[109] in UA Discuss
Re: Proposal to allow FSILG housing of second semester freshmen.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mike Bennie)
Sat Jan 2 20:19:52 2010
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 2010 20:19:40 -0500
From: Mike Bennie <mbennie@MIT.EDU>
To: Brian Neltner <neltnerb@mit.edu>
CC: "Liz A. Denys" <lizdenys@mit.edu>, hwkns@mit.edu,
Spencer Williams <spencer8@mit.edu>,
Ashley Nash <trashleynash@gmail.com>, Tim Stumbaugh <stum@mit.edu>,
UA Discuss <ua-discuss@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <1262468363.16639.236.camel@gibbs-duhem>
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------090004030105060402010805
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
While I think this proposal is an interesting idea and has some merit, I
believe that there are some fundamental issues with it. I'd have to
collect some more information before stating a firm opinion, but for the
sake of discussion I want to bring up some of these issues.
When MIT made the decision to house all freshmen on campus, it was not
easy. The administration had to weigh the decision carefully because it
was going to cost MIT millions of dollars in a new dorm (Simmons), go
against student opinion, and alienate an entire generation of FSILG
alumni (and their donations). Maybe I'm being a little pessimistic, but
I highly doubt that after MIT endured all that, that it is going to
suddenly change this policy.
Sororities aren't really a part of this discussion. They are kept at a
very high (if not full) level of occupancy.
In terms of available beds, I've heard numbers between 100 and 150, but
I think it is much closer to the former. MIT cannot crowd fall housing
anymore than it already does. In the past four years, fall housing
crowds have increased significantly from around 80 to 130. There is not
a responsible way to significantly increase the freshmen class size
without building a new dormitory.
I think this will exacerbate a problem in some dorms with floors that
try to build a four-year community. If you are going to move into a
fraternity in four months, then some places would rather fill that room
with someone they can count on to build a hall community. I fear this
could lead to an increase in FSILG freshmen being excluded from dorm
communities which are a big support system the first semester.
Finally, I think this sends the wrong message to FSILGs. If they want to
fill their houses, they should increase their class size such that three
classes creates full occupancy and not four classes. Even if this change
were to occur, that means that about 1/4 of a house would have to be
left open in the fall in anticipation of freshmen moving in after IAP.
This creates the wrong incentive and builds into the system a guarantee
for under-capacity in the fall.
Although there are some drawbacks, I do agree that this could help
alleviate some crowding issues at MIT. This would benefit some FSILGs
that have not increased their class size to adjust to the Freshmen on
Campus decision. If you are looking for a more comprehensive analysis of
the Freshmen on Campus decision's impact on the FSILG system, there is a
great report: Report of the MIT Task Force on Fraternities, Sororities,
and Independent Living Groups: Status and Future Development (available
at http://people.csail.mit.edu/phw/fsilg/final.pdf).
-Mike
Brian Neltner wrote:
> Dear Liz,
>
> Thank you so much for this great response. I think you make a lot of
> excellent points.
>
> To be clear, the proposal is intended to be a "starting point" to get a
> conversation going with MIT. I think that a very easy outcome that would
> end up actually reducing crowding would be for MIT to not increase the
> enrollment of regular students, but instead increase the number of
> accepted spring transfer students.
>
> Currently, MIT is accepting just a handful of transfer students per
> year, but another of the major points mentioned in the taskforce report
> was to increase the number of transfer students. What we are looking at
> is something that would drop the number of students in dorms by roughly
> 100-200 each spring (this could be fine tuned -- based on 4000 students,
> 45% FSILG membership, and 1/8 of the semesters now being off campus,
> with an assumed correction down due to non-residential members). This
> gives MIT an easy way to meet another objective of increasing transfer
> student acceptance rates by as much as 100 without changing the current
> crowding situation *at all*.
>
> Just an idea, I haven't really thought that one through much, very
> interesting idea to bring up, especially in light of MIT's stated
> intention of looking at increasing transfer student enrollment.
>
> Brian Neltner
>
> On Sat, 2010-01-02 at 16:15 -0500, Liz A. Denys wrote:
>
>> The issue is that it doesn't alleviate the housing problem until second
>> semester. This issue is a problem because it could be misconstrued as
>> saying that the current crowding situation (or even a more egregious
>> one) would be okay so long as it is resolved during the second semester.
>> As such, I'm not sure I agree with this reasoning as being in support of
>> this proposal.
>>
>> While I think this would benefit the FSILG community, it leaves MIT,
>> under the current admissions policies, with the choice of overcrowding
>> first term or losing money on dormitories second term. As others have
>> mentioned, this is only viable if we start accepting more second
>> semester transfers or start accepting students for a February start
>> (like Middlebury and some others). It should be noted that implementing
>> either of these would be a very new addition to MIT's current admissions
>> operations. This would be a more significant change than changing the
>> housing policies and might not be in line with MIT's mission, such as by
>> possibly creating a "second-class" student.
>>
>> Also, would this possibly hurt FSILGs who already fill their houses or
>> cause houses to intentionally "underfill" their house first term to
>> accommodate second semester freshman? I think data of some sort should
>> be examined to answer these two questions before presenting it to the
>> administration.
>>
>> I do believe this could be valuable to FSILGs, but I feel it is
>> misconstruing the real motivation and the more powerful arguments in
>> support of the proposal to include the crowding issue. It might be a
>> more viable argument without the inclusion of this "side effect" because
>> as mentioned above, it may hurt MIT's income from dormitory housing.
>>
>> 2 cents,
>> Liz Denys
>>
>> (Note: I am a member of a sorority. However, I doubt this policy will
>> affect sororities; at least mine would not change our housing policy
>> because we cannot have open spaces first semester.)
>>
>> Brian Neltner wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Daniel,
>>>
>>> Thank you so much for your reply, it's really helpful to get all manner
>>> of feedback. Is your concern about the actual proposal, or just the
>>> discussion on the email list?
>>>
>>> I would point out that the actual proposal has this as the introduction.
>>>
>>> "We, the undersigned members of the MIT community, urge the MIT
>>> administration to allow undergraduates to live off campus during the
>>> second semester of their freshman year. This proposal is made in
>>> consideration of:
>>>
>>> 1. The lifelong academic, leadership, and service opportunities provided
>>> to freshmen by residence-based advising such as is found in FSILGs.
>>>
>>> 2. The resolution of safety and risk management concerns which were the
>>> original justification for requiring freshmen to live in dormitories.
>>>
>>> 3. The improvements to mental health and academic outcomes that are the
>>> result of being allowed to live with one's chosen support community
>>> during the challenging experience of taking MIT courses on grades for
>>> the first time.
>>>
>>> 4. The superiority of utilizing existing housing capacity in FSILGs in
>>> the face of rising enrollment, particularly as compared to decreasing
>>> graduate housing, removing undergraduate housing guarantees, or building
>>> redundant housing."
>>>
>>> We very carefully put them in this order, and used the ability to ease
>>> crowding issues as a beneficial side effect of the main proposal only.
>>> We had discussions along those lines while drafting the letter, and
>>> decided similarly that focusing on the practical crowding issues not
>>> only would make MIT appear cynical if they supported it purely for that
>>> reason, but was not as strong of a case as the support system, Dean
>>> Colombo's new initiatives to focus on the freshman year, and the
>>> resolution of the original safety concerns.
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>> Brian Neltner
>>>
>>> On Sat, 2010-01-02 at 14:38 -0600, Daniel Hawkins wrote:
>>>
>>>> Brian (and anyone else chosen to represent this proposal):
>>>>
>>>> PLEASE do not make this about crowding and enrollment. First of all,
>>>> the enrollment issues only begin with housing - there are tons of
>>>> other (worse) problems with adding to the size of the freshman class.
>>>> And second, as others have pointed out, this proposal does not
>>>> actually alleviate crowding; it does not create the opportunity for a
>>>> responsible increase in enrollment.
>>>>
>>>> I know you're just the messenger, and I'm not attacking you
>>>> personally. I also agree that this is probably a good idea. But the
>>>> way it's presented should focus on the supportive community that will
>>>> benefit freshmen. I don't want to see a good idea become the
>>>> administration's justification for doing something stupid.
>>>>
>>>> -hwkns
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 2:03 PM, Spencer Williams <spencer8@mit.edu>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> I am in agreement that second-semester freshman should be
>>>> allowed to live off-campus. First semester provides freshman
>>>> with an opportunity to assimilate into MIT's culture and form
>>>> friendships outside of their respective FSILGs. However, by
>>>> second semester, many freshman, especially those in
>>>> fraternities, are ready to move off-campus, and frequently do
>>>> so despite MIT's policy. This places the FSILGs in the
>>>> uncomfortable position of having to choose between the desires
>>>> of their freshman members and those of MIT, while at the same
>>>> time the dorms are left with empty beds that could be used to
>>>> house actual bodies instead of just names.
>>>>
>>>> The problem I foresee, then, is how MIT plans to accommodate
>>>> the increased enrollment first semester when all freshman
>>>> would be living on campus? One possibility is to allow
>>>> freshman to move off campus during their first semester,
>>>> though this option is likely to be strongly opposed.
>>>> Another possibility that has been mentioned before is to no
>>>> longer guarantee housing for juniors and seniors,
>>>> however, this is an option, like the first, that is likely to
>>>> be widely contested.
>>>>
>>>> Either way, if MIT plans on increasing enrollment, allowing
>>>> freshman to move off-campus second semester is a step in the
>>>> right direction.
>>>>
>>>> -Spencer Williams
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Ashley Nash
>>>> <trashleynash@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I think that letting freshman live off campus for the
>>>> second semester is helpful even though it doesn't
>>>> address the first semester problem. As you pointed
>>>> out, some freshmen move into their FSILG anyway either
>>>> during the first term or for the second term, and this
>>>> is somewhat problematic for the dorm and the FSILG.
>>>> Some dorms have empty slots that they cannot fill
>>>> because MIT believes that they are already full, so
>>>> other dorms are crowded while some dorms have empty
>>>> beds.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Also, the FSILGs can't collect as much revenue as they
>>>> otherwise would, and some of them are hurting
>>>> financially since they cannot fill all of their slots.
>>>> Letting freshman move off campus would help the
>>>> crowding problem a little bit, even if it is only
>>>> legitimizing something that already happens. That
>>>> being said, saying it happens anyway and we may as
>>>> well legitimize it is a bad idea.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ashley
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Tim Stumbaugh
>>>> <stum@mit.edu> wrote:
>>>> This has been floating around the dorm lists,
>>>> so I thought I'd bring it up here.
>>>>
>>>> My thoughts on this are that while it is a
>>>> good idea, it doesn't really address the issue
>>>> of crowding since freshmen will still live on
>>>> campus their first semester. MIT will probably
>>>> not go back to freshmen being allowed to live
>>>> in FSILGs first semester for a /very/ long
>>>> time, if ever, but I think that this is a good
>>>> thing, since it's important for freshmen to
>>>> have a community outside of an FSILG.
>>>> This ... sort of happens already, just
>>>> unofficially (and with an empty/underoccupied
>>>> room as the result).
>>>>
>>>> UA types (including Senate members), what are
>>>> your thoughts on this?
>>>>
>>>> Brian, have you talked with the FSILG
>>>> office/other members of RLA, the AILG or
>>>> IFC/Panhel/LGC about this?
>>>>
>>>> [For full disclosure, Brian was a member of
>>>> TEP while an undergraduate]
>>>>
>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>> Subject: Proposal to allow FSILG housing of
>>>> second semester freshmen.
>>>> Date: Sat, 02 Jan 2010 12:14:50 -0500
>>>> From: Brian Neltner <neltnerb@MIT.EDU>
>>>> To: bc-talk@mit.edu
>>>>
>>>> Dear Burton Conner Residents,
>>>>
>>>> A group of alumni has put together a proposal
>>>> to ask MIT to allow
>>>> second-semester freshmen to live in FSILGs
>>>> (Fraternities, Sororities,
>>>> and Independent Living Groups). I know that to
>>>> many of you this will
>>>> feel irrelevant to your lives, but it *does*
>>>> affect dorm residents.
>>>>
>>>> The full proposal can be found at:
>>>> http://fsilg-housing.org/
>>>>
>>>> MIT is considering increasing enrollment,
>>>> which will unquestionably
>>>> result in overcrowding (even more than is
>>>> currently in place). By
>>>> allowing freshmen to live in FSILGs, MIT can
>>>> increase enrollment without
>>>> increasing crowding -- and overcrowding
>>>> negatively effects the quality
>>>> of life of anyone in a dorm.
>>>>
>>>> From a more philosophical point of view, it's
>>>> not very reasonable for
>>>> freshmen -- adults -- to be prevented from
>>>> living with their support
>>>> community. I'm sure many of you understand how
>>>> difficult the first
>>>> semester on grades is, and understand how
>>>> awful it would be/is to be
>>>> going through that without being able to live
>>>> with your emotional and
>>>> social support community, whether that
>>>> community is a particular suite,
>>>> a dorm hall, a fraternity, sorority, an ILG,
>>>> or even an apartment.
>>>>
>>>> With that in mind, I hope that you will
>>>> consider signing this proposal,
>>>> as well as forwarding it to your alumni list,
>>>> if you have one, or invite
>>>> your friends on facebook to join our advocacy
>>>> group "Allow FSILGs to
>>>> house second-semester freshmen."
>>>>
>>>> The proposal can be found at:
>>>> http://fsilg-housing.org/
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for your time, and I hope everyone
>>>> has a wonderful IAP!
>>>> Brian Neltner
>>>> Class of 2005 -- Course 3 and 8
>>>> Current PhD -- Course 3
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> -Tim
>>>> "It's a picture of perfection."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Massachusetts Institute of Technology Class of 2011
>>>> Department of Economics | Sloan School of Management
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
>
>
--------------090004030105060402010805
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
While I think this proposal is an interesting idea and has some merit,
I believe that there are some fundamental issues with it. I'd have to
collect some more information before stating a firm opinion, but for
the sake of discussion I want to bring up some of these issues.<br>
<br>
When MIT made the decision to house all freshmen on campus, it was not
easy. The administration had to weigh the decision carefully because it
was going to cost MIT millions of dollars in a new dorm (Simmons), go
against student opinion, and alienate an entire generation of FSILG
alumni (and their donations). Maybe I'm being a little pessimistic, but
I highly doubt that after MIT endured all that, that it is going to
suddenly change this policy. <br>
<br>
Sororities aren't really a part of this discussion. They are kept at a
very high (if not full) level of occupancy. <br>
<br>
In terms of available beds, I've heard numbers between 100 and 150, but
I think it is much closer to the former. MIT cannot crowd fall housing
anymore than it already does. In the past four years, fall housing
crowds have increased significantly from around 80 to 130. There is not
a responsible way to significantly increase the freshmen class size
without building a new dormitory.<br>
<br>
I think this will exacerbate a problem in some dorms with floors that
try to build a four-year community. If you are going to move into a
fraternity in four months, then some places would rather fill that room
with someone they can count on to build a hall community. I fear this
could lead to an increase in FSILG freshmen being excluded from dorm
communities which are a big support system the first semester.<br>
<br>
Finally, I think this sends the wrong message to FSILGs. If they want
to fill their houses, they should increase their class size such that
three classes creates full occupancy and not four classes. Even if this
change were to occur, that means that about 1/4 of a house would have
to be left open in the fall in anticipation of freshmen moving in after
IAP. This creates the wrong incentive and builds into the system a
guarantee for under-capacity in the fall.<br>
<br>
Although there are some drawbacks, I do agree that this could help
alleviate some crowding issues at MIT. This would benefit some FSILGs
that have not increased their class size to adjust to the Freshmen on
Campus decision. If you are looking for a more comprehensive analysis
of the Freshmen on Campus decision's impact on the FSILG system, there
is a great report: Report of the MIT Task Force on Fraternities,
Sororities, and Independent Living Groups: Status and Future
Development (available at <a
href="http://people.csail.mit.edu/phw/fsilg/final.pdf">http://people.csail.mit.edu/phw/fsilg/final.pdf</a>).<br>
<br>
-Mike<br>
<br>
Brian Neltner wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:1262468363.16639.236.camel@gibbs-duhem"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Dear Liz,
Thank you so much for this great response. I think you make a lot of
excellent points.
To be clear, the proposal is intended to be a "starting point" to get a
conversation going with MIT. I think that a very easy outcome that would
end up actually reducing crowding would be for MIT to not increase the
enrollment of regular students, but instead increase the number of
accepted spring transfer students.
Currently, MIT is accepting just a handful of transfer students per
year, but another of the major points mentioned in the taskforce report
was to increase the number of transfer students. What we are looking at
is something that would drop the number of students in dorms by roughly
100-200 each spring (this could be fine tuned -- based on 4000 students,
45% FSILG membership, and 1/8 of the semesters now being off campus,
with an assumed correction down due to non-residential members). This
gives MIT an easy way to meet another objective of increasing transfer
student acceptance rates by as much as 100 without changing the current
crowding situation *at all*.
Just an idea, I haven't really thought that one through much, very
interesting idea to bring up, especially in light of MIT's stated
intention of looking at increasing transfer student enrollment.
Brian Neltner
On Sat, 2010-01-02 at 16:15 -0500, Liz A. Denys wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The issue is that it doesn't alleviate the housing problem until second
semester. This issue is a problem because it could be misconstrued as
saying that the current crowding situation (or even a more egregious
one) would be okay so long as it is resolved during the second semester.
As such, I'm not sure I agree with this reasoning as being in support of
this proposal.
While I think this would benefit the FSILG community, it leaves MIT,
under the current admissions policies, with the choice of overcrowding
first term or losing money on dormitories second term. As others have
mentioned, this is only viable if we start accepting more second
semester transfers or start accepting students for a February start
(like Middlebury and some others). It should be noted that implementing
either of these would be a very new addition to MIT's current admissions
operations. This would be a more significant change than changing the
housing policies and might not be in line with MIT's mission, such as by
possibly creating a "second-class" student.
Also, would this possibly hurt FSILGs who already fill their houses or
cause houses to intentionally "underfill" their house first term to
accommodate second semester freshman? I think data of some sort should
be examined to answer these two questions before presenting it to the
administration.
I do believe this could be valuable to FSILGs, but I feel it is
misconstruing the real motivation and the more powerful arguments in
support of the proposal to include the crowding issue. It might be a
more viable argument without the inclusion of this "side effect" because
as mentioned above, it may hurt MIT's income from dormitory housing.
2 cents,
Liz Denys
(Note: I am a member of a sorority. However, I doubt this policy will
affect sororities; at least mine would not change our housing policy
because we cannot have open spaces first semester.)
Brian Neltner wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Dear Daniel,
Thank you so much for your reply, it's really helpful to get all manner
of feedback. Is your concern about the actual proposal, or just the
discussion on the email list?
I would point out that the actual proposal has this as the introduction.
"We, the undersigned members of the MIT community, urge the MIT
administration to allow undergraduates to live off campus during the
second semester of their freshman year. This proposal is made in
consideration of:
1. The lifelong academic, leadership, and service opportunities provided
to freshmen by residence-based advising such as is found in FSILGs.
2. The resolution of safety and risk management concerns which were the
original justification for requiring freshmen to live in dormitories.
3. The improvements to mental health and academic outcomes that are the
result of being allowed to live with one's chosen support community
during the challenging experience of taking MIT courses on grades for
the first time.
4. The superiority of utilizing existing housing capacity in FSILGs in
the face of rising enrollment, particularly as compared to decreasing
graduate housing, removing undergraduate housing guarantees, or building
redundant housing."
We very carefully put them in this order, and used the ability to ease
crowding issues as a beneficial side effect of the main proposal only.
We had discussions along those lines while drafting the letter, and
decided similarly that focusing on the practical crowding issues not
only would make MIT appear cynical if they supported it purely for that
reason, but was not as strong of a case as the support system, Dean
Colombo's new initiatives to focus on the freshman year, and the
resolution of the original safety concerns.
Sincerely,
Brian Neltner
On Sat, 2010-01-02 at 14:38 -0600, Daniel Hawkins wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Brian (and anyone else chosen to represent this proposal):
PLEASE do not make this about crowding and enrollment. First of all,
the enrollment issues only begin with housing - there are tons of
other (worse) problems with adding to the size of the freshman class.
And second, as others have pointed out, this proposal does not
actually alleviate crowding; it does not create the opportunity for a
responsible increase in enrollment.
I know you're just the messenger, and I'm not attacking you
personally. I also agree that this is probably a good idea. But the
way it's presented should focus on the supportive community that will
benefit freshmen. I don't want to see a good idea become the
administration's justification for doing something stupid.
-hwkns
On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 2:03 PM, Spencer Williams <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:spencer8@mit.edu"><spencer8@mit.edu></a>
wrote:
I am in agreement that second-semester freshman should be
allowed to live off-campus. First semester provides freshman
with an opportunity to assimilate into MIT's culture and form
friendships outside of their respective FSILGs. However, by
second semester, many freshman, especially those in
fraternities, are ready to move off-campus, and frequently do
so despite MIT's policy. This places the FSILGs in the
uncomfortable position of having to choose between the desires
of their freshman members and those of MIT, while at the same
time the dorms are left with empty beds that could be used to
house actual bodies instead of just names.
The problem I foresee, then, is how MIT plans to accommodate
the increased enrollment first semester when all freshman
would be living on campus? One possibility is to allow
freshman to move off campus during their first semester,
though this option is likely to be strongly opposed.
Another possibility that has been mentioned before is to no
longer guarantee housing for juniors and seniors,
however, this is an option, like the first, that is likely to
be widely contested.
Either way, if MIT plans on increasing enrollment, allowing
freshman to move off-campus second semester is a step in the
right direction.
-Spencer Williams
On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Ashley Nash
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:trashleynash@gmail.com"><trashleynash@gmail.com></a> wrote:
I think that letting freshman live off campus for the
second semester is helpful even though it doesn't
address the first semester problem. As you pointed
out, some freshmen move into their FSILG anyway either
during the first term or for the second term, and this
is somewhat problematic for the dorm and the FSILG.
Some dorms have empty slots that they cannot fill
because MIT believes that they are already full, so
other dorms are crowded while some dorms have empty
beds.
Also, the FSILGs can't collect as much revenue as they
otherwise would, and some of them are hurting
financially since they cannot fill all of their slots.
Letting freshman move off campus would help the
crowding problem a little bit, even if it is only
legitimizing something that already happens. That
being said, saying it happens anyway and we may as
well legitimize it is a bad idea.
Ashley
On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Tim Stumbaugh
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:stum@mit.edu"><stum@mit.edu></a> wrote:
This has been floating around the dorm lists,
so I thought I'd bring it up here.
My thoughts on this are that while it is a
good idea, it doesn't really address the issue
of crowding since freshmen will still live on
campus their first semester. MIT will probably
not go back to freshmen being allowed to live
in FSILGs first semester for a /very/ long
time, if ever, but I think that this is a good
thing, since it's important for freshmen to
have a community outside of an FSILG.
This ... sort of happens already, just
unofficially (and with an empty/underoccupied
room as the result).
UA types (including Senate members), what are
your thoughts on this?
Brian, have you talked with the FSILG
office/other members of RLA, the AILG or
IFC/Panhel/LGC about this?
[For full disclosure, Brian was a member of
TEP while an undergraduate]
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Proposal to allow FSILG housing of
second semester freshmen.
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 2010 12:14:50 -0500
From: Brian Neltner <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:neltnerb@MIT.EDU"><neltnerb@MIT.EDU></a>
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bc-talk@mit.edu">bc-talk@mit.edu</a>
Dear Burton Conner Residents,
A group of alumni has put together a proposal
to ask MIT to allow
second-semester freshmen to live in FSILGs
(Fraternities, Sororities,
and Independent Living Groups). I know that to
many of you this will
feel irrelevant to your lives, but it *does*
affect dorm residents.
The full proposal can be found at:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://fsilg-housing.org/">http://fsilg-housing.org/</a>
MIT is considering increasing enrollment,
which will unquestionably
result in overcrowding (even more than is
currently in place). By
allowing freshmen to live in FSILGs, MIT can
increase enrollment without
increasing crowding -- and overcrowding
negatively effects the quality
of life of anyone in a dorm.
From a more philosophical point of view, it's
not very reasonable for
freshmen -- adults -- to be prevented from
living with their support
community. I'm sure many of you understand how
difficult the first
semester on grades is, and understand how
awful it would be/is to be
going through that without being able to live
with your emotional and
social support community, whether that
community is a particular suite,
a dorm hall, a fraternity, sorority, an ILG,
or even an apartment.
With that in mind, I hope that you will
consider signing this proposal,
as well as forwarding it to your alumni list,
if you have one, or invite
your friends on facebook to join our advocacy
group "Allow FSILGs to
house second-semester freshmen."
The proposal can be found at:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://fsilg-housing.org/">http://fsilg-housing.org/</a>
Thank you for your time, and I hope everyone
has a wonderful IAP!
Brian Neltner
Class of 2005 -- Course 3 and 8
Current PhD -- Course 3
--
-Tim
"It's a picture of perfection."
--
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Class of 2011
Department of Economics | Sloan School of Management
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>
--------------090004030105060402010805--
