<p>momrath,</p>
<p>LOL. I know you're not being serious. However, for those who still wonder, reread my above post. There's a reason (also those lovely hacks that come along with being one of the best technology-based schools in the country... Or should I be saying THE best?). :)</p>
<p>They've all talked about this in several places, I guess I'm feeling lazy and won't be looking up the links (how unlike me! :) ). It's a combination of actually liking the tradition of sending paper decisions, and concerns over privacy and security (viz. the problems Cornell had with its online admissions decision site earlier this week, Cornell not exactly being a slacker in the technology department overall either...). They've got technology in the works to provide decisions through the MyMIT portal (through which students submit their applications and can track the receipt of their supplemental forms), and are hoping after this week's problems to have it in place as soon as the RD cycle this year.</p>
<p>Momrath-
My son wrote his final MIT essay last year on 27 December, the day after the tsunami. He wrote about the fact that it was not the availability of technology, nor the adequacy of the technology, which prevented lives from being saved- it was the political and economic factors that are sometimes the real obstacle...(you can guess how he played this given where we live, and given his own academic interests).</p>
<p>In the case of on line notification and MIT...a combination of what they judge to be the adequacy of technology and the 'politics' if you will keeping the whole admissions situation just a wee bit more personal...that's my read...</p>
<p>PS, guess they didn't like the essay quite enough!!</p>
<p>Re: Online vs paper+US mail
My son's school, Williams, is another one that believes in the tradition of the letter in the envelope, though this year they at least condescended to e-mail internationals. (I think my son finally received his official ED acceptance letter some time in January. He called.)</p>
<p>I'm all in favor of the personal approach, but since individual telephone calls are not practical, I don't see anything personal and sensitive at all about making kids -- and their parents -- wait several days for the mail to arrive. To me it just prolongs the agony and seriously impedes those who need to get cracking on their RD applications.</p>
<p>As far as security goes, well, if MIT can't figure it out, who can? I think the benefits of fast and direct outweigh the risks. </p>
<p>I don't have a horse in this race so it really doesn't matter much to me except that I hate to see these kids in suspenders through the weekend, especially since so many haven't completed their RD apps.</p>
<p>Haha, I would note with some degree of dry humor that the task of designing admissions webpages and other such official problems are not given to MIT students -- they're given to MIT Information Systems. And I believe that the people who work for MIT IS did not attend MIT as undergraduates.</p>
<p>You know what they say about shoemakers' children going barefoot... :)</p>
<p>OK now for your excellent explanation for the tubes of confetti.......what ad agency got millions for that idea?</p>
<p>Complete with a ready to frame "certificate of acceptance" to MIT. </p>
<p>What exactly are they supposed to do with that? Take it to high school and hang it on the outside of their locker so everyone can see it? The goal being to "reduce the pressure" on high school students to get into brand-name colleges?</p>
<p>Can't answer for everyone, but my son was thrilled to get his "certificate of acceptance" to MIT last year. I suspect he will save it for years. He hasn't shown anyone but our family. And his didn't come in a tube last year, it came in a flat envelope. A large one.</p>
<p>No need to perpetuate hints of disinformation, by the way: lots of colleges send such certificates, he got similar "certificates of acceptance" from the other seven colleges that accepted him. Some were far more ornate and from far lesser-known colleges.</p>
<p>Edit: Several other CC parents have commented in the "official decisions" threads about the confetti/stars that fell out of their children's acceptance packets from other schools (I recall Hendrix in particular). Shall we have at Hendrix while we're at it, also?</p>
<p>
[quote]
he got similar "certificates of acceptance" from the other seven colleges that accepted him. Some were far more ornate and from far lesser-known colleges.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And all seven probably have Admissions Deans clucking about how wrong it is to view college admissions as a status symbol. Talk about mixed messages.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, they all borrow marketing tricks from the Franklin Mint. I'm surprised they don't number the Certificates of Acceptance to highlight their exclusivity.</p>
<p>Did someone get up on the wrong side of the bed today?</p>
<p>STATUS SYMBOL?? Who said it was a status symbol? They got my kid excited and he wanted to save them. That's all. He didn't go showing them to everyone: he looked at them and dreamed about his future.</p>
<p>Gee. If you don't care about the certificates, throw them out. Tell your child to burn them in effigy. My kid liked his, and saved some of them. I realize you were being sarcastic, but come on, nobody's going to post them on their freaking locker. They're meant to make a kid feel good: even Podunk U. sends out such certificates (maybe not as fancy, but similar idea). If you think they're representations of something horrible and don't want your child to touch them, take them away.</p>
<p>Does your own favorite school <em>not</em> send such certificates? If not, well, there you go, you're all set. No conflicts.</p>
<p>Come on. All of you know that getting a tube is a lot more interesting and fun than just getting a letter of acceptance and a packet talking about the university. All I received from the places to which I was accepted last year were the normal "large envelopes." Did I enjoy looking at them last year? Of course I did. However, will I pay a lot of attention to them ever again? Probably not. However, if I had received a tube, then it might be a different story. I might have been a little more careful to save everything just as a small (I guess?) keepsake. I'm sure that one of the main reasons that they sent tubes was to make the acceptees' acceptance letter receiving experience more memorable and fun for them. Did it work? From what I can tell on their board, it did. If no mishaps happened last Friday (Yes, a mishap happened, but it's not worth torturing them about it because in the end, it shouldn't and won't be a big deal for anyone), all of the tubes and letters would have been sent out on time. No issue. Also, I don't really see the difference between sending tubes and sending the "large envelopes" to the acceptees because in the end, those who were rejected or deferred will always receive less than the acceptees. Also, couldn't the same problem have happened if the dull "large envelopes" were used instead of tubes? I don't really see full truth in the argument that no problem would have occurred of the tubes were not used.</p>
<p>I also don't have a horse in this race, so I'm looking in as a disinterested (original meaning, not it's present widespread misuse) observer. </p>
<p>I don't think that the admissions people should be chastised for the mail snafu--it wasn't intended, and they seem to be sincerely appalled and apologetic. Overall, I enjoy their blogs; they sound like smart, kind, thoughtful people.</p>
<p>However, I find their arguments for mail as opposed to email highly disingenuous. BAck in the days when mail was the only route for notification, differences in timing were excusable, but I don't believe that is true now. Tubes with confetti can still be sent. And they will be highly amusing to the 12% of EA applicants who receive them. But let's think a little more about the other 88%. Is it worth toying with them in order to raise the fun quotient for the happy few?</p>
<p>Would an email acceptance really spoil the applicant's relationship with MIT? Two years ago, my S got his ED acceptance by email, and then the Fedex package with the keychain inside came the next day. Knowing he was accepted already really didn't take away from the joy of getting the package. </p>
<p>As far as hacking fears, I can't even take that seriously. I am glad to see that MIT has decided to explore the possibility of using up-to-date technology; it may take some trial and error, but I'm sure they'll get the hang of it! :)</p>
<p>Quotes from Interesteddad: "Turns out that the MIT mailing office decided to save a few pennies of the application fee for all the rejects and deferrals...Next year, maybe they could raise the application fee and spring for first class postage on the deferal and reject letters." </p>
<p>And then, when others call you on your clear criciticism, judgement, and harsh conclusions, you feign suprise and say:
"I didn't suggest that they did it on purpose."
Please don't wonder why people are turned off.</p>
<p>As for the tubes and confetti, once a student is admitted the battle for yield begins, and the student is the one who now does the accepting. The tubes, confetti, posters, certificates, etc. are all part of the attempt to get students to pick the college that accepted them. While true colleges could dispense with this for ED students, it would not be good for appearances to celebrate RD too differently from ED. It is all a part of the continuing marketing that occurs until choices are made.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As far as hacking fears, I can't even take that seriously. I am glad to see that MIT has decided to explore the possibility of using up-to-date technology; it may take some trial and error, but I'm sure they'll get the hang of it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I can understand why MIT takes it seriously.</p>
<p>MIT's graduate business school (Sloan) used an on-line system last year and some applicants managed to figure out how to get into it prematurely and find out their admissions status before the official announcement date. (The same was true for applicants to Harvard and several other business schools. )</p>
<p>In the end, MIT, Harvard, and some of the other places ended up deciding to rescind acceptances for any candidates who had taken a premature peek at their results.</p>
<p>No matter what system you design, there are lots of very smart (and very anxious) kids waiting for their results. It takes quite a lot of vigilance to make sure you've got an airtight system. (And it doesn't make sense to hire the most talented MIT grads to design an admissions notification system; there are higher and better uses of their talents!)</p>
<p>This is a highly specialized computer application and there is a limited budget to spend for developing it. Bringing it on-line very fast would raise the developments costs for a high-security system even higher. I don't fault MIT for taking the time to get it right. (They have more to lose than most schools if they get it wrong. Duke and Cornell had embarrassing on-line notification problems in the past. If the same thing had happened at MIT, the embarrassment factor would have been even greater.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
If the same thing had happened at MIT, the embarrassment factor would have been even greater
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, it doesn't look like they avoided the embarrassment factor. Though perhaps you mean it would be a lesser blow to their self-esteem to be embarrassed about a mail snafu rather than a computer one? (regardless of the extent of the effect it had on others).</p>
<p>I don't think it matters what type of error it is for MIT. They'd get bombarded with comments and embarassment either way just because of who they are. (MIT can NEVER make a mistake, and if they do, the world must be coming to an end! ;)) However, the embarassment would probably be worse if it was technologically-related since that is MIT's specialty. In the end, I really don't think it matters. In either case, they wouldn't want to hurt anyone, but if either tyoe of error occurred, the same amount of hysteria would take place. I don't think that would change. However, the MIT bashing may be more hurtful to the admissions officers if the mistake was technologically-related because of the many comments that could be created based off of that and the school's main concentrations. MIT might get hurt more that way (if that's even possible considering how they felt this week), but I doubt that the applicants would feel worse. I don't really enjoy how the idea of "self-esteem" was brought up here. Based off of what they wrote in their blogs, it seems that that was one of the last things on their minds. They seemed to care more about the applicants in this situation.</p>
<p>Donemom:</p>
<p>The MIT admissions office DIDN'T do the mail thing on purpose. I'm sure they had every expectation that the letters would get metered and go first-class mail that day. Their expectation was probably strong enough that they didn't even think to communicate it to the mailing office.</p>
<p>The MIT mailing office DID do the mail thing on purpose: they followed their standard operating procedure of sending all the envelopes out to a mail sorter to save a few cents with the pre-sorted non-profit bulk rate. By policy, that adds one or two days to the mailing cycle. Throw in a weekend and the reject letters were actually mailed four days after the acceptance notifications.</p>
<p>Alas, the root causes of this were two-fold: one hand didn't know what the other was doing (institutionally). And, everyone was so focused on the acceptance tubes, that the poor reject letters got overlooked in the shuffle.</p>
<p>Just to be clear about things, the vast majority of the letters in envelopes were <em>DEFERRALS</em> not rejects.
[quote]
Of the 3,098 applicants, 2,371 were deferred and 216 denied admission, along with 131 who were deferred because they did not complete the application.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Reeses--my use of the word "self-esteem" was quite specifically in response to the observation that MIT wouldn't want to be found wanting in a technological arena. It is in no way connected to how they actually responded to what did happen, which I stated quite clearly was done in an admirable manner.</p>
<p>It's the rejection of the email system that I question; not what happened this year.</p>