[911] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: My meeting with Marilee Jones
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Victoria K. Anderson)
Thu Oct 4 23:19:40 2001
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Message-ID: <200110050316.XAA04209@melbourne-city-street.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 23:19:27 -0400
Reply-To: "Documentation at http://web.mit.edu/beland/talk/talk.html"
<MIT-Talk@MIT.EDU>, "Victoria K. Anderson" <vkanders@MIT.EDU>
From: "Victoria K. Anderson" <vkanders@MIT.EDU>
To: MIT-Talk@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <20011004220927.I31168@innocuous.mit.edu>
Hi everybody,
Some of these conversations made me think of something about which I've
heard quite a few grumblings lately from upperclassmen-the "dumbing down"
of the freshman year. Have other people been concerned about such problems?
I'm not personally taking a stance on this (in part because I don't think
that I know enough to make an informed decision), but I wanted to know if
this was truly a problem that a lot of people perceive.
The problem that many people perceive is that the freshman year seems to be
getting easier (18.022 used to be the standard 18.02, 8.01 make-up exams,
etc.), yet upper-level classes (2.005/6, 6.002, 8.03, Unified, 18.100B,
etc.) are *not* getting any easier, thus people more and more find
themselves having trouble in these classes.
Any thoughts? I'm really curious to see what people think.
-Victoria
At 10:09 PM 10/4/01 , Richard Tibbetts wrote:
>This morning I met with Marilee Jones for one and a half hours. It was
>a very good meeting, and something I hope that I can repeat in the
>future once. For now I want to summarize some things that came up,
>things that many people might not understand. I will keep this short,
>because I am very busy. I will try to respond to concerns or questions
>people raise.
>
>1) Jones does not want to admit the students she describes. She would
> rather admit old-style passionate and technically oriented
> students. But she can't find them.
>
>She, by all accounts, wants the same students you and I do. She has
>been at MIT a long time, likes MIT students. And faculty feel the same
>way. They are always breathing down the neck of admissions to find
>better students. In recent years, though, the tenor has changed from
>"These kids aren't what they used to be" to "No really, these kids are
>unacceptable."
>
>The college admissions process, nationally, sucks. Everyone (nearly)
>has read books that explain the ins and outs of college admissions.
>Mediocre students make themselves look like good students. Even good
>students feel like they have to follow the guidelines. With everyone
>knowing exactly what to say and how to look, admissions is having a
>terrible time sorting through the mess.
>
>And it isn't just a question of replacing them with someone who can do
>better, or getting faculty more involved. Every faculty member who has
>gotten involved, according to Jones, has found the job to be just as
>impossible as she has. One thing she said was that she often gives
>groups of angry faculty student folders to look through and to do a
>better job with. They always either end up disillusioned, picking out
>one or two students from hundreds, or they end up picking the same
>students she would have.
>
>She encourages students to get involved. There is a committee, CUAFA,
>for students interested in long term involvement (I think I will
>pursue such a position). It is a very active and real committee,
>chaired by Sadoway, and the faculty on it are really interested in
>making things work. The current student membership seems to be not so
>vocal, and she would not mind seeing that change. For students who
>just want to share some insight, send her an email or meet with her.
>She will listen. Especially you freshmen. You're here for four more
>years. If you care, tell her where she can find other people who care.
>And tell me too, cause I want to know.
>
>My analogy: It would be nice if she were looking for diamonds in the
>rough. The reality is that she is looking for diamonds in big piles of
>cubic zirconia, through a close circuit television camera.
>
>2) No really, she is looking hard.
>
>MIT admissions does more outreach, more going out and grabbing the
>kind of student we want and dragging them back here, than any other
>school. Not just programs like RSI. Admissions officers (according to
>Jones) go to science fairs, engineering competitions, and into the
>pits at auto races looking for the kind of student that professors
>want.
>
>3) She does not necessarily want MIT to coddle these kids. What she
> wants is for MIT, especially the faculty, to accept that this is
> what they have to work with, and to find new ways to turn them into
> graduates we can respect.
>
>Too many faculty are willing to let people slide by and focus on the
>students they like, in her opinion. The faculty have to educate
>whoever we let in here, because we are going to graduate them in 4
>years.
>
>I agree. If we can't find students who can become real engineer with
>our current system, we need to find a new system. MIT can't be
>graduating incompetent people.
>
>Of course, Jones and I differ about what changes are necessary. Big
>surprise. Thats why I am still writing to the FNL.
>
>4) She is really big on this generational stuff.
>
>Jones is a bit too enthused about defining people (faculty, students,
>administrators, everyone) by their generation. Not sure where to go
>with this one.
>
>5) The terminology of her article was directed at other
> administrators. And by leadership, she doesn't mean bad things.
>
>Not sure where to go with this one. I think it shows both her lover
>for generations (as if we don't speak the same language) and possibly
>some failure to see students as her peers.
>
>She sees a failure in leadership among her peers that is characterized
>by wielding power clumsily, making decisions without consensus. At
>least that is what she said to me. I'm not sure it squares with what
>appeared in her article.
>
>6) She sees faculty and administrators ("adults") as stewards of the
> university.
>
>Other than the term adults, I can accept this. Those of us that are
>only here for four years have a different perspective and may be less
>able or willing to make decisions that work in the long term.
>
>However, it does show a failure to understand the phenomenon of alumni
>involvement that I know and love.
>
>7) Non-mandatory admissions interviews is a failure, and they are
> coming back next year.
>
>The goal of making them non mandatory was so that students applying at
>the last minute (there are more and more of these, applying after
>being rejected by their early decision school) wouldn't host
>interviews around Christmas time. The belief was that students who
>cared about MIT would do the interview anyways. This has not panned
>out, with very few students interviewing. So the interview will be
>back next year, somehow.
>
>WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE
>
>I still think that she doesn't understand how important it is that we
>remain attractive to the kind of student she claims to want. Informing
>her and the faculty of this is good and that is what I plan to do.
>
>I agree that MIT needs to meet the needs of the students it admits,
>that it has to accept responsibility for turning them into graduates
>it can be proud of and who will continue to by respected by their
>peers in industry and academia and by society at large. I think that
>the way to do this is to force them to become adults in a trial by
>fire. But maybe that is not sufficient.
>
>
>At any rate, I really need to be tooling. I hope I didn't get anything
>overtly wrong. Happy discussion.
>
>tibbetts
>
>PS: The state of mit-talk sucks. I don't want duplicate copies of
>messages, hours late and out of order. I encourage people who really
>want to flame someone and who agree with me to send mail to
>talk-request@mit.edu. I would prefer if discussion of list policies
>didn't come onto the list though.
>
