommendations, level of the coursework, and a general sense of whether they got the most out of their education. Musical talent I'm sure was also a tip factor, but I consider this an intellectual talent and often it correlates well with mathematical talent anyway. </p>

<p>It's not about getting in class and regurgitating some equation on a test. It's about developing a level of mastery sufficient to be creative in the field. At age 18, your best bet is to take the most intelligent candidates.<br>
It's like people look at the guys getting perfect scores in math and science and act as if they are obsessive compulsive or something. Achievement in math and science is similar to musical composition, I think. The first step is to play all the notes correctly of existing works, even if that's not what it's about. The most important part is to learn to get a sense of the music and for how to develop that music. But it's rare to find a great composer who can only play 80% (B-level) of the notes of a song.</p>

1142

<p>Pebbles, I agree the committee would not have been making the calls to check credentials. But they should have asked if someone in the Human Resources Dept did make the calls.
Apparently they just assumed that the HR dept was professional and doing their jobs. :rolleyes:</p>

<p>Until this event, perhaps not an unreasonable assumption :)</p>

1143

<p>actually, it was 15% that Jones said wouldn't have gotten in under the previous admissions dean.</p>

1144

<p>From the TECH
<a href="http://www-tech.mit.edu/V127/N23/editorial.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www-tech.mit.edu/V127/N23/editorial.html&lt;/a>

[quote]
MIT failed to exercise due diligence early in the hiring process. Jones was hired as a secretary and was eventually promoted to the position of dean (nominally making her a member of the faculty). Her resume was not thoroughly examined when she first came to MIT, and it was never re-examined as she rose through MIT's internal ranks because, according to Chancellor Clay, "it is not standard practice to confirm the credentials of individuals being promoted within MIT."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Time for a policy change??</p>

<p>Of course ;)</p>

1145

<p>The thing is, collegealum, with schools that have admit rates of about 15% or lower, there are MORE than 15% who have the stats to get in, as well as all the other criteria that would qualify for a spot in the class. You can't tell me that the next 100 kids who didn't make the final cut, were not as qualified as the ones who made the 15% (or whatever the admit rate is at a particular elite college). That is why you will find students who got into Harvard but not Yale or got into MIT but not Princeton , or got into CalTech but not MIT and for the same sake, you will ALSO find kids who got into Yale but not Harvard, Princeton but not MIT, MIT but not CalTech and so on. The odds are what they are. You know, you can have plenty of "intellect" and "work ethic" and really top scores and GPA and all that good stuff, and still get denied at a school that has a very low admit rate. If so, that doesn't mean you are not qualified. They cannot take all who ARE qualified. Intellect is not an automatic "in."</p>

<p>Schools also want to build a class of different types of students. It is not enough to be qualified intellectually. A GREAT many students who apply to schools the likes of MIT, HAVE the "intellect" and the "work ethic." So, then what happens? Other factors kick in. As long as one's stats are in the right ballpark, the rest is going to matter. So, someone might get in who had a 1500 SAT and 3.8 GPA and another kid who had a 1600 and a 4.0 didn't get in because their "intellects" and "work ethics" already fit the bill and are in the same general ballpark but the kid with only SLIGHTLY lower stats had a lot of other things going for him/her that was attractive to the university. Frankly, if I was picking a class, just cause a kid had a perfect GPA and perfect SAT score, wouldn't make me pick him/her over someone whose stats were slightly below but still very very good, who had lots more to offer the college. Intellectually, they are fairly equal but the overall package may not be equal. Then there are the needs of the university and finding kids to fit different "slots" in the class. Having all one type doesn't make for an interesting learning environment. One thing about highly selective schools is the diversity in the class (diversity of all types....I am not talking of racial diversity itself). </p>

<p>I have a child at a so called elite school and one thing that is attractive in such a learning environment is not only is everyone very smart but that there are so many different types of kids with a variety of achievements beyond their SATs and GPAs and class rank. Each one is a mover and shaker and shaper of one kind or another. I think the way the class was picked was more effective than if they only had skimmed off the top SATs and GPAs off the pile of applications. Yes, one must be smart to get in but because there are so many who ARE smart who apply, many other criteria for admission will come into play, as it should be. IF MIT started looking beyond just stats and wanted to diversify the class in various ways, as long as each applicant had stats within the ballpark to succeed at MIT, I'm all for it. They cannot take everyone who is qualified to do the work. Far more apply who are qualified and as are smart as the ones who get in. When the admit rate is low, that is the name of that game. If one chooses to enter the elite admissions process, know that going into it. My kid did. She WAS qualified for all her schools but if one didn't come through, she never took it as "not good enough" but simply that the odds were as they were and many qualified applicants are turned away. However, if one has stellar qualifications, usually one does get into some selective schools. There is no need for sour grapes or feeling something isn't fair about it. Enter the elite admissions process with eyes wide open. With very low admit rates, even perfect stats are not sure bets at a particular elite college. Stellar stats, however, will usually garner some acceptances. And frankly, while it is very very important to have top grades and good test scores, an attractive candidate is someone who has lots else going for them. There is a glut of kids with stellar stats and smarts, and so other attributes come into play. </p>

<p>There are lots of kids on CC who sit and analyze acceptance results and they will say, "how did that kid get in who had a 1490 SAT when so and so didn't get in who had a 1540 SAT??" Well, in my view, these two kids had similar SAT scores and it was all the other stuff that set them apart and I would imagine the kid with the 1490 had many other achievements that were more attractive to the university. Both, however, could do the level of challenging work that the elite school requires of its college students. Both were smart and both had strong work ethic. Analyzing who got in and who didn't based on a set of numbers just doesn't wash.</p>

1146

<p>Post #1107:
"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."</p>

<p>If MJ goes out on the speaking / book circuit in the future, how could we believe anything she said? How could we tell if she truly learned from her mistake and is ready to make ammends, or would it be just the next phase of self-promotion? Would you want your S/D to hear what she has to say?</p>

1147

<p>"Her resume was not thoroughly examined when she first came to MIT, and it was never re-examined as she rose through MIT's internal ranks because, according to Chancellor Clay, "it is not standard practice to confirm the credentials of individuals being promoted within MIT." </p>

<p>Yep. Echoing my recent suggestion on this thread. </p>

<p><em>clap, clap</em> (takes bow)
:)</p>

1148

<p>*soozievt: *"There is no need for sour grapes or feeling something isn't fair about it."</p>

<p>My comments about MIT admissions are not sour grapes. I got in.</p>

<p>I don't have time to respond to your whole post, but I will say this: what different types of slots would a school like MIT have to fill? When I went there, have the people came in saying they were going to major in physics. Almost none of them actually did major in physics, instead choosing a variety of different technical fields. To borrow a concept from developmental biology, most math/science kids have not differentiated into what they are going to do by age 18; they are simple outstanding at math/science across the board. It doesn't make sense to look for people who have an interest in or have done research in material science, for instance. MIT ends up with plenty of people in material science anyway. A lot of times people end up not liking chem or chem E and change to material science.</p>

1149

<p>
[quote]
It's not about getting in class and regurgitating some equation on a test. It's about developing a level of mastery sufficient to be creative in the field.

[/quote]
No upper division math or physics class is about "regurgitating" some equation. Math, physics, and engineering are pretty well defined disciplines. These are not subjective courses -- the work is tough no matter what college you attend. My husband has degrees in math and we have a son who is a physics major. H and I attended a public university (many, many years ago!) and H and S thought it was hilarious that S used the same textbook (although a later edition) that H did for a math class. I don't think the material at our public U was different from what S is getting at an Ivy. It's silly to act as if only MIT can garner all the kids capable of making a difference in their field. To some extent, it goes back to the old argument of whether or not an "elite" college is worth it. We decided it was for our son, but not because we had a false notion about the material covered in such an objective field as math or physics.</p>

1150

<p>Also, I will add that I used the phrase "significantly more intellegent" in my earlier post. The difference between a 770 and a 800 on the Math SAT is negligible; it could just mean one guy made a gridding error. However, the difference between say a 730 and a 800 is pretty significant. It's not fatal, but the candidate with a 730 needs to make up for it. (Naturally, we should be less harsh if they went to a lousy high school.)</p>

1151

<p>"No upper division math or physics class is about "regurgitating" some equation. Math, physics, and engineering are pretty well defined disciplines. These are not subjective courses -- the work is tough no matter what college you attend. My husband has degrees in math and we have a son who is a physics major. H and I attended a public university (many, many years ago!) and H and S thought it was hilarious that S used the same textbook (although a later edition) that H did for a math class. I don't think the material at our public U was different from what S is getting at an Ivy. It's silly to act as if only MIT can garner all the kids capable of making a difference in their field. To some extent, it goes back to the old argument of whether or not an "elite" college is worth it. We decided it was, but not because we had a false notion about the material covered in an objective field, like math or physics."</p>

<hr>

<p>I actually agree with everything you say here, and I don't think it contradicts anything I have said. I know that upper level math/science classes require more than regurgitation. And I know that the ivy education is not necessarily different than that of a public university. </p>

<p>I just think that a technical institution should try to admit who they think have the most potential in technical areas. Also, I don't agree that as long as people can "do the work," they are as qualified as anyone else. What does that mean, anyway? That they can get at least a "B" in their classes?</p>

1152

<p>In a recent presentation, Stu Schmill discussed the composition of the MIT 2011 class just admitted:</p>

<p>-16% of the admitted students were so-called academic superstars, as defined by criteria set by the faculty. In general that would mean top SAT scores and GPA, PLUS some national level award in a science or math competition. Just being valedictorian or having a 2400 on the SAT would not qualify as a superstar.<br>
-At the other extreme, 13% were judged to be below some "standard" academic level as defined by the faculty.</p>

<p>My understanding from the meeting was that the admits in the latter group were still highly qualified based on other intangible factors. While some URMs undeniably fit in that category, they had generally shown some extraordinary ability at overcoming adversity and demonstrated strong academic potential. That group also included highly talented individuals who had shown some exceptional creative ability, may have patented an invention, published research in a national journal or excelled at some science competition without having the typical high SAT scores or GPA to back it up. In nearly all cases, these achievements were in science and technology not some unrelated field. MIT has made great efforts to catch these highly lopsided individuals who would otherwise not qualify for admission under strict academic standards. </p>

<p>There was no indication that those students performed at a lower level than the "traditional" admits while at MIT. If anything many did better. It is argued that such flexible policies are necessary to catch the future brilliant inventors or scientists that are the trademark of the institute. After all, Einstein himself would have failed admission to MIT under traditional standards!</p>

<p>It should be further noted that the policies regarding the admission of all candidates are not set by the admissions department but by the all powerful Committee on Undergraduate Admission and Financial Aid (CUAFA). This a faculty chaired committee with 14 members consisting of six active faculty members, 4 current students, two members reporting to the Dean of Undergraduate Education, one representative from admissions and one from financial aid. The Admissions Department only implements the policies defined by CUAFA.</p>

<p>The mission and composition of CUAFA can be found at:
<a href="http://web.mit.edu/committees/faculty/Rosters/cuafa.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://web.mit.edu/committees/faculty/Rosters/cuafa.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

1153

<br>


<br>

<p>Wouldn't have to. You could just have some personnel clerk call and check on the say the top 3 finalists, or maybe just the final one top candidate. The degree status others could remain unchecked.</p>

<p>At my company we don't check on every applicant who sends in a resume. But we do check on every person who is selected for an opening BEFORE offering the job. The resume check is usually the last step before the offer is extended. People who lied on their resumes don't get hired.</p>

1154

<p>collegealum...let me clarify that the "sour grapes" comment was not whatsoever talking about YOU. I was talking about those who do not get into MIT who have the stats. The low admit rate dictates that this happens all the time and if someone got in who has stats slightly below yours (I'm talking hypothetically, not about YOU PERSONALLY) and you didn't, either the person had something else going for them or actually the low admit rate itself means not all who are qualified can get in. </p>

<p>Also when I talked about "slots" in the class, I was not referring to intended majors (which a vast number of 17 year olds change their mind about a couple times once in college....that's what college is partly for...to explore the possibilities). Slots can mean many ways to diversify the class....gender, racial, socio-economic, geographic, fields of study, strengths, participation in various campus/EC activities, leaders, and so on. Elite colleges accept PEOPLE, not just numbers.</p>

<p>And by the way, I don't think a kid with a 730 SAT score in math is all that different than the kid with the 800. The SAT scores have a margin of error and represent a range of 30 points + or -. So, the kid with the 730, is in range of a 760. The kid with the 800 might get 770 the next time. A 760 and a 770 are about the same. And even so, the ability to succeed at MIT with a 730 Math score and a 800 math score is likely not significantly different. The SATs are just one test. There is achievement in math classes, AP scores, SAT Subject Test scores, and other math achievements of note. If I were assessing candidates, as long as they had a 700+ math score for MIT, I would not care the variation of 700, 750 or 800. I would think a score of above 700 could do the work and I'd be looking at that point at everything else the student had to offer and other indicators of achievement and scholarship, let alone personal traits. I, for one, am glad that schools like MIT do not just scoop up everyone on the pile with the highest numbers and leave it at that. I am glad that they consider kids who are in the right RANGE with numbers and then look at many other factors...which then results in some kids who are rejected with an 800 math score and some are admitted with a 730 math score. My belief is that both can do the work at MIT. I'd want to see way way more things about the candidate beyond the test score (as long as the test score was in the ballpark). </p>

<p>By the way, my kid went to what you likely would refer to as a "lousy" high school, but she had a very high math SAT score. She didn't choose to apply to MIT. Had she applied and not gotten in, I would have felt that it was just the odds of the draw. Certainly her SAT math score was high enough. And if she had gotten in, it is my belief that it would have been for everything else she had going for her, not the high math SAT score which simply kept her on the pile to be considered. Like even YOU said, "work ethic" is important. You can have someone with an 800 math SAT who is an underachiever and not a go getter. Colleges like MIT don't just use test scores to measure who they think WILL do the work or make a difference. There are plenty of applicants who CAN do the work. My daughter might decide to apply to MIT for grad school (her list is not formed yet but I have a feeling this school might make it as it has a program in her field). She knows the odds of getting in are slim. If she doesn't get in to a school of this sort, she knows it isn't for lack of having the smarts. Low admit rates are what they are. </p>

<p>By the way, I find NONE of this having to do with Marilee Jones.</p>

1155

<p>Thanks, cellardweller, for the informative post (#1152).</p>

1156

<p>Coureur, that is an excellent point. They don't have to do the time consuming check of data on a resume of every applicant. But when it comes to the finalists, they really should dig deeply. </p>

<p>While not related to lying on a resume, I recall in our school district, a superintendant was hired and then over time, a lot of problems emerged. Someone started to explore his past and came across many news articles in another state about trouble he had been in at a previous job, litigation and some serious issues. Everyone wondered how our district could have hired him without having checked into his background at the previous job. Today, even with googling, you can find out a lot of this stuff!</p>

<p>cellardweller, I also found your post to be interesting and informative, thanks.</p>

1157

<p>"By the way, my kid went to what you likely would refer to as a "lousy" high school, but she had a very high math SAT score."</p>

<p>All I was trying to say was that the standards of admissions should be based on what the person's educational opportunities are. If the top track in their school is to take Algebra II as a senior, then obviously it is more difficult to get a top score on the math SAT. If your kid got a top score anyway in spite of their high school, then that's great.</p>

<p>I do disagree about whether there is a significant difference between a score of 700 and a score of 800 on the math SAT. I mean, it's like Pythagorean theorem and basic geometry and algebra. If you have taken all of the required courses, there should be nothing on that test that you don't know how to do. A 700 score means you make like 5 mistakes on it. I think it's hard to make 5 dumb mistakes (i.e., addition errors, etc.) Like I said, it shouldn't be fatal to admissions success, but it's a minus.</p>

1158

<p>soozievt: "And by the way, I don't think a kid with a 730 SAT score in math is all that different than the kid with the 800. The SAT scores have a margin of error and represent a range of 30 points + or -. So, the kid with the 730, is in range of a 760. The kid with the 800 might get 770 the next time. A 760 and a 770 are about the same. "</p>

<p>Statistics don't work like that. Assuming that the standard deviation for SAT is 30 points, then you can calculate the probability that the difference between a 800 score and 730 score is strictly due to chance.<br>
Z = (800-730)/(Standard deviation)= 2.33.
Using a table from a statistics book to convert this z ratio to a probability, the probability of a difference of 70 points occuring by chance is 2%.</p>

1159

<p>The probability of getting a difference of 100 points between two scores strictly by chance is 0.08%. In other words, the probability of two people of the same mathematical ability having scores which are different by 100 points is 0.08%.</p>

1160

<p>Even though I figured I had the math wrong statistically speaking even as I wrote it (I excelled at math growing up but never went into it and so haven't done it in years and years and have forgotten LOADS of it)....my main point was not the standard deviation as much as my other point that a 730 SAT and an 800 SAT in math in and of itself with no other factors about math ability considered, doesn't imply to me a great significance in terms of who might be the better candidate for admissions at MIT. I think both are in the ballpark of those who can be admitted to MIT and can succeed in their studies there. I'd then want to examine MANY other factors that demonstrate math achievement, let alone many factors about other academics, personality, passions, activities, and so forth. There are a lot of things to evaluate in admissions and the math SAT score is just ONE factor of many. In my view, that difference of 70 points is not what is the difference between two candidates for MIT. Both scores are in the high end and thus it is all the other stuff that reveals differences between the candidates. </p>

<p>I never said the math ability of the 730 Math SAT kid and the 800 Math SAT were exactly the same. I said that both scores were in the high end of the ballpark needed for MIT and that many other factors would then set the candidates apart. The score is one piece of information only. The difference in math abilities and achievements alone (not to mention many other factors that go into admissions) would need to be ascertained by looking at achievement in the classroom, level of math courses taken, other demonstrations of math ability/achievements, etc. Even two kids who BOTH got an 800 on the SAT might not be equal in math ability and achievement. My kid had a very high math SAT score but I don't think she achieved in math nearly what, for example, Marite's son can do in math and what he had covered in terms of course work and then other math competitions and achievements and summer programs and what have you. I would not put her son and my D as equals with math even though their math SAT scores were likely very close. Thankfully, adcoms such as those at MIT, would examine way more than the SAT scores of these two kids to determine who was the math genious, so to speak. My D is really good at math but not nearly as accomplished or able as Marite's son. But you could not tell that from their SAT scores alone.</p>

<p>BTW, in post 1157, you discussed the significance of difference between a 700 and an 800 and I was discussing your original example of 730 and 800 only.</p>

<p>PS, admittedly, you "got me" on the probability math computation but then again, you went to MIT and I only went to Tufts :D.</p>