Jones' fraud undermines the integrity of the admissions process she oversaw.

<p>It is time to accept that the integrity of the process is in serious need of rehabilitation. MIT made the mistake of hiring and promoting Ms. Jones.
If administrators think they can sweep this mess under the rug and pretend it never happened, or that it is less significant than it is, they will be making a more costly mistake over the long run.
The school allowed the process to be led and changed by a woman lacking both integrity and basic qualifications.
It is a time for the university to introspect about what went wrong and what changes should be made. They should acknowledge that some applicants may have been treated unfairly as a result of the leadership of a wholly unsuitable person.
Who among us would feel fairly treated having our integrity and qualifications judged by an unqualified fraud?</p>

<p>You imply that Marilee Jones was the only person judging our applications when the process is done by a committee.
She didn't get to be Dean of Admissions because of the college degrees listed on her resume. Just having a college degree isn't going to get you to the top. She started at an entry-level position and worked her way up. She clearly was qualified for the job or she would never have been promoted that far.</p>

<p>What changes did she make to the admissions process that you have such a big problem with?</p>

<p>Did we really need a whole separate thread about this?</p>

<p>You could have just scrolled down a tiny bit and posted among the several discussions covering this topic already...</p>


<p>She was not the only decision maker but she was the last word on admissions.<br>
My problems with the job she did echo most of those expressed by others on this forum. She was a crusader for amorphous standards which sound good in theory but are particularly susceptible to corruption in a system that is being tugged at by so many "special" interests.</p>

<p>I think the entire issue is being blown way out of proportion. I just don't see how her admissions standards should be criticized because she made some stupid decisions.</p>

<p>They can do whatever they want as long the M/F ratio stays about the same. I don't want a huge influx of males now that she's gone, that's not the MIT I applied to or go to now, and I don't think that's the MIT MIT wants to be either.</p>

<p>Agree with sklog here.</p>

<p>I doubt it will happen, as they will probably maintain continuity during the transition between directors.</p>

I think the entire issue is being blown way out of proportion. I just don't see how her admissions standards should be criticized because she made some stupid decisions.


<p>My sentiments exactly. So does the fact of her never having gone to college and lying about it render the thousands of admission decisions that she helped to oversee since 1997 a pile of bogus? Please.</p>

<p>This whole issue has become overly emotional. On one hand those who suggest that recent events cast a negative shadow over the MIT admissions process are accused of being "sour grapes" rejectees. On the other, those who defend Jones' policies are accused of acting out of a need to defend thier own admission to MIT.
Level headed people must agree that this shocking revelation warrants some examination by the university of its admissions process; some examination of what inappropriate influences may have been exerted on the system by this most inappropriate leader. This is stated with full acknowledgement that the overwhelming majority of students admitted under Jones would have been admitted under a qualified and honest director. Nonetheless, to treat the matter as necessarily irrelevant to the legitimacy and integrity of the process would be to "whitewash" the whole affair.</p>

<p>My goodness...I can't believe this board. Of course it matters that the Dean of Admissions is a fraud. (And may, very well in fact, be convicted of criminal charges.)
Kind of like a bank loan officer who is guilty of embezzling money herself or guilty of getting a loan under false pretenses considering the credentials of people applying for loans.
It totally brings the system into questions. No doubts about it.</p>

<p>No, you see, your analogy is ill conceived.</p>

<p>The process has been open for a long time. Marilee didn't hide, ever, that she felt the admission process should be more subjective, less numerically oriented. She didn't hide her stance on minority issues and affirmative action. All of her opinions had been made public a long time ago. The only thing this ordeal reveals is, plausibly, her reasoning for having those opinions. But MIT, the professors, administration, and students, agreed with all those opinions she held openly.</p>

<p>Whether or not the MIT admissions process is deserving of examination is its own subject entirely. You can see people like Ben Golub have been expressing their dismay with Mrs. Jones's opinions for quite some time now. However, this fraud does not in any way invalidate the fact that for at least a decade, MIT has agreed with Marilee Jones's openly stated opinions on the admissions process. </p>

<p>Marilee's stance on the details of the admission process have long been clear, and this whole debacle doesn't change any of that. It's not as if she had some secret criteria she had been hiding away and some secret opinions. Every knew how she felt, now you (possibly) know why she felt that way, but it's not as if this debacle has revealed some policy that goes counter to MIT's accepted practices.</p>

<p>In your analogy, it would be as if the loan officer had openly laid out his feelings on loan criteria and credit and all the other bank policies, and the bank, and other bankers, agreed upon them. If you later learn he emphasized some policies over others because of a crime he committed in his past, is it any different than learning he emphasized some policies over others because of, say, religious affiliation? The policies themselves, which are always open to discussion, debate, and analysis, don't necessarily lose something because of this discovery. The general MIT community, including the professors who assist in admissions, agreed with these opinions on these policies and continues to do so for their own reasons.</p>

<p>Whether or not MIT's admissions practices are as they "should" be is a subject that will always be up for debate. See: any thread comparing it to Caltech/Ivy admissions. But to say that this ordeal somehow invalidates the openly accepted policies is ludicrous.</p>



<p>Critical thinking seems to have gone out the window on this one as has ethical reasoning.
In your analogy, it would appear that fraud and religion are analogous. (If we were discussing politics, I might call you Marxian, but I don't think that was your point (or perhaps it was)).</p>

<p>This was fraud perpetrated over the course of decades and the fraud was directly related to the job at hand. For example, if Ms Jones had cheated on her taxes, embezzled funds, or engaged in other criminal activity, it would have little bearing on admissions, would it not? But, how bizarre to suggest that a woman who lied on her own CV - - and kept lying for more than three decades as she came up for review and job promotion - - could not have tainted a department which is dedicated to reviewing and analyzing student CVs.</p>

<p>As someone who works for a university and undergoes annual reviews, let me tell you, her scam was an ongoing one that was most like perpetrated each year she had to hand in her CV for review.</p>

<p>Consider the following quote, its implications, and how few of Ms. Jones' and MIT's staunchest supporters would have disagreed with it two weeks ago.</p>

<p>"For years Marilee Jones has been the moral compass guiding the MIT admissions office...."</p>

<p>I guess it doesn't matter then that MIT admits were admitted to places such as Harvard, Princeton, Yale, and Stanford, to mention a few. So I guess admissions is a fraud at all of those. Obviously.</p>

<p>l0l, electron makes a good point :P</p>

<p>There seems to be several points made repeatedly on this board and they all seem wrong.</p>

<p>1) "Oh well, it was just a trivial mistake 28 years ago."</p>

<p>That's very wrong. She is in the position of judging the integrity of students. Therefore she must be held to the very highest standards of personal integrity. This was not a forgivable mistake and the Institute was absolutely correct in "inviting her to resign".</p>

<p>2) "This completely undermines MIT admissions under the years"</p>

<p>Also wrong. She was one highly significant voice amongst many, delivering the class that the faculty had asked for. She was, by all accounts, very good at her job. The faculty was very happy, and indeed she had one MIT's highest award for administrators. There are those who do not like MIT's current admissions, but it is producing the class that the MIT faculty is requesting. Under a different director of admissions, it is highly likely that at least 98% of the decisons would be identical.</p>

<p>3) "She was unqualified to be director of admissions"</p>

<p>Possibly right, possibly wrong. She had been there for 28 years, and after that sort of time, promotion decisions are made on the quality of your work, and ability to "face" the department. The job she originally applied for 28 years ago did not require a college degree. After that she was promoted on merit. Was a degree necessary in order to do the job of director of admissions? Clearly not, or she would not have done so well with the job for so many years. Would she have been made director of admissions if she did not have any degree? Who knows, but probably not. That isn't to say that degrees are strictly speaking required.</p>

<p>My professor for 6.002 (Circuits) was the incredibly impressive Campbell Searle, who was recently made an emeritus professor (so the institute really liked him). He made it to the top of his profession without and advanced degree. Do most professors have doctorates or at least masters degrees? Yes. Are they required? Clearly not, but you need to be very impressive to succeed without them.</p>

<p>4) "The Cambridge D.A. will clearly be considering charges"</p>

<p>For lying on a resume?? According to one news report, roughly 20% of all resumes contain some "exaggeration". And yet, I do not see all of these people rotting in prison. Did she lie, yep? Is her professional career in tatters? Yep. Is she likely to be rotting in prison? Nope. Is that the right decision? Yep, IMHO.</p>

<p>5) Admissions at MIT are now going to change</p>

<p>Highly unlikely under Stu Schmill. He has worked in that office for so long. Also unlikely without a significant change in the faculty leadership.</p>

<p>Much as I would like to blame my rejection on Marilee Jones, it just wouldn't be fair to do so. I think that what she did was wrong and that it's a good thing she was made to resign, but I honestly don't think that admission decisions would have been much different - I'm almost certain that I'd have been rejected anyway.</p>

<p>whoops obviously in para 2 when I wrote "one" I meant "won". Gulp. Sorry.</p>

<p>Legend has it that MIT's founder never graduated college.</p>

<p>I think founding the college gets you a pass on that :P</p>