I don't blame admissions for that; they have an impossible job. Most of the applicants they accept are "one of the top few students I have taught in my career", and half of those still end up in the bottom 50% of MIT. If you can't rely on the SAT because so many people top out on math and still have no business at MIT, and you can't rely on GPA because that's just how focused the student was on building a resume, and you can't rely on recommendations because so many teachers nationwide have never seen a student who belongs at MIT, how are you going to decide? Character is the key, but MIT exposes students to a side of themselves they have never seem. How is admissions supposed to predict that someone like this will fall apart when she discovers she's the slow kid - based on a track record in which she never faced even one person at MIT's level?
The students you want for MIT will be fine if they end up in the bottom half. The "low kids" at MIT can still be great, productive, problem-solving scientists and engineers. But I don't blame admissions for not being able to spot the ones who won't with 100% accuracy.
As for Tech Review. I agree that this had no business in that magazine.
Ok, for the sake of discussion I won't blame admissions. I'll blame the Institute for giving people like this a place to run to when they fail. I had a roommate who worked his butt off for two years, failed, transferred to his state U and was deans list. Graduated with honors and was successful. What he didn't do was switch majors to humanities and sex plays. MIT if nothing else was an opportunity to fail, probably for the first time for many.