<p>"No, the groups are disjointed. Those who would salvage her reputation and those who know that there is no reputation to salvage after her admission of fraud."</p>
<p>I don't think anyone is trying to defend what she did here. So... one of your two disjoint sets is empty.</p>
<p>"I don't think anyone is trying to defend what she did here. So... one of your two disjoint sets is empty."</p>
<p>That is your opinion, not a fact. There are people here who are trying to whitewash her actions such as saying "that was thirty years ago." I would classify that as trying to defend her reputation even if you do not.</p>
<p>
[quote]
MIT admissions is now proven to be dishonest. It is a fact. Period.
[/quote]
Really? Prove it.</p>
<p>I'll let that speak for itself.</p>
<p>The original poster's beliefs don't make the ideas being discussed in this thread invalid, even though his post probably was in poor taste. I think the general trend of threads like these is that they will always be full of trolls, but will also have a good amount of genuine and useful discussion.</p>
<p>Boy. I have been around CC for a long time so I am sure this is not the first public stoning. However it has to be the fastest and the most brutal.</p>
<p>The noise I have been hearing since yesterday must be all those MS Word files being opened by those of us posting on this thread and the fine tooth comb we are using to to scrutinize them.</p>
<p>Somebody already posted this but "Let he who is without of sin..."</p>
<p>
[quote]
Somebody already posted this but "Let he who is without of sin..."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't agree on all of the negative points made, but this sentiment is just taking the easy way out. I highly doubt that anyone posting here has committed academic fraud to the level that she did. Lying about graduating from 3 prestigious schools and being a scientist for 28 years opens you to criticism.</p>
<p>I agree this is the easy way out but my point was not that we are all guilty of lying in our resume. Rather, that we all have made or will make mistakes at some point in our lives.</p>
<p>I am not advocating a free pass for her or anybody else that commits a serious offense (especially if they are/were in a position to affect other people's lives), but in my opinion the people that needed to take action, including herself, have already done so.</p>
<p>I am just not a fan of criticizing other people's mistakes as an spectator sport. Clearly in the minority.</p>
<p>I strongly object to referring to what Ms Jones did as a "mistake." She began her deception 28 years ago and continued it every day of her life until this week. If I worked with Ms Jones I would be dismayed and disappointed and devastated, but I would also be angry. Very angry.</p>
<p>I've wondered about something that I've never read about formally. MIT had a high suicide rate. I've wondered if MIT has tried to change things in recent years about its campus life, the academic stress level, and maybe even the way Admissions "builds classes" to try to alleviate suicide potential. (Freshman Pass/NoRecord semester is one example.) I have never heard that MIT Admissions actually does this, but could MIT perhaps consciously seek and admit a percentage of resilient incoming students who already know what it feels like to not be #1 in order to build a class that won't have a nervous breakdown once they get there? I have heard that some Ivy schools consciously do something like this (although I'm not sure if it's true).</p>
<p>WS17: Changes have been made at MIT since the most recent suicide. But to generalize #1's as mentally unstable is a bit unfair.</p>
<p>pundit, what I was referring to, perhaps poorly, was what happens if you build a class of all #1's and then they find out that they all can't still be #1's at MIT. Does MIT intentionally build a class to include some people who do not come with #1 expectations (?).</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The woman had to go - you can't commit a fraud of this nature and keep your job. I think pretty much everyone but the most extreme partisans realize this. None of us are without sin but all of us must be prepared to take the consequences if we are caught.</p></li>
<li><p>Without negating, #1, assume that she wasn't a liar and she really had the credentials that she claimed. Would she really have behaved differently as director? We'll never know for sure, but my feeling is that a piece of paper on the wall doesn't really fundamentally change who you are. Her decision making have been colored slightly by her lack of credentials, need to cover up, psychological wish to identify with the uncredentialed, etc. but fundamentally she was who she was.</p></li>
<li><p>Her attitudes and policies can be separated from the person. You can be a lying stinking hypocrite and still be right. You can be the most honest person on earth and still advocate for what is an incorrect approach. If she was totally wrong then, then you probably still think she is wrong now. If you agree with her approach, then the lack of a diploma does not make her approach wrong per se.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>
pundit, what I was referring to, perhaps poorly, was what happens if you build a class of all #1's and then they find out that they all can't still be #1's at MIT. Does MIT intentionally build a class to include some people who do not come with #1 expectations (?).
</p>
<p>Well, any valedictorian should be able to do enough research to figure out that MIT does not in fact rank their classes, so there's no possibility of being #1.</p>
<p>Personally, were I to get in off of the waitlist, I would look forward to no longer being #1, and being able to come to my fellow students with questions on problems instead of usually being the one to whom others come.</p>
<p>
Yup. One of the essay questions asks students to describe how they deal with failure. One of the qualities they look for (through things like recommendations, etc) is resilience- students who have shown that they can deal with not being right or perfect all the time.</p>
<p>Mootmom,
What is your point about Jones not reading folders. It is clear from MIT info that Jones read on each applicant that was considered for acceptance.</p>
<p>Originally Posted by Ben Jones
First a senior staff person will do a quick read to make sure there aren't a bunch of D's or combined 400 on the SAT. This takes about 10 minutes tops. Any application that has even a remote chance of making it through selection committee will make it past this stage. This is just to make sure we're not wasting time doing full reads on people who aren't competitive (and by that I mean <em>really</em> not competitive).</p>
<p>After than, 2 readers will read everything in your folder (yes, everything) and write individual summaries. Figure 25-45 minutes per reader, depending on the speed and experience of the reader and the size of the app.</p>
<p>Then selection committee, where different groups (each generally comprised of 2-3 admissions officers and sometimes a faculty member) will discuss the app for ~10 minutes each, guided by the two summaries (but able to access anything in the folder they want). If it's a clear admit, sometimes the group can admit, but generally an admitted app is seen by at least 2 groups and usually more like 3, even 4.</p>
<p>Then Marilee (Dean of Admissions) will personally review each and every admit (I don't know how long, prob 5-10 minutes) before approving the final decision.</p>
<p>But Ben has also stated (perhaps in that same thread? I don't recall) that he had never personally observed Marilee overturning a decision.</p>
<p>Which of course is not the same as saying it didn't happen.</p>
<p>"Which of course is not the same as saying it didn't happen."</p>
<p>Let's not be counterproductive. Her point was that it was negligible.</p>
<p>I apologize if that seemed counterproductive, pebbles. That wasn't my intent. </p>
<p>I don't think that you can base how significant an impact an admissions director had in personally ensuring/"suggesting" that particular students be admitted or not be admitted on an admissions officer's statement that he had "never personally observed" her "overturn" a decision. The language in his comment is very carefully worded, and that makes me suspicious. My suspicion may be for naught, but my concern is certainly not "negligible".</p>