<p>The Time article says more about Time's ethics than their common sense. Talk about missing the point! Or to quote Dan Rather's supporters at the time of the Bush/National Guard reporting, "Close enough." </p>
<p>I find this statement especially cloying (though here are so many it's hard to choose) "Once she was in the door and proving her competence, nobody gave a hoot about her r</p>
<p>higherlead, when you are finally affected by losing something due to someone else's lie, then you will finally "get it." The reason we humans are not lumped with the rest of the animals is because we supposedly have a brain and a conscience. To be the best person you can be is what life is about. Lying makes you less. Lying to take something away from someone else is even worse. (Someone who did the work in college lost that job - isn't it heinous to that person?) So she did a good job - so did Skilling and Lay, until they were caught.</p>
<p>higherlead
I think she even added a third degree. It's more sad to me than anything else. And, though MIT should have done better checking, I can't imagine any real damage to their reputation. Trusting people you think you know is no crime.</p>
<p>You have an entire admissions process that is full of "Lying, subterfuge, stretching the truth, burying facts, omiting key points, embellishing" and you are shocked, shocked to find that the head of the admissions department lied about her credentials? Marilee did the job MIT wanted her to do and apparently did it well. Nobody with a well developed atachment to the unvarnished truth could.</p>
<p>It's not only the harm she did to the others who applied for and who were legitimately qualified for her various promotions, or basically "stealing" her salary from MIT as they did not receive what they thought they paid for; it's also the harm to her family, her husband and daughter. Unless one assumes they knew all along (and are therefore also liars or at least enablers), imagine being married to someone who did this - knowing that one's spouse HAD to know of the public humiliation and embarrassment - not to mention career fallout - that would happen if the dishonesty became public. What kind of a person puts their spouse, their child, in that situation? </p>
<p>Katek, you're comparing one-off scenarios to what Marilee did - she basically "repeated" her lies every morning when she reported to work, x 28 years. There's human fallacy and then there's outright, premeditated and then sustained intent to defraud.</p>
<p>LTS, I would not say that her D was an enabler or a liar, she was unfortunately born into a family where her mother was a not truthful. Otherwise, IMO, well said. I agree with you.</p>
<p>A different viewpoint...... we are full-pay tuition... a QUARTER MILLION DOLLARS (SB degree) which makes me feel more than entitled to this posting, my last posting.</p>
<p>MIT, this is what you need to do, top-down approach: </p>
<ol>
<li> Hire a director who has stellar qualifications and extensive, solid experience across many spectrums so the department can move into a new era that stays ahead of the tech curve by bringing fresh, tech-centered ideas into the department and across the globe.</li>
</ol>
<p>!. Fix the "message." Make it clear. Make it specific. Make it realistic. Make it consistent. Make it be absorbed Institute-wide. Let it be the creation and vison of the new director, in consultation with stakeholders, of course. Don't be afraid of change. Don't hire a Marilee clone.</p>
<p>***Best of luck to all as MIT moves forward into a new era.</p>
<p>G'Bye.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don't accept the first clause of your statement. Everyone does not lie -- embellish, stretch, bury etc. -- on his/her college application or his/her resume. Most of us are honest and factual. Most of us expect other applicants to be honest and factual as well. That's why we're shocked when others, especially people in positions of authority and influence, are not.</p>
<p>If a friends asks me "Do I look fat in this dress?" I may not give a wholly truthful answer. If I were being held hostage and threatened with be-heading I might sign a fraudulent "confession." Lying on a resume (or a college application) doesn't fall into these categories of harmless white lies or life and death situations.</p>
<p>kate,
Some people have a more developed moral conscience. They think about the implications of lying on official documents (resumes, taxes) and cheating on b/fs, spouses. Consequences can be severe, e.g. prison terms or divorce. Families and friends can be hurt by the deceptions. Spreading malicious gossip and gambling money needed for other purposes can have long term effects. Some humans do these things, but they are not role models, nor are they easily forgiven.</p>
<p>White lies--about weight, clothes, haircuts, sharing personal info with bartenders or seatmates on a plane--are quite different. The intent is to do no harm.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is a key point. In a lot of nontechnical jobs (and maybe some technical jobs too) what the best answer is to a problem is debatable enough that the credibility of one worker compared to another is often what is used to decide which worker has the better answer. Marilee Jones claimed to have a postgraduate science degree from a pretty strong polytechnical college, and anything truly new or different she suggested would have had more gravitas because of that false claim. </p>
<p>And, as other participants have posted recently, it's especially hard to do a demonstrably BAD job in an admission office like MIT's where most of the applicants for admission have strong credentials, and where the other staff members are mostly persons of unusually strong academic level among admission officers. Just what criteria were being used to evaluate the MIT admission dean during the pre-Behnke era, the Behnke era, and the Jones era? It has been pointed out in this thread that while the admissions dean has the very last call on who gets in and who doesn't, the admission dean does not have the last call on setting policy for the admission office. But what exactly are the policies set for the admission office by the higher administration of MIT? (Why didn't those policies include carefully checking the claims on the resumes of applicants to admission staff positions, which seems like a "no-brainer" to many of us?) </p>
<p>Best wishes to the MIT higher administration, to the MIT admission staff, and to the next cohort of MIT applicants for MIT taking a HARD, close look at all aspects of admission office policy and practice and making sure that moving forward proceeds thoughtfully and thoroughly.</p>
<p>Two new thoughts to add to this thread (at least I think they're new - after twelve hundred posts, who can tell?)</p>
<p>1) Many people seem to think Marilee Jones did a great job because she was highly visible. In "Good to Great" Jim Collins compares great companies (those that have significantly outperformed the stock market over a long period) to matched companies of average performance and growth. It was the average companies that had highly charismatic leaders. The CEO's of the AVERAGE companies were more likely to be household names and appear in the media.</p>
<p>That doesn't mean being highly visible is bad. Is just means it isn't the best signal for whether or not a good job is being done. </p>
<p>2) Admissions to schools at the top end of the spectrum are different than other schools, even other schools that are quite good. For an analogy, suppose there were a musical equivalent to the math SAT. A run-of-the mill all-state musician might score 760 on this hypothetical music SAT. On a good day, this musician might perform perfectly on their fairly challenging audition piece and score a music 800. Admirable as this is, it is still far from the performance of the star-quality musician who would score 800 every time. The judges at the auditions for any music school would have no trouble telling the difference.</p>
<p>At Julliard, they are not looking for students pretty high up in the distribution, they are looking for students at the far end of the distribution. A standardized scale is not enough information to make these distinctions. This is an argument against using standardized testing, but it is far, far different than taking everything over 730 and saying "good enough".</p>
<p>There is probably more difference in mathematical talent in the students within the 800 tail of the SAT math (~8000 seniors in 2006), than there is in the 200,000+ seniors who scored between 600-700. Good schools can take all students in the 600-700 range and then look for diversity. World-class schools should be working to sort out who is really at the tail end of the talent distribution. I believe that is what MIT has been doing for the MOST part.</p>
<p>It's just not what they have been saying.</p>
<p>I'm actually stunned by the support being thrown towards Jones' situation at MIT. These boards sometimes give the impression that a good portion of people at MIT disliked her policy since a lot of the alums here are very vocal that this is not how they would run admissions, but in the Tech there was 3 or 4 letters from students, and editorial from the Tech staff, and a letter from the acting dean all hoping (and confirming in the case of the acting dean) that her admissions goals would remain unchanged.</p>
<p>Very heartening for a person who loves MIT just how it is right now.</p>
<p>CADream, I have some lingering questions about your post. It sounds as if you don't think that what an institution or company says, is important to that company's outcomes. If so, I disagree with that. For example, a public welcome has had an effect, no, on the number of female applicants to MIT? (which in turn has affected the number of females admitted)</p>
<p>You said that schools with students in the 600-700 range could afford (essentially) diversity. What are you saying: that diversity within excellence is not compatible with rigorous selection procedures? It would be important to look at results, then, of those considered in the "diversity" population, after acceptance to a top tier school like MIT. Again as an example, the few that I know that were admitted over the last few yrs. that are female are performing at precisely the same level of excellence & challenge at MIT as there were before MIT. Are they struggling? barely keeping up? No: they are meeting & surpassing their peers in this environment, as they did in the earlier (high school). Just a tiny sample. I think it would be important to follow outcomes of those admitted to MIT under a more vocally welcoming admission policy espoused by MJ, before deciding that her words had little impact on results. (The latter implied by your statement that MIT has for the most part been choosing from the top end of the talent, even under MJ)</p>
<p>....Unless I read you wrong, in which case feel free to clarify.</p>
<p>Epiphany,</p>
<p>The first point was just that being very vocal, or very charismatic is not necessarily the same thing as being effective, and in fact, in Jim Collins' study there was a negative correlation. That's all. I didn't mean that we should all just shut up, or not communicate. </p>
<p>I need to think about your second point more, but I agree with your statement: "I think it would be important to follow outcomes of those admitted to MIT under a more vocally welcoming admission policy espoused by MJ, before deciding that her words had little impact on results." </p>
<p>Good point. Be back after church....</p>
<p>CAdream, it sounds like a question of style over substance.</p>
<p>"</p>
<p>Quote:
Originally Posted by higherlead
You have an entire admissions process that is full of "Lying, subterfuge, stretching the truth, burying facts, omiting key points, embellishing" and you are shocked, shocked to find that the head of the admissions department lied about her credentials?
I don't accept the first clause of your statement. Everyone does not lie -- embellish, stretch, bury etc. -- on his/her college application or his/her resume."</p>
<p>momrath - I am not talking about the applicants there I am talking about the schools. I believe that what the schools publicly proclaim about their admissions process is so far removed from the truth of what goes on behind closed doors in the process that only someone who is morally compromised or obtusely blind could participate in it. If you don't believe the ends justify the means you could never operate in the environment.</p>
<p>HIgherlead, after your clarification, I see your point. Saying that the admissions process is not an open and honest one is quite an understatement. It would be tough for a direct, plainspoken person to survive very long in that field. That might acount for the huge turnover rate among adcoms. I imagine it quickly becomes very disillusioning.</p>
<p>Hmmmm.....the turnover is built in by using low salaries. The turnover assures a fresh YOUNG review of the YOUNG. It's good.</p>
<p>Every business has grey areas--decisions made that negatively affect others. Actually HYP probably make a larger percentage of their decisions in the grey area. MIT, by virtue of it's quantifiable Math and Science focus, probably makes a lower percentage of wobbly decisions.</p>
<p>However, the wobbly decisions are only a fraction of the overall decisions. My guess is that a good 50% of the admits jump off the page--everyone at the table loves them and can't wait to get them in the door. Another 25% are admitted by virtue of the historical data from their high school; ie this kid has taken these classes at this high school which always sends one to MIT. Therefore, this kid is a good bet.</p>
<p>That leaves, by my reckoning, another 25% of admits who were 'on the fence' for one reason or another. Personally, as the mother of a child who was probably on a similar fence, I think those decisions are made by debate and advocacy. Someone at the table loves the app and tries to persude the rest of the group to give the kid a shot--despite one or two black spots.</p>
<p>In the end, that last 25% is judged against a different standard than what is publicized because they are judged with a raft of human input. </p>
<p>Personally I wouldn't go so far as to say that adcom are deliberately deceitful. I've known a few of them and that isn't the story I've heard.</p>
<p>**MIT students seem to be reading the criticism as destructive. Far from destructive, I believe the criticism is levelled in the hope that one of our leading innovative institutions takes a hard look at it's vetting process in order to implement a few changes.</p>
<p>If MIT does nothing to address this flaw, it would be a big worry about the Board and admin. I'd be shocked.</p>
<p>Cadream - MIT is not Julliard - Julliard takes on maybe 100 music students each yr. vs. 10x that many at MIT. You basically are talking about an MIT class that would resemble the "Study of Exceptional Talent" kids that Hopkins runs - these are kids who score over 700 SAT before age 13. They only get a few hundred of these kids each year and they wind up being split up among all the top schools - MIT would be lucky if they could recruit 10% or 20% of their class from such super geniuses. Nor do they want to - they are a demographically lopsided group in relation to the general population - disproportionately male, disproportionately Asian, less than 1% Black or Hispanic. They do not "look like America" and this is not politically tolerable in a prominent institution like MIT. Under the PC rules, it's OK if the NBA doesn't look like America or Julliard doesn't look like America, but MIT has to or else Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would be picketing out on Mass Ave. Even at 750 math SAT, there are only 250 blacks kids in the entire country each year to be split up among the top 20 or so schools so MIT would end up with maybe 10 or 15 in each class. At an 800 or 800+ math SAT filter, you might end up with an MIT that had literally NO blacks in it - you could imagine the outrage. If we didn't have to deal with race and gender politics in America they might be able to run a merit based system along the lines you suggest but as it is they can't because it would lead to politically intolerable demographic imbalances. That's the reality.</p>
<p>cheers,
which "flaw" should be addressed by MIT? (The 25% that are more influenced by "human input"?)</p>
<p>"That leaves, by my reckoning, another 25% of admits who were 'on the fence' for one reason or another. Personally, as the mother of a child who was probably on a similar fence, I think those decisions are made by debate and advocacy. Someone at the table loves the app and tries to persude the rest of the group to give the kid a shot--despite one or two black spots."</p>
<p>That is what my own reading confirms.
If this is the "flaw," I guess I don't see it as flawed but certainly as fallible. And since humans are fallible, I don't know that it can be "addressed," unless we want 100% of the decisions, not 25%, decided by computers or some other "objective." (Just remember that humans do input data into computers, including their programming.)</p>