Falsified Resume Forces Resignation of MIT Dean

[cronxeh]

I save outrage for the tremendous loss of life in the Iraq War, and the dishonesty and harmful policies of the Bush administration, and the legendary corruption of the Republican controlled 109th Congress. Where's the outrage there? Jones is small potatoes in comparison.

Jones was wrong - no one has argued otherwise. On the other hand, despite the lack of integrity in this matter, it does appear that she is quite competent in her work.

The government is incompetent, the President is a fraud, and the war costs 240 million a day. We know this, and people are used to the greed of stupid people. But this is MIT. This is supposed to be the beacon of hope amids of all the ignorance in this country. This is our future, our children's future and perhaps future of the entire human race depends on those higher education institutions that would find the cure for cancer, find a way to create controlled fusion, develop better materials, find solutions to problems in science and engineering. If we let this go now it will never be the same again. It would be a collapse of integrity in the highest of standards.


But then again, you saw what happens when someone who doesn't deserve the job gets it - just read this post over.

 

[Evo]

But then again, you saw what happens when someone who doesn't deserve the job gets it - just read this post over.

Yeah, MIT got the most outstanding Dean of Admissions in the school's history.

Truth is cronxeh, a degree means nothing as far as capabilities are concerned. Hate to fall back to the "Einstein" thing, but he only had an undergraduate degree and wasn't anywhere near the top of the class. But he had an extrordinary mind, just becuase he didn't excel in school or go on to get a higher education means nothing.

 

[edward]

Apparently being an advisor to the president and one who appears to set national policy doesn't require a degree of any kind. And yet Karl Rove has made quite a splash in D.C.

 

[cronxeh]

Yeah, MIT got the most outstanding Dean of Admissions in the school's history.

Truth is cronxeh, a degree means nothing as far as capabilities are concerned. Hate to fall back to the "Einstein" thing, but he only had an undergraduate degree and wasn't anywhere near the top of the class. But he had an extrordinary mind, just becuase he didn't excel in school or go on to get a higher education means nothing.

He didnt lie and tell everyone he was a genius to get the chicks in bed. And as far as this Dean is concerned, her work can be seen in the male:female ratio - MIT is famous for having 50%-50% of ratio, compare that to my Uni where there were only 18% females or Caltech where its 28%. Most tech schools have low male to female ratio, but oh wait here comes MIT - an anamoly of sorts, or should I say a forced evolutionary change where the undeserving get the spots over those who are eligible by merit. I'm not being sexist but perhaps she is? What an odd scenario : a high school grad who couldn't cut it in RPI is a Dean of Admission who levels the field by making it 50-50 for other females. Gee, that's odd, sounds like a good movie script or a summary of a deposition.

Oh wait I have a graph http://www-tech.mit.edu/V127/N14/admissions/table.html

2005-2006:
7608 males applied, 10% admitted: 758. Number DENIED: 6850
2832 females applied, 26% admitteD: 736. Number DENIED: 2096

2004-2005:
7669 males applied, 11.7% admitted: 898. Number DENIED: 6771
2797 females applied, 27.4% admitted: 767. Number DENIED: 2030

2003-2004:
7651 males applied, 11.6% admitted: 885. Number DENIED: 6766
2898 females applied, 29.3% admitted: 850. Number DENIED: 2048

Thats roughly 20387 males rejected in a 3 year period, give or take those who reapplied. Doesnt it strike you odd that twice as many females were admitted than males? Sounds like a sexual discrimination with a motive.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilee_Jones :
A spokesperson from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute reported on April 26, 2007 that Jones attended the institute as a "part-time, non- matriculating student" from September 1974 to June 1975 and did not receive a degree.[9] Spokespeople from Union College and from Albany Medical College both reported that there are no records of Jones ever attending either institution.[9] The same day, MIT confirmed that Jones did not hold a bachelor's degree from any institution.[10]

Wait did i get this right? She was there for Fall 74 and Spring 75 - that's 2 semesters, and part time means 6 credits but less than 12.. so that's 12-20 credits that she earned? Or maybe got a D? Thats 3-4 classes at most! This chick is an even bigger fraud than GW Bush - at least he actually went to Harvard.

Hey Evo, how is this for rant: Go to Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute today, take English101, Biology101, Chemistry101 and you can be a Dean of Admissions for a major private University! Make 170 grand a year and get to ruin lives of thousands of those nerds who used to be better than you in High School and College! Yeaah!

 

[Thrice]

Ideally schools should require a degree because a degree helps you do your work better. Not because it will look better on you. However putting a premium on authenticity seems a long standing american tradition.

 

[Cyrus]

He didnt lie and tell everyone he was a genius to get the chicks in bed. And as far as this Dean is concerned, her work can be seen in the male:female ratio - MIT is famous for having 50%-50% of ratio, compare that to my Uni where there were only 18% females or Caltech where its 28%. Most tech schools have low male to female ratio, but oh wait here comes MIT - an anamoly of sorts, or should I say a forced evolutionary change where the undeserving get the spots over those who are eligible by merit. I'm not being sexist but perhaps she is? What an odd scenario : a high school grad who couldn't cut it in RPI is a Dean of Admission who levels the field by making it 50-50 for other females. Gee, that's odd, sounds like a good movie script or a summary of a deposition.

Oh wait I have a graph http://www-tech.mit.edu/V127/N14/admissions/table.html

2005-2006:
7608 males applied, 10% admitted: 758. Number DENIED: 6850
2832 females applied, 26% admitteD: 736. Number DENIED: 2096

2004-2005:
7669 males applied, 11.7% admitted: 898. Number DENIED: 6771
2797 females applied, 27.4% admitted: 767. Number DENIED: 2030

2003-2004:
7651 males applied, 11.6% admitted: 885. Number DENIED: 6766
2898 females applied, 29.3% admitted: 850. Number DENIED: 2048

Thats roughly 20387 males rejected in a 3 year period, give or take those who reapplied. Doesnt it strike you odd that twice as many females were admitted than males? Sounds like a sexual discrimination with a motive.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilee_Jones :
A spokesperson from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute reported on April 26, 2007 that Jones attended the institute as a "part-time, non- matriculating student" from September 1974 to June 1975 and did not receive a degree.[9] Spokespeople from Union College and from Albany Medical College both reported that there are no records of Jones ever attending either institution.[9] The same day, MIT confirmed that Jones did not hold a bachelor's degree from any institution.[10]

Wait did i get this right? She was there for Fall 74 and Spring 75 - that's 2 semesters, and part time means 6 credits but less than 12.. so that's 12-20 credits that she earned? Or maybe got a D? Thats 3-4 classes at most! This chick is an even bigger fraud than GW Bush - at least he actually went to Harvard.

Hey Evo, how is this for rant: Go to Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute today, take English101, Biology101, Chemistry101 and you can be a Dean of Admissions for a major private University! Make 170 grand a year and get to ruin lives of thousands of those nerds who used to be better than you in High School and College! Yeaah!

Why are you so bitter? Did you get rejected to MIT?

Have you ever sat in an engineering class before? Theres always 1 girl in the class, 1 girl. Let's use a little common sense here, 10% of males get in, because ~2x more males applied than females did. Come on now con...

 

[cronxeh]

Why are you so bitter? Did you get rejected to MIT?

Have you ever sat in an engineering class before? Theres always 1 girl in the class, 1 girl. Let's use a little common sense here, 10% of males get in, because ~2x more males applied than females did. Come on now con...

Are you like, statistically challenged? The number of admitted students doesn't represent the academic merit, the difference is simply in the gender. The MIT has been known in recent decade to accept students simply to level the m:f ratio, which waters down the student body.

And unlike you, I can get a girl outside of classroom setting.

 

[Astronuc]

The number of admitted students doesn't represent the academic merit, the difference is simply in the gender. The MIT has been known in recent decade to accept students simply to level the m:f ratio, which waters down the student body.

And the evidence to support these conclusions is?

In my experience, the women in the engineering classes I attended were well qualified, and generally performed at the top of the class.

And from my experiences of meeting female graduates from MIT I must conclude that they certainly know their stuff and have earned their degree from MIT!

The statistical evidence cited is insufficient with respect to the qualifications of the individuals in the two populations to draw a valid conclusion as to merits behind the final numbers.

BTW, GWBush went to Yale, not Harvard.

 

[cronxeh]

And the evidence to support these conclusions is?

In my experience, the women in the engineering classes I attended were well qualified, and generally performed at the top of the class.

And from my experiences of meeting female graduates from MIT I must conclude that they certainly know their stuff and have earned their degree from MIT!

The statistical evidence cited is insufficient with respect to the qualifications of the individuals in the two populations to draw a valid conclusion as to merits behind the final numbers.

BTW, GWBush went to Yale, not Harvard.

Granted, some females may have had higher scores than the rejected males, but how statistically probable is that this number was too high to make a difference?

And GW went to Harvard after Yale, and actually got his MBA around same time this fraud dropped out of RPI, or technically, since she never even matriculated, resumed to the burger flipping state? Oh no wait she went on to become the Dean of Admissions eventually. A true American dream

 

[Cyrus]

Are you like, statistically challenged? The number of admitted students doesn't represent the academic merit, the difference is simply in the gender. The MIT has been known in recent decade to accept students simply to level the m:f ratio, which waters down the student body.

And unlike you, I can get a girl outside of classroom setting.

"Am I like?" ...me fail anglish, that's unpossible! - Ralph Wiggum.

Do you know for a fact that the female applicants are any less qualified than the male applicatnts?

Last time I checked, MIT was not watered down.

And unlike you, I can get a girl outside of classroom setting."

What was the point of that insult?

How old are you, 13?

 

[russ_watters]

In my experience, the women in the engineering classes I attended were well qualified, and generally performed at the top of the class.

And from my experiences of meeting female graduates from MIT I must conclude that they certainly know their stuff and have earned their degree from MIT!

The statistical evidence cited is insufficient with respect to the qualifications of the individuals in the two populations to draw a valid conclusion as to merits behind the final numbers.

What the statistics say is pretty straightforward: Women are qualified to attend MIT at a rate two and a half times higher than men...assuming equal admissions standards, of course.

What's the actual truth? Well personally, I believe in equality of the sexes, but I guess I don't know for sure that women aren't far superior than men intellectually...

At the risk of turning this into an Affirmative Action debate, this very issue has been in court a number of times and pretty much always gets decided the same way. It takes a lot of creativity with admissions criteria to get around the Constitutional requirement for equality and artificially boost a desirable minority.

 

[russ_watters]

She was obviously competent, probably the best MIT ever had. That doesn't excuse lying on her resume, but it is definite proof that having a degree or the lack of a degree is not an indication of competency. Don't get the two confused.

I really think you are missing a key point here, Evo. From the articles, it looks to me like what set her apart from other deans was the very issue that she was fraudulent about. If that's the case (I'd like to actually read the award citation...), her "achievement" is exactly equivalent to steroid use by an athlete. Her performance itself was the lie. She corrupted the admissions process of one of the most respected schools in the world! That makes her one of the worst deans they've ever had.

 

[Evo]

I really think you are missing a key point here, Evo. From the articles, it looks to me like what set her apart from other deans was the very issue that she was fraudulent about. If that's the case (I'd like to actually read the award citation...), her "achievement" is exactly equivalent to steroid use by an athlete. Her performance itself was the lie. She corrupted the admissions process of one of the most respected schools in the world! That makes her one of the worst deans they've ever had.

She lied on her resume, which was wrong, but I haven't read anything that criticized her performance in her job. Can you link to the article(s) that say she was not doing an excellent job?

 

[russ_watters]

You misunderstand, Evo - if Barry Bonds is eventually proven to have used steroids, his records get erased. Those balls still flew over the fence, but since they only did that because of a cheat, it is as if they never did. It is the same here:

The award she got in 1997 was "MIT Excellence Award for Leading Change." The change that she led was the fraud she committed! Lowering standards - that was her pet cause and how she cheated. It is exactly the same as getting off the subway to win the Boston Marathon.

 

[russ_watters]

Let me put it another way:

If she hadn't been a fraud, would she have made lowering expectations as her pet cause? I'm not a pshrink, so I don't know which was the cause and which the effect, but I have to think they are two parts of the same problem in her mind.

So...if she hadn't been a champion for change, would she have gotten the job? The awards? Being a champion for change in standards is what likely got her the job and what definitely got her at least one of the awards. And being a champion for change is her fraud.

It is actually a little worse than I had thought yesterday. You can lie on an application and still be the best at it (whether sports or a job). But her performance itself was based on the same lie that got her the job.

 

[Evo]

You misunderstand, Evo - if Barry Bonds is eventually proven to have used steroids, his records get erased. Those balls still flew over the fence, but since they only did that because of a cheat, it is as if they never did. It is the same here:

The award she got in 1997 was "MIT Excellence Award for Leading Change." The change that she led was the fraud she committed! Lowering standards - that was her pet cause and how she cheated. It is exactly the same as getting off the subway to win the Boston Marathon.

I don't see it the way you see it. If an athlete's performance was enhanced by drugs, then I agree it was not really his performance. However, lying on a resume and how well you perform do not go hand in hand. It appears no one denies that she was excellent in her job. I didn't say that she should go unpunished, I was disagreeing with cronxeh's tirade that only people with degrees can be competant. That's hogwash.

 

[Evo]

Let me put it another way:

If she hadn't been a fraud, would she have made lowering expectations as her pet cause? I'm not a pshrink, so I don't know which was the cause and which the effect, but I have to think they are two parts of the same problem in her mind.

So...if she hadn't been a champion for change, would she have gotten the job? The awards? Being a champion for change in standards is what likely got her the job and what definitely got her at least one of the awards. And being a champion for change is her fraud.

It is actually a little worse than I had thought yesterday. You can lie on an application and still be the best at it (whether sports or a job). But her performance itself was based on the same lie that got her the job.

I would agree that she championed the cause in part due to her feelings about what she had done. It would be interesting to find out why she lied since I read that the job she originally was hired for at MIT did not require the degrees she claimed to have.

To me it's like finding out that Mother Teresa wasn't really a nun, it wouldn't make her actions any less real or charitable. That's just my point of view.

 

[Art]

Everyone here agrees lying on one's CV is wrong but in this case the lies only got Marilee on the first rung of the ladder. Her subsequent promotions were on the basis of how she performed her job and how she presented her ideas during interview. In the article below president Charles M. Vest details why she was appointed dean of admissions and not once does he refer to her academic qualifications;

"Marilee Jones, who has been interim director of admissions since May 1, has been named Dean of Admissions, effective January 1, 1998. Ms. Jones will direct a staff of 33.

MIT will be well served by Marilee Jones's leadership in this important position," said President Charles M. Vest. "MIT's future will be defined in large measure by the quality and interests of the students who join us. Excellence in admissions is essential to our future. Marilee has the creativity, the strategic view and the ability to implement the faculty's policies and achieve their goals for our classes."

Ms. Jones' appointment was announced by Rosalind H. Williams, dean of students and undergraduate education.

"The Dean of Admissions is a key position at MIT. Marilee Jones has been chosen for this position after a long, sometimes arduous and extremely thorough national search by a distinguished and hard-working search committee," said Dean Williams.

"While managing the office day to day, Marilee keeps the big picture in mind -- she is constantly thinking about where MIT should be 10 years from now and how we can attract top-flight undergraduates. She has worked hard at developing her staff and is well known as a fine supervisor who emphasizes team-building. On the road, she can reach audiences as few others can, serving as a superb spokesperson for MIT from coast to coast. I am delighted she will be part of the leadership team of the Dean's Office," Dean Williams said.

It seems that there is an element of academic snobbery in some of the criticisms of this woman as if some people refuse to admit that a non-qualified person could possibly do a job as well as, never mind better than, someone with an academic background. I don't know why such an attitude exists?? I believe credit should be given where credit is due. By all accounts the woman did a darn good job. Okay, fault her for lying but to try to argue that she must have done a crap job because she didn't have a degree is a ridiculous argument and maybe says more about the brittle confidence of people who hold this view who perhaps see their qualifications as the measure of their worth and so hold these in higher regard than a proven record of high achievements such as the career of the woman in question.

 

[Thrice]

What the statistics say is pretty straightforward: Women are qualified to attend MIT at a rate two and a half times higher than men...assuming equal admissions standards, of course.

What's the actual truth? Well personally, I believe in equality of the sexes, but I guess I don't know for sure that women aren't far superior than men intellectually...

At the risk of turning this into an Affirmative Action debate, this very issue has been in court a number of times and pretty much always gets decided the same way. It takes a lot of creativity with admissions criteria to get around the Constitutional requirement for equality and artificially boost a desirable minority.

There's a difference between her not doing her job in a satisfactory manner & you disagreeing with her policies.

 

[Art]

I don't see it the way you see it. If an athlete's performance was enhanced by drugs, then I agree it was not really his performance. However, lying on a resume and how well you perform do not go hand in hand. It appears no one denies that she was excellent in her job. I didn't say that she should go unpunished, I was disagreeing with cronxeh's tirade that only people with degrees can be competant. That's hogwash.

I agree and to take Russ' analogy of the athlete, I see it more like an athlete lying to his team boss saying he has been training 5 days a week in order to get picked for the track team whereas in fact he did not train at all but still having been picked went out and won the race.

According to this article she was told to devise a plan to increase the number of females and so it wasn't her personal crusade driven by her own incompetencies as has been suggested

Also note the entry standard increased under her tenure which somewhat spoils the theory that she leaned towards people like herself - female and lacking in formal qualificatons

Ms. Jones joined the Admissions Office in 1979. Among other duties, she was charged with devising a plan to increase the number of female undergraduates. Thirty-nine percent of the undergraduate student body is now female, compared to 17 percent when she joined the office.

Between 1985 and 1996, the number of women and minorities increased dramatically, with women comprising 42 percent of the last entering class (compared to 28 percent in 1985) and minorities comprising 17.5 percent (compared to 8.5 percent).

In 1996, MIT received 8,022 applications -- 40 percent more than in 1985 -- with females rising by 94 percent from 1,168 to 2,270, and minorities by 73 percent, from 364 to 631. The mean SAT scores for admitted students were 723 verbal/760 math, compared to 718/758 five years ago. Forty-two percent of this year's freshmen were high school class valedictorians, vs. 39 percent five years ago.

"Our overall yield of 57 percent (the proportion of those admitted who choose to enroll) puts us in the top five for top private colleges and universities in America, unparalleled for an institute of technology," said Ms. Jones.

 

[Anttech]

I don't see it the way you see it. If an athlete's performance was enhanced by drugs, then I agree it was not really his performance. However, lying on a resume and how well you perform do not go hand in hand. It appears no one denies that she was excellent in her job. I didn't say that she should go unpunished, I was disagreeing with cronxeh's tirade that only people with degrees can be competant. That's hogwash.

Not to mention very elitist

 

[morphism]

Yeah, MIT got the most outstanding Dean of Admissions in the school's history.

In your opinion! Many people didn't approve of her non-standard approach to admissions.

Also, she was prolonging her "ancient" lie each and every time she used her credentials, and that includes every time she was called "Dr. Jones." It's completely outrageous that she was the one to determine who is qualified for admission, when she herself failed to complete the task of obtaining an undergraduate degree! It's also equally outrageous that she used to preach about honesty and how getting into a good school wasn't everything.

"We have been criticized this year for the honesty of the blogs, for trying to create more transparency in the admissions process. [...] I'm proud to represent a place where truth is the whole point, messy or not. [...] And proud that MIT Admissions is a community of wonderful people who love you guys, who really think about you and care so much that we want to tell you the truth no matter what."
- Marilee Jones, in http://www.mitadmissions.org/topics/apply/the_selection_process_application_reading_committee_and_decisions/sending_you_my_best.shtml .