[2632] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: [Mit-talk] Upcoming UA Issue - Student Group Property Ownership
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Adam Seering)
Tue Oct 17 11:28:28 2006
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62L.0610170948020.22110@dodecahedron.mit.edu>
From: Adam Seering <aseering@mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 11:26:25 -0400
To: Alexander J Werbos <awerbos@mit.edu>
Cc: ua-senate@mit.edu, mit-talk@mit.edu, senior-house@mit.edu
Errors-To: mit-talk-bounces@mit.edu
On Oct 17, 2006, at 9:59 AM, Alexander J Werbos wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006, Adam Seering wrote:
>
>> This is all just a straightforward interpretation of relatively
>> simple common standards. What's the complication here?
>
> I don't think it is that obvious at all. Consider that a large part
> of the current allocation system is based on communal principles.
> Space may be allocated as the ASA sees fit. We're attempting to see
> if that analogy continues to other property.
The notion of communal space is useful partly because many rooms are
similar, and partly because space in Cambridge is very expensive and
somewhat limited (so it doesn't make sense for student groups to buy
custom spaces to fit their needs). Therefore, it makes sense for
student groups to use that space communistically; the decrease in
efficiency due to groups needing to share rooms is offset by the
benefits of all student groups getting good rooms, or getting rooms
at all.
Unlike rooms, purchased property isn't fully communal because each
student group is allocated a finite budget and is expected to use it
in a way that best furthers that particular group's goals. If a
group buys something with their budget, and then it is taken away
from them (or made available to other groups for free; having done
some research, I'll throw that in), this is unfair to the group
because they're essentially paying for someone else's free ride when,
had the groups been expecting to share, they would have quite
possibly agreed to a joint purchase.
The communistic room policy has a bureaucracy set up solely to
support people getting and sharing reasonable room assignments and
such. An equivalent system does not exist for funding, as far as I
know; I've never seen it in action, at least. Therefore, groups
can't easily share the cost of communal equipment; if you want
communism, I'd suggest making a mechanism for this to work first.
Also, could someone with the expense list for all student groups
glance through it and tally up what the approximate savings would be
per-year, for sharing of equipment? What percentage is it, at least
very roughly, of the overall student-group budget? Keeping in mind
that there's a substantial time- and energy- cost to figuring out
what other student groups own before buying something new and
possibly (or possibly not) redundant, is it worth it?
> Student groups are special organizations. They are not given money
> for their private use, but rather to enhance undegraduate life as a
> whole.
If you want to go communistic, my suggestion would be to have an
optional system by which one student group can see what other large-
expense purchases other groups have made; that way they can contact
the other groups and work out a fair arrangement for sharing the
equipment. Student groups would opt in because (and when) it saves
them money. This self-optimizes for a good balance of money and time
efficiency, and for maximum net impact of student groups on the
community (which is what you've said is the ultimate goal), except
for in the case where student groups just have too much money; good
luck dealing with that case fairly.
> Since student group money can't really be given to individuals but
> rather has to benefit the student body in general (or at least
> allow all who are interested equal access to benefits), is it
> really so much of a leap to say that property does not belong
> specifically to a group of people or arbitrary label, but rather to
> the undergraduate community as a whole?
You're claiming more than that; you're claiming that the UA knows how
to judge that. No one can really judge that, except in retrospect.
I believe that it's generally best to give student groups leeway when
possible; they could be doing something cool that UA members happen
not to like but that a lot of other people do like, or something
whose benefit isn't at first obvious.
> If, however, people think that such reallocations are always a bad
> idea, we can make that the policy. But I really think that is going
> to lead to inefficient usage of student resources.
Students have multiple kinds of resources. Money is one. Time is
another. You're trading one off against the other, and it's a hard
tradeoff because there's no really-good common metric. Your
statement above seems to not be taking time into account at all,
though?; student groups can do (some) things without money, but
nothing happens without time, so at least in the extremes money is
the wrong one to devalue.
Adam
_______________________________________________
MIT-talk mailing list
MIT-talk@mit.edu
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
