My qualm is that an “admission office” has absolutely no reason to “market” to “rejectees” 4 days before announcing its decision - other than using them as a means to circumvent the TSAO agreement.
As far as I know, they entered into the TSAO agreement to prevent early solicitation of desirable candidates. Certain schools seem to have figured out they can circumvent the rule by soliciting “all of them” in the name of marketing just a few days ahead of everyone else, knowing the applicants will not normally communicate with each other (esp if they think they received some special early hint). And if they do this year after year, I would have reason to be suspicious. Also consider the following:
February, maybe I can understand. But March? M10-4?
From the school, maybe I can understand. But from the admission office?
With the applicant’s full name written at the bottom - just as when they confirmed the submission status?
Just what effect are they trying to create? Don’t they know better?
Why did they even enter into the TSAO?
I am not doing this for my kids - they won’t come near this school even if they get accepted. But I think pointing this out and leaving the record will be useful for future applicants. Some kids next year may well get wrong ideas on M10-4 if the same marketing practice occurs. I certainly hope they find this thread.
PS The school that sent box of chocolates - is that a TSAO school? Did they do that equally to rejectees?
And I would not call this “conspiracy.” Mind you, schools are doing nothing wrong. Perfect legality of the whole thing, and the fact that the helplessly weak (ie rejectees) are being used to create this legality is what saddens me. Had they not received the same “marketing” email, the school would have been in breach of the TSAO agreement.
Perhaps Loomis must have thought you would not go to them even if they accepted you. But the case I am raising is different - if true, it is systematic in nature (raising matriculation yield across the board) without violating the TSAO by taking advantage of the rejectees. If indeed this was their intention, I would think it warrants a serious discussion. I just cannot figure out any other logical reason to: Why market to the rejectees at M10-4? Because they are so lazy that they cannot segregate the rejectees?
Let’s be very clear - those are NOT synonyms. Several posters this year, several last year and many other “rejectees” prove every day that they are anything but helpless or weak.
It’s a marketing email, not a TSAO breach. Get over it. Rant on CC if it makes you feel better, but this is an important time for kids (and families) to focus on resiliency.
Hotchkiss was a great school on 3/5, on 3/9, and still is. That’s why your child and many others applied there. Send some feedback, then move on.
I’m so sorry that your child feels mislead by the email. Unfortunately, those emails are sent by many schools and people on CC have said over and over and over not to read anything into it. Schools like this honestly don’t need to try to work around the TSAO agreements. If a school is trying to woo you it isn’t going to be with a marketing/spam email, it’s going to be with phone calls and personal emails.
I don’t think it would be horrible to email admissions with a very simple email that says “just so you know the marketing emails 4 days before decisions are tough on kids, maybe you guys want to re-think the timing of those.”
I hope you are able to find peace with the results.
Emma Willard sent the chocolates to the poster on page 1 - EW is not a TSAO school. Neither are the schools who sent us photobooks, nor are the schools who issued invitations to the alumni events referenced earlier in this thread.
I don’t think you get my point, sir, with all due-respect.
I moved on and could not care less about my children's own rejection from Hotchkiss. I think I made this pretty clear. Thank you, Hotchkiss, for rejecting us.
"It's a marketing email, not a TSAO breach." -- who said this is a TSAO breach? Since everyone, including the rejectees, received the same email, it cannot possibly be a TSAO breach. I don't think you understood my point, sir.
"Get over it." -- what is there to get over, sir?
Instead of ordering me what to believe, perhaps give me a logical reasoning please. Please do some critical thinking. Why “market” to the rejectees on M10-4, year after year? By force of habit? Because they are too lazy to segregate the acceptees from the rejectees? What do you think?
Has it ever occurred to you that including all rejectees in the highly suggestive email loop at a highly suggestive timing is necessary for the school to be in compliance of the TSAO agreement - by calling it a mere marketing?
I am not here to rant. I am here to raise what I believe to be a genuine concern. But it seems nobody sees this issue the way I see it. That is fine - everyone is different. But some people seem to suggest I am doing this out of grudge, to tarnish the school. That is not fine, as it is not true.
Hotchkiss’ “marketing” was uncommon even among TSAO schools. Nobody sent any such email in March. Hotchkiss was the only one at M9-4. Exeter was super clean throughout - something I deeply respect about the school.
My sending an email to the school would not change anything. Even in this forum, everyone is being its advocate. Why should a school feel the need to change at a rejectee’s “rant” when its matriculation rate is at stake? Do you honestly believe the school can’t see it is hurting rejectees’ feelings by giving false hopes through their annual M9-4 marketing?
If you stretch the meaning of marketing, you can render TSAO agreement operationally empty, virtually useless.
I won’t comment any more. May future applicants take note of this.
My family had a tremendous run of luck this year, but I still think the emails are cruel and unnecessary. I realize that some disagree but that’s my 2 cents.