Actually, iRobot produced a robot called the iRobot-LE which later became a commercial product called the CoWorker that was designed specifically for telepresence applications. They couldn't find a market for it and eventually discontinued production. (You can see images of both here: http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/Spring05/Rodriguez /coworker2.htmhere )
While the use of robots with children with autism has generated intense interest from a variety of research groups (mine included), one thing that the media often leaves out when reporting these stories is that these studies are still experimental. There have been no published studies to date that show long-term behavioral change following interaction trials with robots, only one case study that has looked at long-term effects of these interactions, and no studies that have shown any transfer of skills from human-robot interaction to human-human interaction.
Every time an article like this is published, my office and my colleagues are barraged with requests from individuals, families, and educators looking for the robot that will "cure" autism. While everyone working in this area has great hopes for what is possible, we don't yet have any clinical or experimental data to support any claims of effectiveness.
You have mis-represented the role of the admissions office, and a dean of admissions, on most modern college campuses. In her position, she would not at all be involved in raising money, and her ability (or inability) to network would make only a minor difference in her job performance.
Furthermore, the admissions office handles admission of high school students to the undergraduate program. Department chairs (and faculty in general) have almost no role in this process. Admissions folders are read and evaluated by admissions officers within this office (who are not part of the faculty). The primary role of the dean of admissions is to maintain the quality, integrity, and consistency of these evaluations. (This is in contrast to admission to graduate programs, in which individual departments and faculty play a very large part by reading and rating each application.)
Put simply, the job of the admissions office at a school like MIT is to sort through a pool of near-perfect, almost identical-looking applications to select the small percentage who they believe will have the best chance at success at MIT while ensuring diversity among geographic, ethnic, economic and other factors.
Why would you trust this process to an indivudal who had no idea what it was like to even go to college?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, iRobot produced a robot called the iRobot-LE which later became a commercial product called the CoWorker that was designed specifically for telepresence applications. They couldn't find a market for it and eventually discontinued production. (You can see images of both here: http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/Spring05/Rodriguez /coworker2.htmhere )
While the use of robots with children with autism has generated intense interest from a variety of research groups (mine included), one thing that the media often leaves out when reporting these stories is that these studies are still experimental. There have been no published studies to date that show long-term behavioral change following interaction trials with robots, only one case study that has looked at long-term effects of these interactions, and no studies that have shown any transfer of skills from human-robot interaction to human-human interaction.
Every time an article like this is published, my office and my colleagues are barraged with requests from individuals, families, and educators looking for the robot that will "cure" autism. While everyone working in this area has great hopes for what is possible, we don't yet have any clinical or experimental data to support any claims of effectiveness.
You have mis-represented the role of the admissions office, and a dean of admissions, on most modern college campuses. In her position, she would not at all be involved in raising money, and her ability (or inability) to network would make only a minor difference in her job performance.
Furthermore, the admissions office handles admission of high school students to the undergraduate program. Department chairs (and faculty in general) have almost no role in this process. Admissions folders are read and evaluated by admissions officers within this office (who are not part of the faculty). The primary role of the dean of admissions is to maintain the quality, integrity, and consistency of these evaluations. (This is in contrast to admission to graduate programs, in which individual departments and faculty play a very large part by reading and rating each application.)
Put simply, the job of the admissions office at a school like MIT is to sort through a pool of near-perfect, almost identical-looking applications to select the small percentage who they believe will have the best chance at success at MIT while ensuring diversity among geographic, ethnic, economic and other factors.
Why would you trust this process to an indivudal who had no idea what it was like to even go to college?