<p>New Poster, I agree that there are far more important things than dwelling over the MIT waitlist. With that said, they are a bit disorganized. Columbia, for example, sent e-mails out to everyone on the waitlist at once. A few were acceptances, a few were placements on the extended waiting list, and most were rejections. That way, there was no speculation. Everyone knew their status and could have their closure. I think that would've been a better way for MIT to go.</p>
<p>Accepting a place on the waitlist at any school is putting yourself in a position to be kicked around by the school. The school can't do anything about it, what's the way waitlists are-- uncertain, people trickle in and have to be admitted and rejected in waves. If you cannot keep your composure waiting for a reply until june maybe even july- then don't accept a spot on the waitlist.</p>
<p>Instead of threatening to go to RPI over MIT because of the wait you had to go through- MasterofBaloney, why don't you just take yourself off of the wait list. That way, no more wait, no more pain, and some other deserving kid who WOULD go to MIT in the blink of an eye can have a better shot.</p>
<p>
[quote]
New Poster, I agree that there are far more important things than dwelling over the MIT waitlist. With that said, they are a bit disorganized. Columbia, for example, sent e-mails out to everyone on the waitlist at once. A few were acceptances, a few were placements on the extended waiting list, and most were rejections. That way, there was no speculation. Everyone knew their status and could have their closure. I think that would've been a better way for MIT to go.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Here's what I don't understand. How is there less speculation (no speculation?) if it all comes at once? You'll be speculating up until the second you receive your news no matter. You're on the waitlist- it sucks. Your admittance is contingent on everyone else getting settled in and happy- things can change any time. Speculation is the name of the game. What about the people who are on the extended waitlist-- I bet they're complaining. And speculating.</p>
<p>This round, if you weren't contacted in email, it's safe to assume that you are a reject (in the long run at least) and move on with your life. How hard is that? Why so hung up on finding the bad in everything? Commit yourself to another school, the likelihood of you being accepted is slim to none-- and if it comes, then it's a PLEASANT SURPRISE! Maybe it'll even make you a better (happier!)person.</p>
<p>We're a full-pay family, too. We'll be paying MIT just as much as you will, HappyPoet. And I agree with almost nothing you say.</p>
<p>I believe the admissions folks are neither stupid nor that they are victims of GroupThink. They are thoughtful, smart, creative, engaged, warm, funny, and caring humans, and they work hard to do a good job with a very challenging task. I suspect Marilee's blog entries were removed because she was shown to have lived as a fraud for many years, and there was no need to encourage a likely flood of sarcastic comments from readers. And if you read Matt's blog entry about the waitlist, you'll see that everything went as planned to email the 20 who were accepted, SNAIL MAIL those who would not be coming off the waitlist in any event, and leave some on the extended waitlist. The one thing that's not clear to me is how the extended waitlist people were to be contacted: that wasn't made explicit in his entry. Last year's EA tube mailing was different: unintentional and yet troubling for nervous applicants.</p>
<p>I fail to see how this year's waitlist movement is in any way a fiasco, and fail to see why anyone is so indignant about it. As pebbles says, anyone who takes a spot on the MIT waitlist, knowing there are several hundred students offered those places and seldom as many as several dozen accepted from it, does so as a shot in the dark. Most of the students offered this choice understand that they should assume they will not get off the waitlist, as they should at any school with a waitlist. Apparently some folks don't realize this, but it's pretty much common sense.</p>
<p>Life is too short and too precious to get caught up in bitterness and vitriol about the admissions staff at a university. But hey, if it floats your boat / twirls your socks / rocks your world to call the Admissions Office and tell them you think they should be fired, you're free to do so. You might be able to make a more positive impression or improve the world for the better if you used your energy some other way, though. Just a thought.</p>
<p>There seems to be an idea presented that not accepting incompetence is "bitterness." There also seems to be a major lack of reading comprehension. Of course I don't expect to get off the waitlist, nor am I "threatening" to go to RPI. The MIT admissions office disappoints me not with their decisions, but with their inefficient, completely avoidable methods and mistakes.</p>
<p>The fact that all of you believe that this staggered, uneven distribution of information is ethical astounds me.</p>
<p>Also,</p>
<p>
How is there less speculation (no speculation?) if it all comes at once? You'll be speculating up until the second you receive your news no matter.
</p>
<p>So then if the news comes sooner, there will be less speculation. I'm rather awed that this even requires an explanation.</p>
<p>I guess I don't see this as incompetence -- the waitlist isn't ranked, so MIT genuinely doesn't know who will get in from the waitlist, should it need to be used again. That's the only reason there are still many people on the waitlist -- every time they need to admit a few more people, they'll go back and re-evaluate all the people on the waitlist.</p>
<p>I agree that it would have been nice for them to notify everybody of status at once -- yes, no, keep waiting. But I don't think not doing that qualifies as incompetence.</p>
<p>I also don't see the parallel to the tube mailing problem from 2005 (which was a mistake made by the postal service, HappyPoet).</p>
<p>I still don't understand why some of the above posters are complaining about MIT's waitlist in particular while other universities practice the same method. I'm on both Yale and Harvard's waitlists and I understand that they also keep like a couple hundred on their waitlists - do you think it's not frustrating for the other 96% of the people on Harvard and Yale's waitlist to wait without an answer and think of the waitlist as a "polite form of rejection?"</p>
<p>If you want to be unbiased, you should go post the same post on the Harvard and Yale forums.</p>
<p>I really think there is more to your motives than just "the waitlist is unethical."</p>
<p>MootMom, your acceptance of incompetence surprises me. The funny thing about GroupThink is just how many people it touches, the very people who deny it exists.</p>
<p>I'm sure the people in the Admissions Department are all those lovely things you said they are, BUT they are not anywhere near stellar.</p>
<p>And how in the world is picking a class at MIT in any way, shape or form challenging??? For the stupid, yes, perhaps it would be a "challenge" picking 1,000 students from a pool of over 12,000 of the smartest kids on the planet, but I daresay even a monkey could do that part of their job.</p>
<p>You said several hundred on the waitlist??? MIT put over 500 on the waitlist, which I find hard, if not impossible to justify, and it makes MIT lose luster when their waitlist turns into just a rejection letter.</p>
<p>I firmly believe if MIT hires the right person for the position, the Admissions Department won't keep having troubles like missing the yield (which, at 10%, was unacceptable and created hardship with housing for four years for lots of students and burnished MIT's reputation among all the elites, as well as others), like the confetti tube FIASCO, like Marilee telling my daughter that her daughter was applying to 11 (yes eleven!) colleges and it wouldn't be stressful for her (maybe not with the help of Marilee as the mother writing all the apps.), like their department and the Athletics Dept. being on different pages regarding admission criteria and like this latest e-mail/snail-mail problem (which even Moot and Mollie agree had troublesome areas).</p>
<p>Am I'm certain MIT will hire the right person this time because the entire planet will be watching very closely.</p>
<p>It amazes me how people will accept sub-standard performance.</p>
<p>MootMom, perhaps your money wasn't earned the hard way and came easy to you, but I want my money to be used at an Institute that won't squander it. </p>
<p>To Mollie, you don't really believe they go back and re-evaluate the entire waitlist when they go back to the waitlist a second time, do you??? Geesh. If this is how they spend their time, the department budget could easily be slashed by an entire position, and perhaps that's what the new Director will/should do. And if MIT hadn't removed Marilee's blog, you could find out all about the Confetti Tube FIASCO to see how it parallels this recent problem, but you could always trust me and what I say ;)</p>
<p>To New Poster, gee, you sound exactly like Marilee, and if her blogs were still up, I could show everyone how your chosen words are Marilee's, word for word... I just don't know if you really are her or just a GroupThink groupy who memorized her every word.</p>
<p>To oasis, yes, there are more to my motives, and it is directly related to what Marilee told my daughter in person at a CPW conference -- she came across to lots of us in the audience as ditzy, unorganized and gleeful about her daughter's applications, which is all she talked about. MIT should have started realizing problems with her mental health back then -- it must be a heavy load to carry in her mind the fraud she played.</p>
<p>To those of you who don't agree with me, that's your right, but I sure am glad I don't work or go to school with any of you. I won't be back to this particular thread since the business of the waitlist is done. But if I hear of anymore troubles coming from the Admissions Department, I sure will be back to CC and those particular threads. Btw, I made my call and I'm following it up in snail mail with copies to everyone I can think of.</p>
<p>I feel so sorry for those students who are still waiting to hear. Shame on MIT. And shame on all of you who have no compassion for those students.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So then if the news comes sooner, there will be less speculation. I'm rather awed that this even requires an explanation.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The waitlist news hasn't come yet for the vast majority of major universities. Speculation abound! Why are you not on their forums hoisting the ethics flag?</p>
<p>I'm rather awed that you think this belaboring the trivial will earn you any kind of respect with anyone.</p>
<p>The reason most posters here have no sympathy for whining about the college admissions process is because we've been through it. And I personally cannot see anyone amounting to anything if they cannot take a little waiting and hoping in stride. In the future, when you apply to jobs and internships. Do you think they will have a blog telling you when their decisions are out? Or that they will "release all their news at once"? You will see this "staggered, uneven distribution of information" for the rest of your life. Some companies will contact you after the deadlines for other companies. Your dream job may never even acknowledge that you exist- not even a rejection letter. Live with it. Or complain about the whole societal system. Don't direct your anger toward only the blips you see in your tiny little world and hoist it high and call it ethics, painting it with a more grandiose brush than just simple, selfish, frustration.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The funny thing about GroupThink is just how many people it touches, the very people who deny it exists.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The funny thing about an argument like that is that it's no argument at all. It says nothing it means nothing and no one can deny it (whether it applies to them or not).</p>
<p>
[quote]
you could find out all about the Confetti Tube FIASCO to see how it parallels this recent problem, but you could always trust me and what I say
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No one needs to find out about the tube "fiasco". It was neither a fiasco nor is anyone here ignorant about it, including Mollie.</p>
<p>Well said, pebbles, thank you.</p>
<p>
The reason most posters here have no sympathy for whining about the college admissions process is because we've been through it. And I personally cannot see anyone amounting to anything if they cannot take a little waiting and hoping in stride. In the future, when you apply to jobs and internships. Do you think they will have a blog telling you when their decisions are out? Or that they will "release all their news at once"? You will see this "staggered, uneven distribution of information" for the rest of your life. Some companies will contact you after the deadlines for other companies. Your dream job may never even acknowledge that you exist- not even a rejection letter. Live with it. Or complain about the whole societal system. Don't direct your anger toward only the blips you see in your tiny little world and hoist it high and call it ethics, painting it with a more grandiose brush than just simple, selfish, frustration.
</p>
<p>So if Harvard jumped off a bridge, MIT should too?</p>
<p>A petty example, but it's essentially what you're arguing for. You seem to believe that people shouldn't speak out against incompetence and wrongs that occur in their own lives unless they're willing to go on a worldwide campaign. I feel sorry for anyone who lives their life this way.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So if Harvard jumped off a bridge, MIT should too?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't understand this question at all. Do you believe MIT is imitating Harvard in their admissions policies? Did I imply this? What part of their admissions policies, exactly? The part where they have a waitlist? The part where they make their wait*list applicants *wait? I don't think Harvard is the pioneer of any of that. Northrop Grumman may have similar hiring practices as Intel. If Intel jumped off a bridge would Northrop Grumman follow? </p>
<p>That just doesn't make any sense.</p>
<p>No one is denying your right to feel frustrated or angry- I didn't get into every school I applied to, either, obviously, it's not the happiest time. But your argument was that MIT admissions specifically was incompetent. That implies that other schools' admissions departments are competent, or that at least you have some sort of "standard" for competence, right? Otherwise, why talk about competence? I emphatically don't agree with your sentiment. I think in giving applicants information and talking openly about the process instead of keeping them in the dark, yeah, they're opening themselves up to criticism like yours- especially from those who haven't had a happy ending- but they're willing to bear that for what they believe is a step in the right direction. And I think they don't deserve your slander. In the world if you want your opinion to be heard and taken to heart, try a little tact. Flailing your arms about and using gradiose phrases and invoking the gods of ethics and morality for a trivial discomfort (in short, overreacting) is not going to make anyone listen to you. At best, you will be ridiculed and not taken seriously. If you want a change to occur in the way they inform waitlist applicants, try curbing your grand indignity for a few minutes and speaking calmly and rationally, leaving out all the cheap shots and half-hearted threats. Admissions officers read this forum, they're much more likely to treat you like an adult if you act like one.</p>
<p>Anyways, do what you want. Have it all out if you want. All I'm saying is that your message could be communicated a LOT more effectively a different way. Also, anonymous forums are never really anonymous: what you say on even a forum such as this can be traced to you with little effort- and will remain with you for many years for your evaluators to see.</p>
<p>Just as an aside. Do you see yourself applying to jobs in your future? What are you going to do then? If we're talking "evils" that's a far greater evil (imagine never hearing back from a college!) looming in your future.</p>
<p>
[quote]
To Mollie, you don't really believe they go back and re-evaluate the entire waitlist when they go back to the waitlist a second time, do you??? Geesh.
[/quote]
I am fairly sure they do. I could email and ask.</p>
<p>I mean, the reason they do this, instead of ranking the waitlist in the first place, is that picking 20 kids from a waitlist of 500 awesome people is really tough. It would be nice, I imagine, if you could just rank everybody on the waitlist in order of awesomeness, but you can't. So they just have to go back and haggle over everyone when the admit from the waitlist.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And if MIT hadn't removed Marilee's blog, you could find out all about the Confetti Tube FIASCO to see how it parallels this recent problem, but you could always trust me and what I say
[/quote]
I do, as pebbles notes, remember the problem with the tubes. I was writing for the blogs and had been a CC member for eight months.</p>
<p>Interestingly, nobody on CC really got incensed over the delay in mailing non-acceptance letters when that happened. Check the archives</a> for that period of time and in particular, this</a> thread by Ben. Nobody's angry. I have trouble elevating that to the status of "fiasco".</p>
<p>People sure used to be a lot nicer on CC.</p>
<p>While I don't agree with either the comments, or the tone, of some of the critics of MIT on this thread, I find it ironic that pebbles is lamenting the decline of "niceness" on CC.</p>
<p>I find it interesting how the most hardcore defenders of MIT admissions are former/recent MIT admits, and the ones most indignant about it are the rejectees. The MIT forums is full of bias. Posts coming from pebbles and Master0fBalances are simply losing a lot of cred.</p>
<p>I've also noticed that a lot of frustration over admissions in general is dished out towards the MIT adcoms. While I respect what they do and all, it really doesn't help when something of a Marilee Jones' scandal comes up. Nobody has ever brought up the possibility that <em>not</em> having the MIT blogs can be a good thing. I still haven't found a satisfying answer for why people are just T'ed off at MIT admissions more than say, the Ivy League.</p>
<p>Of course I'm biased. I can't help being biased. I'm friends with people in the admissions department. I don't think being biased alone discredits anyone unless they are irrational. </p>
<p>In addition, I am a nice person. That's not up for debate. If you're nasty to me though, I probably will be nasty to you.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I find it interesting how the most hardcore defenders of MIT admissions are former/recent MIT admits, and the ones most indignant about it are the rejectees.
[/quote]
Wouldn't it be even more interesting if it were the other way around? :)</p>
<p>Personally, as much as I enjoyed writing for the blogs and as much as I enjoy helping people on CC, I can definitely see that disengagement with the whole internet college admissions community can be a better thing for an applicant than total engagement. The blogs showcase what MIT is really like, which is great because people are like, "Whoa, this is a great place!" But on the flip side, applicants fall totally in love with MIT, and the reality is that 85-90% of them aren't going to go there for undergrad.</p>
<p>When I applied for undergrad (and grad school, too), I really avoided finding out any substantial information about MIT until after I was accepted. I was pretty set on going to Ohio State, so I wasn't really all that wrapped up in my MIT decision or my Harvard decision (waitlist). So although I love information, and I'm glad to share what I know about MIT, I think it's a really bad idea to fall in love with MIT until after you're accepted. It just leads to bad things.</p>
<p>Once again, I think Mollie has articulated the most sensible point of view. The one danger with the blogs is that they foster feelings of incredible familiarity (intimacy, even) and comfort. And while this is the very idea behind them (because MIT can appear too intimidating), hell hath no fury like an applicant/intimate scorned.</p>
<p>With regard to pebbles’s post: </p>
<p>Of course being biased undermines one’s credibility. It would be silly to think otherwise.
And as for being the sole arbitrator of what’s up for debate… I think that’s up to the forum as a whole. No one, I think, has been “nasty” to pebbles. But her responses to some posts have been disappointingly shrill and unpleasant. (Note, this comment concerns the posts, not personal character. I’m sure she is delightful in person.)</p>
<p>pebbles, it has occurred to me, upon rereading your posts, that you have not really offered any explanation or justification for the actions of the admissions office regarding informing waitlisted applicants. Instead, through responding to perceived slights and attempting to overgeneralize the issue, you've redirected the topic in order to make my point seem ridiculous through your own supposed interpretations.</p>
<p>The issue at hand is the incompetent and careless way that information regarding waitlist decisions was disseminated. I think it should be obvious that my solution for this would be to email everyone, given that I object to the current practice of not doing so. I'm not taking this to every college forum on CC because I haven't had this experience with those colleges, and yes, I care about MIT more than most other colleges, so I'm more inclined to get involved in discussions about it or to have an opinion at all.</p>
<p>You accuse me of using rhetoric with the term "ethics," but you're just as much of an offender as I, if not more so.</p>