<p>"No statement can be universally true"</p>
<p>Including that one?</p>
<p>Bassdad, as an example, North Carolina High Schools (grades 9-12) are required to use the North Carolina Standard Transcript. In addition to having a standard grading scale, this document contains student demographics and other pertinent information.</p>
<p>"Cumulative class rank is based final grades in all subjects and is computed for all students at the end of each school year. Grade point average is derived by dividing the total number of quality points by the number of credits attempted.</p>
<p>Students taking Advanced Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate (IB) courses get 2 extra points, Honors (H) and Honors Concentrated (HC) get 1 extra point more than regular courses."</p>
<p>Here's a link that confirms the acceptance by UNC of the transcript:</p>
<p>I was just talking about that one phrase. "No statement can be universally true" is either universally true or it is not. If it is universally true, then it disproves itself. If it is not universally true, then at least some statements can be universally true, once again disproving the original statement.</p>
<p>Bassdad, my last post took forever to load. I was still replying to last hour's post. </p>
<p>Nice work of logic. Actually, here is the "proof" I was wrong:</p>
<p>The basis of universal quantification is that some statements are universally true. For example, "All triangles have three sides" is universally true. Ah the beauty of categorical syllogisms. :)</p>
<p>It reminds me of Rucker's "Infinity and the Mind" where he talks about Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem:</p>
<pre><code>The proof of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem is so simple, and so sneaky, that it is almost embarassing to relate. His basic procedure is as follows:
- Someone introduces Gödel to a UTM, a machine that is supposed to be a Universal Truth Machine, capable of correctly answering any question at all.
- Gödel asks for the program and the circuit design of the UTM. The program may be complicated, but it can only be finitely long. Call the program P(UTM) for Program of the Universal Truth Machine.
- Smiling a little, Gödel writes out the following sentence: "The machine constructed on the basis of the program P(UTM) will never say that this sentence is true." Call this sentence G for Gödel. Note that G is equivalent to: "UTM will never say G is true."
- Now Gödel laughs his high laugh and asks UTM whether G is true or not.
- If UTM says G is true, then "UTM will never say G is true" is false. If "UTM will never say G is true" is false, then G is false (since G = "UTM will never say G is true"). So if UTM says G is true, then G is in fact false, and UTM has made a false statement. So UTM will never say that G is true, since UTM makes only true statements.
- We have established that UTM will never say G is true. So "UTM will never say G is true" is in fact a true statement. So G is true (since G = "UTM will never say G is true").
- "I know a truth that UTM can never utter," Gödel says. "I know that G is true. UTM is not truly universal." </code></pre>
<p>Speaking of MIT, boy did they really stick it to their rejected and deferred applicants. </p>
<p>The adcoms have been swearing up and down the wall since Friday that all decisions were mailed at the same time. Meanwhile, nobody has received anything but acceptances. Turns out that the MIT mailing office decided to save a few pennies of the application fee for all the rejects and deferrals. They sent all those letters to an outside mail sorting vendor and they didn't actually hit the US mail until three or four days later than the acceptances. So all the poor bad news applicants have had to walk to an empty mailbox two or three times after friends in the same town got their acceptances...all the while having MIT's adcoms swear that they could still be waiting on good news.</p>
<p>Ouch. </p>
<p>Next year, maybe they could raise the application fee and spring for first class postage on the deferal and reject letters.</p>
<p>Yes, the EA notification situation at MIT is a true muddle and I am sure they are truly sorry. Can't imagine it was intentional or that it was a 'resilience assessment' in camouflage. I feel for the kids, and I feel for the genuinely decent people in that office who would never have inflicted this on anyone knowingly. Back to the drawing board.</p>
<p>As for the general tangent of this thread....a bit of a muddle as well....</p>
<p>Ouch. MIT of all places says it uses paper mail for admissions decisions because it distrusts email, then this happens.</p>
<p>Oh well, last year, the internationals found out they were accepted by simply calling DHL and ask if they were about to get a package. :)</p>
<p>interesteddad, the same postage on all letters has always been the practice in MIT's admissions mailings (with the exception of overseas acceptances). This year something went very wrong in the mail room and they are absolutely reeling; as a sad result, some students' hopes were prolonged and then dashed. It is not their policy to send the mailings in different ways, and it's rather snarky to suggest so.</p>
<p>I'd bet a lot that there will be a major effort to enable some form of reliable online notification for next year... although it really is an amazing experience to receive the news on paper... if you're accepted, that is.</p>
<p>And you can bet they've fixed the DHL fiasco from last year, too!</p>
<p>I didn't suggest that they did it on purpose.</p>
<p>Actually, I think the root cause was they tried to get too cute with the mailing tubes and posters instead of just sending out acceptance letters.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'd bet a lot that there will be a major effort to enable some form of reliable online notification for next year....
[/quote]
</p>
<p>According to Ben's blog, there was already a major effort underway even before this fiasco, and they hope it may be on-line in time for this year's regular decisions.</p>
<p><a href="http://ben.mitblogs.com/%5B/url%5D">http://ben.mitblogs.com/</a></p>
<p>EDIT: By the way, I think MIT admissions was a class act in their handling of this really unfortunate situation. They could have just let the anonymous folks at the US Post Office take the blame. Instead, they stepped up to the plate and forthrightly admitted that it was an internal error in the MIT mailroom.</p>
<p>And since I started this thread to point out a wise and meaningful post from Marilee Jones, MIT's Dean of Admissions, I would like to point out her latest blog entry tonight, in response to the mail fiasco of the past week. I could feel blood pressures around the country falling as I read it. </p>
<p>Yet another example of why I haven't yet been disappointed with the quality of the folks at MIT.</p>
<p>"Next year, maybe they could raise the application fee and spring for first class postage on the deferal and reject letters."</p>
<p>Hahaha, interesteddad!</p>
<p>Next year, maybe they should outsource a Web-based notification system to IIT. </p>
<p>Or ask prospies to include one with their apps.</p>
<p>;)</p>
<p>And somebody, please, give 'em the phone number for Cornell so they'll know what NOT to use.
<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=125508%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=125508</a></p>
<p>I just don't like how a lot of people are attacking the admissions people at MIT for this mistake especially after they make themselves so apparent to the applicants and other observers throughout the entire process. EVERYONE on CC commends them for having the blogs and frequently visiting this site to talk to us, and then when a mistake happens, they're horrible people. I don't like seeing them being bashed like this for one mistake. </p>
<p>They're not the first ones to have something like this happen during the admissions notifications. If I remember correctly, Northwestern had something like this happen during the RD round with their online notifications last year (some didn't open) so I see where MIT is coming from when they say that they're not ready for that type of system yet. Yes, I was one of this unlucky ones without a decision last year, and yes, it was painful having to wait for a decision while others were celebrating. However, I honestly have to be reminded that any of that extra wait even happened now. I'm so happy where I'm at for college that I really don't care that much about anything else. I also do not hold a grudge agaist that admissions office for what happened. Accidents happen. It's not worth it to dwell on past events especially when those past events would not have changed the outcome.</p>
<p>Those applicants to MIT probably will not forget what happened, but it won't ruin their lives. They also should not (and I believe, will not) hate MIT for that mistake. If Ben's blog is read, anyone can tell by his wording that the people on the admissions staff truly feel horrible about what happened. I felt (and still feel) horrible for the admissions people there because they're in that much pain over this mistake, and I was never an MIT applicant. I think it's amazing that they are willing to basically sacrifice themselves in order to let the applicants know what happened. Did anyone at any of the colleges to which I applied last year expose him or herself that much in order to help me? No. If that sole fact is not enough to forgive them, then I don't know what is.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Unless of course you call traveling to every corner of the country - speaking to parents and educators 100+ days out of the year
[/quote]
</p>
<p>last time I checked, that was her job and what she got paid to do.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Anyone here ever take a "there are far more polite ways to disagree than to be snotty about it" class?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You can have your opinion and I'll have mine. Name calling is for 5 year olds.</p>
<p>I'm debating how much I want to be a part of the rest of this fight. The admissions mishap of this past week... I'm totally in on it. MIT deserves the help big time. But other stuff? How much of a time commitment do I want to have here? ;) I want to relax and have some fun over in the safety of my Michigan forum, too (<em>being sarcastic in the context of this thread</em>). Okay. Debate is over. I'm in. :)</p>
<p>Reeze,</p>
<p>You didn't ask about whether or not it was her job. You said she did nothing with her wisdom. Her job is something. :) Also, I'd say HOW she performs her job is a big component of how her wisdom comes to pass in this process (how she speaks to the students, trains her admissions team, and even just keeps in contact with the applicants). Even with her position, there's a certain limit to which she can use her authority before people will start criticizing her for it. She's between the oh so familiar "rock and a hard place." As far as I can tell under the circumstances, she's doing a pretty good job.</p>
<p>How can the country's foremost INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, for heavenssake, not be ready for online notification? :)</p>