[906] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
No subject found in mail header
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher D. Beland)
Thu Oct 4 18:25:35 2001
Message-ID: <200110042218.SAA06642@hikari-no-ken.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 18:18:34 -0400
Reply-To: "Documentation at http://web.mit.edu/beland/talk/talk.html"
<MIT-Talk@MIT.EDU>, "Christopher D. Beland" <beland@MIT.EDU>
From: "Christopher D. Beland" <beland@MIT.EDU>
To: MIT-Talk@MIT.EDU
So to look at this from an admissions perspective, MIT is interested
(and rightly so) in attracting the best and brightest students in this
country. The generational generalizations she presented in her FNL
article are an interesting way to examine whether or not MIT will be
able to continue to draw this sort of applicant in the coming years.
Perhaps they would be more relevant if MIT admitted a significant
fraction of the population of this country every year. But of course,
it does not. What we must focus on, in my opinion, is not what sort
of people are applying to MIT, but what sort of place we want MIT to
be.
Consider the following table, from the article:
Table 2
Why Admitted Freshmen Choose Not to Enroll
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Academic Academic Costs/
concerns Financial Aid concerns Academic Costs
(liberal arts) concerns
Academic Costs/ Academic
Finances concerns Location Academic concerns
(liberal arts) concerns
Location Costs Diversity Housing/
campus
Clearly, admitted applicants are picking up on some major features of
MIT -- but not all of them are good, and not all of them are bad.
Clearly, we don't want any student to be turned away from MIT due to
an inability to pay. Other top-tier universities have taken the lead
on increasing financial aid to mitigate this problem, but on the other
hand, compared to colleges and universities in general, MIT's packages
are very competitive.
Another cited feature is location. Is anyone seriously pondering
moving MIT to a warmer climate so that more "smarter" freshmen will
accept admission? Of course not. Besides which, many freshmen won't
appreciate the cultural, intellectual, and lifestyle benefits of
greater Cambridge/Boston until after spending some time getting to
know the place.
MIT's curriculum is very technically oriented. Is anyone seriously
considering turning the Institute into a liberal arts university? Of
course not; that's not the place that MIT is supposed to be,
especially given that there are many other such institutions that are
fine places to get an education. True, the Institute has recognized
the utility in giving its technically-oriented students training in
and exposure to various humanities, and interdisciplinary fields. But
this does not mean that MIT is going to try to appeal to the lowest
common curricular denominator among the intellectual elite.
Finally, we come to housing. It has been pointed out that MIT's
housing system is rather unique. I really do not understand why this
has been seen as a liability, rather than a feature. Certainly, the
physical infrastructure and management of the dormitory system -- as
well as the physical campus environment in general -- could use some
work. But a housing selection process which preserves individual
choice is a unique feature. Sure, it's not for everyone -- but not
everyone belongs at MIT. Isn't there some value in preserving
diversity of arrangements across institutions?
And far from "changing just in time" to cater to a new generation that
"just wants a room" the MIT housing system is entering into a
compromise. It is preserving some choices (dorm selection) while
curtailing others (FSILGs) and simultaneously presenting new options
more tailored to the new generation ("just give me a room" squatting
rights -- and yes, there are definitely incoming freshmen who want
this, oh, horror of horrors for FSILG alumni bigshots).
Personally, I hope that MIT will continue to attract people (like me)
who learn their passion, who don't take classes and join
extra-curricular activities just to get a credential or appear
"well-rounded," and who value personal choice and freedom, who will
question authority but work with it in a productive fashion (and who
resent being mothered), and who knowingly accept the considered
consequences of their actions.
Even if 25% of accepted applicants chose Harvard over MIT because of
our housing system, I would still not be concerned about not
attracting the "best and brightest." I really don't think that any
admissions formula can really predict whether the 1000th or the 1250th
high school senior in the ranking is going to succeed more - whether
that means making a lot of money or making the world a better place.
Frankly, I think we'd be much better off sticking with a set of values
which are important to the sort of citizens we want to set loose on
the world, and allowing self-selection to run its course. If you're a
brilliant programmer or mathematician or chemist, but you don't value
personal choice, maybe you *shouldn't* be at MIT. If you want to be
told what to do and when to do it, there are plenty of other
institutions that can do that for you, where you can get a perfectly
good technical education. Likewise if you don't like the weather.
Maybe these students, hell-bent on getting themselves the best
technical credientials the world offers, will come to MIT despite its
quirks, and in the end, find that the sort of community that the
Institute offers because of these features, has actually helped them
grow as people in ways they didn't know they needed to when they were
making their decision. I know I've certainly had an experience like
that, and I do see it happening in others..
Marilee does have her finger aptly on some larger social trends, both
heartening and disturbing. And she makes some excellent points about
what MIT students need from faculty and administrators. But the
following caught my attention in a different way:
> They need to be involved in decision making, but they need for us to
> make the final decisions. We Boomers in particular have a tendency
> toward consensus even when consensus is inappropriate. They don't
> want us to be friends. They want us to lead.
In my experience, I have found that many undergraduates - including
myself - are quite intimidated by faculty. Maybe I don't want my
professors to be my friends in the same way that my housemates are,
but I have found that once we have started a dialog, we interact best
(students and faculty/administration) when we treat each other as
peers. Certainly faculty and administrators have much more experience
and expertise in certain areas than students. But so do we -- we know
what it's like to be on the receiving end of current policies and
curricula. And of course, we have the different experiences of a
different generation. I suppose we do need the faculty and
administration to lead the student body, but not as "adults" -- for
not long after we arrive here, we students are forced to become adults
as well. We are not Lords of the Flies. Like the faculty, we are on
a quest for knowledge and wisdom; like the administration, we seek to
better arrange our local affairs to serve us better. We're just a
little new to the game. So lead, yes, but also join us as more
experienced peers, and don't be afraid of trying to achieve consensus,
even if you will never reach it entirely. The pooling of information
and ideas that results from the discussion process makes for both
better decision-making and better cross-group interaction.
Beland
Pseudo-alum, student, and friend to beleaguered administrators
===============================================================
Christopher Beland - MIT CS/STS - http://web.mit.edu/beland/www
339 Colusa Ave. - Kensington, CA 94707 - (510) 558-7145
===============================================================
