Talk:Marilee Jones

re-inclusion of "fraudsters" category

Y, I disagree with your re-inclusion of the "fraudsters" category. You say the article references her admitting to fraud, but this depends on one's definition of fraud. The article references her admitting to having misrepresented her academic degrees, not to having committed fraud. If there were a category for "Americans who have misrepresented their academic degrees", I would certainly agree with including her in that category. Not that I recommend the creation of such a category. --Allen 03:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Knowingly submitting a false resume is fraud. There's no argument possible about this. -- Y not? 04:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

First, when you say, "there's no argument possible about this," I assume you mean that it should be obvious to me that knowingly submitting a false resume is necessarily fraud. And yet it is not obvious to me. Can you provide a reference for me?

Second, our policy gives us an example I think is useful here: "For example, Category:Criminals should only be added when the notable crime has been described in the article and sources given, and the person has either been convicted or has pleaded guilty." Note that Category:American fraudsters is a subcategory of Category:Criminals. --Allen 05:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Fraud can be criminal or civil. One is a criminal if one is prosecuted. One need not be a criminal to be a fraudster. Why the categories are built like that is beyond my understanding. Now, the entry for "fraud" in Black's Law Dictionary, the pre-eminent reference for these types of things, begins as follows:

Fraud: 1. A knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to induce another to act to his or her detriment. • Fraud is usu. a tort, but in some cases (esp. when the conduct is willful) it may be a crime.

There's a lot more there. In any event, as you can plainly see, what she did was a (possibly non-criminal) fraud. -- Y not? 05:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless it is clearly stated that the "fraudsters" category should include criminal violations only, she clearly fits the definition, which is deception for the purpose of personal gain]. I've also added her to the Imposters category, which I think is also appropriate, perhaps moreso. --Crunch 10:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The imposters category, to me, seems less appropriate than the fraudsters category. Jones claimed false attributes for herself; she has not been accused of pretending to be someone else. And Y, your Black's Law definition of fraud is by my reading stricter than Crunch's (that is, Wikipedia's) definition. I don't think we have a convincing source even for the Wikipedia definition, because we don't have a referenced claim that Jones lied about her degrees in order to increase her chances of getting the job, for which a college degree was not a requirement. She could have had a different reason for lying about her credentials, though I admit it seems unlikely. The Black's Law definition would require further that the misrepresentation was to someone else's detriment. From what I've read about this case, MIT has not claimed that her hiring was to their detriment.

Even if I can't convince other editors that Jones might not be a fraudster, I would still argue that we should wait for a reputable source to explicitly call her a fraudster before we call her one in her article. --Allen 18:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You're splitting hairs. If she sues us for defamation, I solemnly promise you as a 3rd year law student that we will win. Now, if you'll excuse me, I must return to studying for my evidence exam ;) -- Y not? 18:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reassurance, but I'm not concerned about violating the law. I'm concerned about violating Wikipedia policy. Best of luck on your exam. --Allen 18:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

She actually did claim to be someone else. She claimed to be a trained scientist. MIT, her publisher and others used this to give her credibility. Most of these references are being hastily edited, but this is still up as of today: MIT admissions blog and Media picking up on scientist by training line to give her credibility. She certainly meets the criteria of an impostor. She claimed to be a trained scientist when she was not. --Crunch 21:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree that by the letter of the law, there is fraud here, but clearly not in spirit. And I strongly disagree with her inclusion in [[Category:American fraudsters]]. She lied about her academic qualifications for a shitty entry level position in a college bureaucracy. Basically the McDonald's of college jobs, perhaps only a step above the janitorial staff (who probably got paid more at that point). It was not a job where they were looking for a "trained scientist". She wasn't a professor, she was clerical staff. I can't imagine that every single person I know hasn't fibbed (to a greater or lesser degree) on their resumes when applying for jobs like that. Had she applied off the street for the dean of admissions position, at age 55, with that resume, I might think about her inclusion, but she was promoted from within over a period of nearly thirty years, a promotion which was almost certainly merit-based at that point.

Yeah, she lied on her resume, but putting her in the same category as Frank Abagnale, Ivan Boesky, Tawana Brawley, Jayson Blair, &c., &c. is clearly dishonest on our part. Ford MF 14:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Ford, you're making an awful lot of assumptions about her first job at MIT -- assumptions that are hardly substantiated by what we know either about her job there or about the hiring process. Yes, advanced degrees were not required, but equating it with janitorial positions and guessing about payscales for the two jobs is pure speculation. Even more so is your assertion on the numbers of people who lie on resumes. Regardless, she did perpetuate that lie to a level where she became a national figure in the area of college admissions and allowed herself to be presented as a trained scientist with academic credentials where non existed in an industry where academic credentials are highly valued. --Crunch 21:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Mostly I was being a wisenheimer about the pay scales.

Also I read resumes from job applicants every day (I hire considerably less often), and there's no question in my mind that 99% of resume-writers stretch the truth almost to the point of dishonest, but not quite, and a lesser (but significant) percentage of those people are outright liars. Usually I think it more takes the form of awards and dean's lists and other things difficult to check up on, but I think people will tell whatever lies they think they can get away with on a resume, yes. It's anecdotal and useless, I know. I'm just saying. Ford MF 22:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, by definition of the category itself, as it clearly states someone who has incidentally exaggerated their achievements is not an impostor, she does not belong in CAT:IMPOSTERS. I am removing that from her article. Ford MF 14:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Allen and Ford MF above. Whether or not she comitted fraud is clearly debatable, but Category:American fraudsters is a subcategory of Category:American criminals, the clear implication being that both categories need to apply. The epithet 'criminal' does not apply here, so I'm removing Category:American fraudsters from the article. Canderson7 ^(talk) 20:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Claiming advanced degrees and allowing herself to be publicized, and promoted by her employer, publisher and throughout her professional field, as a trained scientist for at least a decade (since being to Dean of Admissions in 1997), if not longer, when she only had a high school degree is hardly "incidental." I've restored the Impostor category. --Crunch 21:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Take a gander at some of the folks in the IMPOSTORS category. Generally, they're people whose goals of misrepresentation are book deals, baronies, inheritances. Claiming to be an orphaned princess and claiming to have graduated college to get an entry-level pencil-pushing job are fundamentally different. She's guilty of not correcting a bullshit lie that I don't think is terribly uncommon, and she's guilty of being good enough at her job to be promoted to a position where that bullshit lie might one day matter. Calling her a famous fraud is taking it a bit too far. Ford MF 22:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The fraud claim is another matter. But she clearly meets the definition of Impostor when she took the Dean of Admissions job, published a book and allowed her biography with the false academic credentials to follow her as the most acclaimed expert on college admissions in America. We're not talking about the entry level position here. If it stopped there, it would not matter, obviously. We're talking about her later position where these credentials are essential. This type of lie is not at all common among people in the upper administration of academia at America's top universities. If you can find another top university administrator of Jones' former reputation who claims to hold multiple advanced degrees and allows him/herself to be publicized and promoted as a "trained scientist" while holding only a high school diploma, please let us know so we can list him/her as an impostor as well. I think it's fair to say that MIT, a university that, like all universities, prides itself on the credentials of its top administrators, promoted her to Dean based on her previous work at lower level roles as well as on their belief that she was a "trained scientist" with an advanced degree from RPI. You may think this was only bullshit, even at the Dean of Admissions level, but, believe me, it is not. --Crunch 22:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with the position that this article belongs in Category:American fraudsters. The act may not have been criminal, but she certainly committed fraud (and isn't that all that matters?). -- tariqabjotu 05:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Referendum on fraudster and imposter categories

I'm smelling an edit war in the distance, and I'd rather not have that happen. So I'd like to try to establish a consensus of editors here about whether or not the categories belong in the article, so we don't have to go back and forth a million times. I'll go first.

• Strongly oppose the inclusion of Marilee Jones in CAT:IMPOSTERS and CAT:FRAUDSTERS. Jones is qualitatively distinct from the other members of CAT:FRAUDSTERS, and only the most rigid, undiscriminating criteria allow her to be hoisted on the same scaffold as this guy. Ford MF 22:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• While I'm not sure this debate has come to the stage where we need to set aside our Wikipedian distaste for polling, I am of course against the inclusion of either category. Personally I feel that as more editors come across this debate, a consensus will form to include neither category, with or without a poll. --Allen 22:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm well aware Wiki-consensus is not developed by head-count, but I generally think it better if controversial edits be left out of an article until the consensus dust has settled. This was my conciliatory measure instead of just rv'ing Crunch's edits again and again. Ford MF 23:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I appreciate that and hope you will abide by your promise and stop your revert at one, at least until the dust has settled on this current news story. --Crunch 23:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Crunch, I don't think there was any promise implicit or explicit in what Ford just wrote. --Allen 23:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
      • It wasn't a promise, no, but it is my hope that we hash this out like righteous Wikipedians and no one starts tit-for-tatting it until we're through here. Ford MF 01:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• I agree that this should not be settled by polling, but since you started it, I think it's obvious that my opinion is keep for Impostor, don't care about fraudster. And strongly disagree to using a poll when we are still hashing it out in the discussion. --Crunch 23:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Both categories seem to me to have the same problem. Category:Impostors is a subcategory of Category:Fraudsters which is a subcategory of Category:Criminals which really doesn't apply to this woman. What about removing both fraudster and impostor and adding Category:Scandals instead? Canderson7 ^(talk) 00:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Is she a scandal? I'll go unlink Fraudsters from Criminals -- Y not? 01:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll agree that scandal doesn't entirely fit either. As a separate conversation, FRAUDSTERS should probably be unlinked from CRIMINALS in any case, since it's chock full of people who were never prosecuted in criminal or civil court for their alleged frauds (which is the prerequisite for inclusion in the CRIMINALS category in the first place). Ford MF 02:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a pretty big undertaking. Not only is Category:American fraudsters still a subcategory of Category:Crimes, but there are lots of other "Fraudsters by nationality" categories as well. This might require some action at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. --Allen 02:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. This is a straightforward BLP issue within my admin powers - and I am already halfway done. -- Y not? 02:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Rob Pilatus was not a criminal :) A straightforward BLP issue I say. -- Y not? 02:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Really? I'm curious to know how being an admin makes a difference in this case; please explain. --Allen 02:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Back when they promulgated WP:BLP, Jimbo sent out an edict whereby he gave admins "wide latitude" or something of the same import to deal with BLP issues on a speedy undiscussed basis. -- Y not? 02:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

See, I thought we all had that latitude. You must be talking about a different edict. Do you have a citation? Really, I've never heard of this before, and I try to keep abreast of such things. --Allen 02:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, ja, natürlich, we all have the latitude to remove stuff. Of course. I conflated that with the permission to block and/or protect for BLP without going through discussion. -- Y not? 02:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Y, I for one have no problem with unlinking fraudsters from criminals, but I'm mildly concerned that you chose to act unilaterally on a relatively signifigant issue like this. Whether or not BLP is even applicable is debatable and Allen is right that admins have no authority on the project above that of regular users. Canderson7 ^(talk) 04:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who was once indefinitely banned by Jimbo Wales for WP:BLP, I think it's safe to say that admins don't have greater BLP authority, but clearly a more present responsibility to deal swiftly with issues as they arise. Even a whiff of BLP violation is pretty much carte blanche for any admin. (And I don't mean that in a bitter way; that's as it should be.) Ford MF 04:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I actually think Category:Scandals would be a good addition (regardless of the decision on the other categories). Many of the items listed there are people who have been involved in scandals as opposed to scandals themselves. For example, we have Alice S. Fisher, Ricardo Asch, Elecia Battle, and Randy Weaver just to name a random four. This Marilee Jones incident could certainly be described as a scandal, so I'll go ahead and add the category to the article. Canderson7 ^(talk) 04:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting to see now that the category Impostors is a sub-sub-category of the category Criminals. Certainly one can be an impostor without being a criminal and can be an impostor without committing fraud. It would be good if an administrator types could take care of this obvious error. --Crunch 10:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Marilee Jones is certainly an impostor by the Merriam-Webster definition: "one that assumes false identity or title for the purpose of deception". I think we should restrict the "fraudster" category to criminal fraud, since most of the articles in that category meet the stricter criterion anyway. The "Impostors" category should not be a criminal subcategory. This will help us to distinguish criminal and non-criminal deceivers. Djcastel 14:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with DJcastel and also noticed someone deleted the Impostors category again, so I put it back, again. I agree that Scandals might be a good category as well. Are people thinking that categories mutually exclusive? It's certainly conceivable that Jones is an impostor, possibly also a fraudster (I disagree on that, but I'm willing to entertain the argument) and engaged in a scandal. --Crunch 14:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, Cruch, you agree with Djcastel that the "fraudster" category should be only criminal fraud. Do you also agree that Jones has not been convicted of a crime, and should therefore not be in the "fraudsters" category? If so, I think that would mean everyone but Y is in favor of removing the "fraudsters" category, which I think amounts to consensus. --Allen 18:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

My main point was that the Impostors category should not be a sub-category of the Fraudsters category. They are separate, not subsidiary relationships. Regarding fraud, I do think by some broad definitions -- see fraud -- Jones probably committed fraud. She likely would not have been promoted to Dean of Admissions at MIT if they had known she was not the "trained scientist" they believed her to be and would not have had the credibility to back up her popular book without those credentials. So, while I am more adamant that we retain the Impostor categorization for her, I can accept removing a category that implies a legal (criminal or civil) violation. I have read reports that some rejected applicants from MIT are talking about taking legal action against Jones and/or the school for misrepresentation of her credential and therefore misjudgment of their applications. If this comes to pass, we can revisit this. --Crunch 10:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna solicit some third opinions I think... Don't close this one for a bit. -- Y not? 22:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Does a category like "fraudster" have an inherent BLP problem when applied to someone who has not been convicted of fraud of the criminal variety? Isn't this the case regardless of whether our "fraudster" category is linked to a criminal category or not? I understand Y's argument and essentially agree that it's more likely than not that the subject of this article qualifies as a "fraudster" per the dictionary definition. However, it's original research on our part, I think, to take that definition (whether a statutory definition or dictionary definition) and apply it in this case, especially given BLP sensitivities (the same logic could perhaps be used to argue against the entire category scheme, but I'm saying it is more convincing here because of BLP). · j e r s y k o talk · 03:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Regards to you, Jersyko, from Rob Pilatus and Fab Morvan. :) I just love pokemon arguments! -- Y not? 10:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Y, I understand you're soliciting more opinions, and I know that the tentative consensus emerging here could yet change. But for now, it looks like opinion leans heavily against inclusion of the fraudsters category. Would you agree with me that the best course of action is to remove that category now, with the understanding that it could be re-added if consensus changes? --Allen 04:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the category, Y. By the way, what is a pokemon argument? --Allen 14:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

see WP:POKEMON. -- Y not? 18:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think it's clear from the sources given that Jones is a fraudster. She used deception to gain employment and to obtain a book deal, all under false pretenses and representing credentials she didn't have. The specter of people inflating their resumes raised by Ford MF is not an apt comparison at all - saying you have seven years of Java experience when you only have five is nowhere in the same league as claiming to have a degree you don't have. Failing to include Jones in that category is failing to call a spade a spade. There is a systemic problem at work simultaneously, which is that the category is in an incorrect hierarchy that implies criminality. Therefore, I think the category should be moved before Jones is places in it. --Mus Musculus (talk) 13:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think this whole discussion points up a potential BLP problems with the FRAUDSTERS and IMPOSTERS categories as a whole (whether or not they are linked or de-linked from CRIMINALS). Not just as applied here, but as applied to all living subjects within the category. Ford MF 14:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are potential BLP problems. One of the questions we have to answer is whether we have sources to back up her being called a fraudster or impostor. I think the sources for the article assert that she is a fraudster. --Mus Musculus (talk) 16:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the hierarchy of the cat already, Mus. -- Y not? 18:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

So you have. I fully support her being placed in the fraudsters category. Again, I assert that sources back up this use of rhetoric. Look here, for example. " MIT dean of admissions confesses fraud, resigns". --Mus Musculus (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

daughter's last name

Crunch, you added a reference saying that Jones' daughter's last name is Bussolari, but we already have one reference saying it's Jones. Why don't we just remove the last name, since we have conflicting references? --Allen 14:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I see the reference now to "Nora Jones" in The Telegraph reference. I think we can probably establish that Nora's prep school would know what her last name is bettter than a paper in India. If there are still doubts, I can add other references, and they do exist, to confirm Bussolari as her last name. But if you still have doubts after all of this, we can remove the last name since Nora is not notable. Though there is an argument to be made to include it only to differentiate her from this Norah Jones. I think the reference to Nora's Middlesex School graduation should remain, however, because it talks about Marilee, who is the subject of this article. --Crunch 14:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed some unnecessary and private information about Nora Bussolari-Jones per WP:NPF. It is not important to the article from which high school she graduated or what college she is now attending as she herself is private citizen, non-notable, and does not contribute to the article. Madcoverboy 16:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you; that's much better. --Allen 16:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that all the personal information about her daughter may not be necessary, but there is some crossover content that is relevant. I added back in the reference to her daughter's high school graduation and comments that Jones made in a speech given at the event. I believe this is relevant to Jones and to her later resignation from MIT. --Crunch 21:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Media Coverage

I was surprised at how both the “featured article” description of this page, and the page itself, misrepresent the media coverage of Marilee Jones.

The New York Times called Marilee Jones “the guru of the movement to tame the college-admissions frenzy” only in the context of reporting her revealed fraud... the sourced material is about the controversy. But the introductory sentence on yesterday’s main page read:

“Did you know that Marilee Jones, the disgraced former dean of admissions at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was called “the guru of the movement to tame the college-admissions frenzy' by the New York Times?”

This implies that the description pre-dated her fall from grace, and makes the story about the Times’ reporting, not the woman herself. Furthermore, it misrepresents that reporting.

The article itself is even more misleading. It begins with a background on Jones, especially her popular book on college admissions. The article it mentions that the book received critical praise and was featured in a number of media outlets, including The Boston Globe and The New York Times. This is followed by two quotes from the mentioned newspapers, each glowingly positive-- implying that these quotes are from when Jones was on the top of her game.

But both the Times’s “guru’’ comment and the Globe's description as “the most celebrated and outspoken admissions dean in America” are from reports of her revealed fraud. This seems unfair and unusual for a Wikipedia entry. Is there a way to change the order of information to seem less biased? Or perhaps we can include older quotes from the earlier, supposedly positive, coverage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.39.210.64 (talk) 13:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Thank you, Columbia person, for your comment. The one-liner on the front page was basically calculated to attract attention - which it did. On the 'guru' issue, the NYT was essentially stating what her reputation was before the scandal broke. We could and maybe should go and get the earlier supposedly-positive coverage, but why is the article "biased" in its absence? I encourage you to try and eliminate that bias yourself. If you get the formatting wrong, I'll fix it up later. -- Y not? 17:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did already, though the phrasing is a little awkward now. I honestly had just been surprised no one had said anything earlier... especially since the tagline was so attention grabbing. Thank you for your help, obviously this is my first time. I didn't know about the 'edit summary' part.

Flash-in-the-pan?

From having had articles deleted before because subjects were considered to be of merely transitory significance, I wonder about the rationale for retaining this one. What this individual is noted for is her abrupt resignation because of claiming degrees which turned out to be fraudulent. Without that single event, would she still be profiled in Wikipedia? My personal proclivity is to be more generous with acceptance and retention of articles. But, under the restrictions currently enforced, what criterion of longstanding significance qualifies this article for retention? Rammer (talk) 01:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Marilee Jones. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121108071207/http://www.wickedlocal.com/concord/news/lifestyle/columnists/x1640568211 to http://www.wickedlocal.com/concord/news/lifestyle/columnists/x1640568211
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.kean.edu/forms/Admissions/Counselor%20Conference%20Booklet.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160121210648/http://www.nacacnet.org/Pages/default.aspx to http://www.nacacnet.org/Pages/default.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)