<p>MIT faces the major problem of dealing with the reality that they allowed their admissions policies to be led in a radically new direction by a woman who has now been exposed as both unqualified and dishonest. In addition, only a person with contempt for systems of merit based hiring and admission would have committed the acts she did.<br>
Changes in MIT's admissions policies were made by the wrong woman for the wrong reasons. The university failed to police what she was doing as director just as they failed to police the process by which she was hired.
At this point they should just suck it up in the public relations arena and fix the mess.
Failure to admit the mistake and right the wrong would allow this woman to significantly alter MIT's policies in a semi-permanent way.</p>
<p>You do realize that MIT admissions wasn't a one-person process right? There were several people involved, and this does not suddenly invalidate every admission decision during her tenure.</p>
<p>Rather than acknowledging the complete process, it's a whole lot easier to try to pin the blame for something one doesn't like on one convenient scapegoat who is now out of the picture.</p>
<p>You may want to review Ben Jones's comment (#340) in the long thread on the Parents Forum:
[quote]
Stu Schmill, our interim director who was Marilee's second-in-command, graduated from MIT in 1986 and has worked at MIT since '87 or '88. He, along with other members of the senior staff, helped create our process, which is wholly independent of what happened today with Marilee.
[/quote]
The MIT admissions process is not solely "Marilee's process". It might be time to let go of that particular misconception.</p>
<p>Today's been a craaaazy day. Let's let the anger and argument dissipate for a while, shan't we? Most of the stuff we're talking about has already been discussed elsewhere, so it may be a good time to be quiet about this until more announcements are made concerning this development. Ne?</p>
<p>Gladly. With luck, the sun will come up tomorrow, and we'll be on our way to a better day.</p>
<p>How's that for a nice platitude on which to end the evening? :)</p>
<p>While no one runs a one woman admissions process, leaders who are as opinionated and vocal as Ms. Jones do not surround themselves with dissent. There will invariably be a tendency to hire and promote those who share the views of the director. While this does not taint every admissions decision made during her tenure, it does indicate that this problem runs a little deeper than Ms. Jones. MIT will have to start healing by accepting that a critical agenda was put in place by the most appalling source and that the university is obliged to review the legitimacy of the process, and not just its leader.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The MIT admissions process is not solely "Marilee's process". It might be time to let go of that particular misconception.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>MIT officials of course will try to emphasize continuity in their public statements. Doing otherwise would amount to admitting that they not only allowed an unqualified and dishonest person to run MIT's undergraduate admissions for 10 years, but also sanctioned a flawed admissions policy. Beyond the public statements though, I'm pretty sure there will be changes, not least because several people within the MIT community itself (professors, alumni, etc.) have been long complaining about the less-than-objective and questionable criteria MIT has been using to select undergraduate applicants.</p>
<p>I really hope MIT doesn't change its admissions policy. I would fight tooth and nail for it honestly.</p>
<p>
[quote]
MIT officials of course will try to emphasize continuity in their public statements. Doing otherwise would amount to admitting that they not only allowed an unqualified and dishonest person to run MIT's undergraduate admissions for 10 years, but also sanctioned a flawed admissions policy. Beyond the public statements though, I'm pretty sure there will be changes, not least because several people within the MIT community itself (professors, alumni, etc.) have been long complaining about the less-than-objective and questionable criteria MIT has been using to select undergraduate applicants.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You seem to forget that every year, professors and faculty take part in the admissions process. Show me an example of professors complaining?</p>
<p>And, not to be cynical, but MIT alumni complain about everything. This is hardly a unique case.</p>
<p>Taken from this The Tech article:</a>
[quote]
Chancellor Clay... said he was "confident" that Jones had not compromised the integrity of the admissions process. "Every application is read by several dozen people," he said.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think it is not fair to call a person who's worked at MIT for decades 'unqualified'. Marilee Jones lied ('misinterpreted') when she applied, that's the reason for her resignation. MIT made a hard but fair decision because of a mistake that Ms. Jones had made 28 years ago - not because she is unqualified. Keep that in mind!</p>
<p>"Hard but fair"? Was there any other decision that MIT could have possibly made? Of course they had to let her go.</p>
<p>MIT hired her for Admissions Dean partly on the basis of her academic experience. That experience was false, therefore she is basically unqualified for that post.</p>
<p>
I think it is not fair to call a person who's worked at MIT for decades 'unqualified'. Marilee Jones lied ('misinterpreted') when she applied, that's the reason for her resignation. MIT made a hard but fair decision because of a mistake that Ms. Jones had made 28 years ago - not because she is unqualified. Keep that in mind!
</p>
<p>I've posted this quite a few times on CC and it doesn't seem to be sinking in for a lot of people, so I'm going to be obnoxious and use capitals:</p>
<p>IT WAS NOT A MISTAKE.</p>
<p>It was a perpetuation of fraud that led her to falsely claim a PhD, be referred to as doctor, write a book in which she again claimed these false credentials, and start a crusade in the admissions world based on experience and degrees that she did not have. This is evidence of some sort of pathological disorder; it is not an innocent fib of youth.</p>
<p>She claimed to be a trained scientist worthy of making decisions about MIT's admissions process as well as individual students. This is not in fact the case. By lying about her doctorate, she shows a total lack of respect for any person with an actual PhD, or any student working towards his or her own advanced degree. Her total lack of integrity does not belong in the scientific and academic spheres in which MIT is a leader, and it's as simple as that.</p>
<p>masterofbalances - I agree. I would also like to point out that saying she resigned, technically i am sure she did, is just graceful footwork - She was fired! The WSJ article quotes Chancellor Clay using the words "we dismissed her". The technical resignation allows her to use that word as opposed to saying i was dismissed or fired. It is akin in the business world to announcing an executive is leaving as "She resigned to persue other interests". 99 out of 100 times that is code for fired. At least the headline in the WSJ said she "lied" as opposed to embellished her credentials. As you said, She lied everytime she knew her credentials were used to evaluate her for a promotion or were released to the public.</p>
<p>I am so disappointed in her and MIT.</p>
<p>Lotta people sound bitter.</p>
<p>She did the job well for three decades. Do you think anyone CARES that she lied in the beginning?</p>
<p>When it comes down to it, do you think they hired her on as Admissions Director because of mere degrees? They hired her because she did competent work for years before applying. After she got her first job, her degrees ceased to matter; the only thing that did was her performance in MIT administration.</p>
<p>Of course, that does not mean lying at first wasn't a bad thing, because it was. But it's not as if her one lie twenty eight years ago invalidates everything MIT stood for.</p>
<p>Judyinoh - YES, I care. Your note sounds like you think this was a one time lapse in judgement. you do realize that she repeatedly lied! She let everyone (year after year) from her staff, the administration at MIT and her peers at other schools all believe She worked for and earned multiple degrees including a Phd, when it appears she put in one year! To publish a book (last year) and list totally bogus credentials is intentional and a disgrace - and as MIT said, they can't tolerate it, no matter what she has accomplished. I really liked her after seeing her in action at CPW a few weeks ago, but this is personal fraud of the highest level. All her good work will be swept aside.</p>
<p>Seefoxrun - I didn't ask if you cared, I asked if the people who hired her cared. Her work in MIT Admissions was excellent, regardless of what degrees she alleged having. Anybody that claims otherwise is bitter or crazy.</p>
<p>Did she or did she not do a good job as Director of Admissions?</p>
<p>You would be hard-pressed to find someone with an opinion based solely on her work that thinks she did not do a good job.</p>
<p>Of course her lie in the beginning should never have happened, and she should've found the courage to stop perpetuating the lie. But that does not negate the competence with which she handled her position. I agree that MIT was right in letting her go. She lied, which hurts her personal integrity, and she deserves to be fired. But again, this says nothing about the progress she made with Admissions. I choose to judge based on the person, not what they did/lied about doing on paper.</p>
<p>Say an intern lies about his GPA in applying for a job. Ten years later, his work results in a Nobel Prize. Then he is found out to have lied about his GPA. Is anyone going to invalidate his Nobel Prize work because he made a lie that had no effect on his final achievement?</p>
<p>I think that people are especially angry because she led an admissions department that was responsible for selecting people who perceived themselves as much more intelligent than she was perceived to be. Her lack of credentials makes her appear far less intelligent than she originally appeared (which would especially make people angry at her given that she advertised her credentials at a non-prestigious institution). They see a person who failed to complete a degree at a "mediocre" school leading all sorts of MIT alumns who were seen as smarter. So you have someone perceived as far less intelligent as you are, who is still perceived as partially responsible for your rejection. That can easily boil down to intense anger.</p>
<p>Of course, Marilee Jones could conceivably be very intelligent. But many will view her as an idiot for this all, nonetheless.</p>