<p>This is an unfortunate mistake and my heart goes out to the students who were denied admission, but the Vassar admissions office, like many schools, works hard to put together a class, and their acceptances/denials are based on more than stats. So if Vassar did not feel these students were appropriate for admission, why would they reverse their decision and offer them admission because of a computer error? It simply doesn’t make sense.</p>
<p>^I totally agree. I think they should grovel (and by all accounts they now have) and I think that returning the application fee was a nice gesture, but I see no reason for them to accept students they don’t want to have. The fact is as long as admissions is run by human beings unfortunate mistakes will be made, I am sure they won’t make this one again!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Personally, I think that is a little harsh without knowing a lot more. </p>
<p>One top 50 college that I know of still uses really old computer systems – DOS prompts and all. You think that IT haven’t asked the Administration for a larger budget to upgrade their systems to say, the 1990’s? lol</p>
<p>Just to clarify… </p>
<p>Didnt the “sorry we f’d up” email come about an hour after acceptances? While surely you could post on FB or call your parents, it hardly merits “damages” except to one’s ego. Sure, it sucks, but as has been pointed out, crap happens. It’s happened before and I assume it will happen again.</p>
<p>And actually, wasnt it the case that only about 30-some received actual rejections? Others were actually deferred to RD.</p>
<p>Since this was EDII, applicants definitely would have applied to other schools. And surely, within an hour, other applications weren’t yet pulled. Even if they were, however, Vassar has said they’d contact those schools. They’ve also agreed to refund the $65 admission fee. Id take it and call it a lesson learned and a great story to tell about college admissions.</p>
<p>Giving admission to all is not an answer in the least. While I feel bad for the kids, most definitely, it’s not criminal or even close! Surely, kids applying to Vassar have some resiliency to get over disappointment in life. And what does it say when parents are threatening lawsuits based on a errant email or a rejection from college? None of these kids could have or should have assumed acceptance - ED or not. It’s Vasser, not the local community college or even the state flagship!</p>
<p>Yes, it’s hugely disappointing and yes, hard on the ego (especially if the student shouted from the rooftops), but it is what it is and as parents, the best you can do is buoy the kid through it. Plus, I can guarantee you there were a few applicants in there that had no expectation of being accepted (which probably makes the fall a lot harder).</p>
<p>I am sure if a kid is applying to Vassar EDII, they had good stats etc and applied to other good and similar schools. I honestly don’t think Vassar owes them more than they’ve already agreed to do. </p>
<p>On the Vassar thread, one poster said admitted at 4, rejected at 5… which is how I assume the initial mistake was caught pretty quick. Basically, this is what happens when you no longer send ONLY the fat envelope and depend on technology as a gate-keeper.</p>
<p>“What if all our kids were mistakenly accepted to their colleges?”</p>
<p>I’m sure everyone remembers the one kid at their college who either was convinced - or everyone else was - that he/she had been admitted by mistake ;)</p>
<p>Have net seen any specific numbers re: how many were denied vs deferred. Is this available somewhere and verified as accurate?</p>
<p>… and BTW they say they caught the error within 1/2 hr of its posting and removed it then.</p>
<p>Just pointing out that Vassar’s initial rushed lackluster email came over 3 hours after the glitch.</p>
<p>This is what I read…every ED II applicant viewed the same acceptance letter, didn´t matter if someone was Accepted, Denied or Deferred. Two things could have happened:</p>
<p>1) the same letter was loaded to all three file locations - there should have been a different letter for each scenario.
2) all applicants were mistakenly marked as accepted. </p>
<p>I think most likely it was #1 because they were able to correct the mistake within half an hour. It would have been much harder to reload student information or manually change the information.</p>
<p>If it was #1, then it was most likely an IT error because users wouldn´t normally be loading files to a server (whereas an user could be manually marking if an applicant was accepted or not). On the other hand, someone from the admission office could have easily tested the site (with 3 different scenarios) before it went live.</p>
<p>Most are reporting 30 minutes to an hour. But even three hours isnt a game changer in my opinion. </p>
<p>Can I ask, though… what would the email have had to say to be anything but lackluster? What kind of “luster” would have made it acceptable?</p>
<p>
They probably had to consult their legal and communication departments before they could put out any public statement.</p>
<p>DLeggio,</p>
<p>It would probably have been unwise for the school to post hastily after the error was identified. There have already been numerous negative comments about what was posted after the error was identified. It probably took several after hours phonecalls and reviews of what was to be posted before the initial correction was posted.</p>
<p>** crossposted with oldfort**</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, IT teams tend to write that because of the micromanagement of pointy-haired type bosses who does not want to risk the possibility their creativity far exceeds his/her capabilities despite being a supposed “more creative” non-techie. :D</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hey,good way to lower expectations before college…and even more so during those high school reunions where people are trying to size you up 5, 10, 15, and 20+ years later. :D</p>
<p>I’ve been wondering - how many of the affected students checked their emails again the same day? Maybe some of them went longer (or a lot longer) than 1 hour thinking they were actually admitted?</p>
<p>^^ There were probably plenty of those. Once they’d received that admit letter, there’d be no particular reason for them to keep checking their email. They were busy calling, texting, facebooking and ordering school swag from the bookstore. At least, that’s how my D spent the rest of the day after she received her admission notice.</p>
<p>As to why it took 3-ish hours to send out the correction. I can only imagine the scene. They probably didn’t realize the error the moment the letters were sent. It may have gone something like this: First, IT sends the file over to Admissions, where some junior Admissions officer begins spot-checking it against their list. With growing horror, he realizes it’s the wrong list. He calls his supervisor over who verifies the error. The Director of Admissions is notified, followed by the President, who grimly orders the mea culpa to be written. While someone begins drafting the letter, someone else is assigned the task of getting the wording of the other colleges who’ve had to write letters notifying students of this same bonehead move. The draft of the letter is run by Legal and PR. The President signs off on it, and then it’s released. That’s alot of panicky verifying, phone calling, and rushed writing, and I can easily see it taking 3 hours.</p>
<p>I imagine the college’s “acceptance” was from a portal that student’s logged in to? So… THAT might have been changed within in a hour, but then they had to send emails to all those misinformed because, you’re right, kids would not be checking the portal again and again.</p>
<p>This has been shared with the Vassar community and elsewhere on cc. It addresses many of the questions raised here, and I think Vassar has handles the situation to the best of their abilities, given the unfortunate circumstances:
</p>
<p>^^ Do you think it was the best of their abilities to send the email and then close up shop and go home for the weekend? I do think as somebody else suggested, making phone calls or at least answering the phones would have helped with damage control. 60 hours is a long time to wait to get answers/feedback.</p>
<p>I think this response is absolutely appropriate and as timely as could be. I think that doing things much faster would have had the potential to make matters even worse, especially for those parents who wanted to flippin’ sue for the error. I respect the students who responded that they wouldn’t want to attend if not on their own merits, as it should be.</p>
<p>I do not believe they “closed up shop” but were otherwise engaged in trying to find solutions that fit both their institutional and legal obligations. They sent corrective emails immediately. They responded personally. This stuff happens. I realize that an apology doesnt always make things better, but sometimes it’s the best people can do.</p>
<p>“Mistake” and “stuff happens” all are ways to deflect blame. If you are truly sorry about causing harm to someone, you acknowledge exaclty how your lack of care caused them pain. </p>
<p>I would like to hear Vassar say something like “This situation came about because we did not make it a priority to protect the emotional state of applicants.”</p>
<p>Of course, Vassar may feel that the emotional state of applicants is not their responsibility, but that is not the position they have taken to date, at least publicly.</p>
<p>Surely the verbiage of the subsequent emails that went out was carefully considered. This was a terrible, unfortunate situation. Everyone feels bad. But the suggestion above (#179) seems unfair at best. Its like asking “when did you stop beating your wife”. Its a fallacious argument.</p>