[111] in UA Discuss
Re: Proposal to allow FSILG housing of second semester freshmen.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Liz A. Denys)
Sun Jan 3 19:04:54 2010
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 2010 19:04:14 -0500
From: "Liz A. Denys" <lizdenys@MIT.EDU>
To: Mike Bennie <mbennie@mit.edu>
CC: Brian Neltner <neltnerb@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: <4B3FF0AC.8030102@mit.edu>
Stating this is partially about crowding only complicates your proposal.
It complicates it to a very high degree, one which /may/ make it weaker.
After all, MIT /has/ already increased enrollment; the class of 2013 has
~70 more members than that of 2010. This is what created the crowding in
the first place. The idea of increasing transfers, creating "3+2"
programs, etc. will take careful thought and planning, and as such, I
believe it is more of a long-term plan to help to correct for the
pairing of increased enrollment with increased crowding.
Disregarding the enrollment/crowding issue, I believe their are pros and
cons to the idea of letting second-semester freshman move off campus on
its own merit. I see both, and I'm really not sure quite where I stand
on that issue in and of itself at this time. However, I think that
you'll actually get meaningful discussion of these pros and cons, i.e.
the true issue at hand, if increasing enrollment/decreasing crowding
stops being so central to the issue.
Maybe increasing enrollment is good for MIT. But that is a highly
complicated issue and largely separate from the one you are presenting.
It is also mentioned that it decreases crowding second term, but as that
alone does not truly solve a problem, rather it masks a problem for half
of the year, such discussion also complicates the discussion of the
proposal to allow second semester freshman to move off campus. The
impact of second semester freshman having the option to move off campus
on both of these issues has its pluses, but also involves lots of
complications which have the possibility to harm MIT in the eyes of the
administration and/or students more than the added freedom of choice
offered by the proposal.
Also, you may have noticed that there is much less opposition to your
proposal on the grounds of the freedom of choice and ability to
strengthen FSILG culture. (Though, I should mention that I believe it is
likely not in a house's /best/ interest to possibly expect to not fill
their house for half a year.) The benefits such a proposal would have on
FSILG culture seems to be what students are looking to get out of this,
and this should be where the discussion is focused.
Administrators will certainly want to hear about the "side effects" of
such a proposal, such as the impact on crowding, but yourself and others
have demonstrated their understanding of this. That's important in
discussing the proposal, but these "side effects" are very convoluted
and orthogonal to the guts of the proposal itself. Plus, the
administration realizes that there are plenty of other (often simpler)
ways to increase enrollment/decrease crowding (e.g. admitting transfers
without guaranteeing housing at all while decreasing the initial
freshman class size), so it is not necessarily that enticing of a side
effect in their minds.
It's good to have these issues in mind, but one doesn't outline side
effects as a part of the primary reasons one wants something. Especially
when they are outshined in the eyes of the proposers by the direct
reasons for such a change and when such side effects can be achieved
through alternate, simpler means.
-Liz Denys
Mike Bennie wrote:
> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
