review of the undergraduate withdrawal and readmission...

ReviewoftheUndergraduateWithdrawalandReadmissionPracticesMassachusettsInstituteofTechnology

Fall2015-2016

SummaryInSeptember2015,ChancellorCynthiaBarnhartchargedtheCommitteeonAcademicPerformance(CAP)andtheOfficeoftheDeanforUndergraduateEducation(DUE)withreviewingMIT’swithdrawalandreadmissionprocesses.DuringtheFallSemesterof2015,theCAPconductedthisreview.Intheprocess,itmetwithnearlytwentystakeholdergroups,conductedasurveyofrecentlyreadmittedMITundergraduates,reviewedcorrespondingpoliciesatpeerinstitutions,andmetninetimestodiscussitsfindingsandrecommendations.WefoundthatthoseresponsibleforimplementingMIT’swithdrawalandreadmissionsprocessesdosoinacaring,organized,andprofessionalmanner.Manystudentsreportpositiveexperienceswithwithdrawalandreadmission,evenwhenwithdrawalshavebeenrequiredduetopooracademicperformance.Approximately130studentswithdrawfromMITeachyearandapproximately100aregrantedreadmission,whichindicatesthatstudentswhowithdraw,evenunderdifficultcircumstances,generallyreturnandfinishtheirdegrees.1Nonetheless,wealsofoundthatpoliciesrelatedtowithdrawalandreadmissionareoftenmisunderstoodandthatcommunicationsareineffective.Studentsexpressedconfusion,fear,andangeraboutcertainaspectsofthewithdrawalandreadmissionprocesses.Somestudentswerereluctanttowithdrawwhenitwasappropriate,outoffeartheywouldnotbereadmitted.Studentsexpressedconcernthatdecisionsabouttheirwithdrawalandreadmissionapplicationsaremadewithoutdueregardfortheirparticularcircumstances.TheOfficeofStudentSupportServices(S3)wasseenasplayingconflictingroles,asbothasupportforstudentsandarbiteroftheirreturn.Becauseoffindingssuchasthese,wemakeaseriesofrecommendations,withtheexpectationthattheywillmaketheseprocessesmoreopen,lessuncertain,andeasiertonavigateforstudents.Amongthemanyrecommendationsmadeinthisreport,thefollowingarethemostfundamental:

1. Allundergraduatestudents,onceadmittedbyMIT,remainmembersoftheMITcommunityandarepresumedtobeeligibletoreturnasstudents,evenwhentheywithdraw.WhenastudentdepartsMITinthemiddleofasemesterbecauseofamedicalcrisisorbecausethestudent’sacademicperformancewarrantsatimeawaytoregainhisorherbearings,MITstillexpectsthestudenttoreturn(ifheorshewants)andfinishthedegree.TheInstitutemustcommunicatethisclearlytoallstudents,boththoseregisteredandthosewhohavetakenwithdrawal.

1Approximately150studentsapplyforreadmissionannually.Studentundergoingthereadmissionprocessforthefirsttimehaveasuccessrateof65-75%,andmoststudentsarereadmittedonsubsequentattempts.

2. TheInstituteshouldnolongerspeakof“withdrawal”and“readmission”butof“leave”and“return.”Thesechangesofnomenclaturenotonlybettercommunicatethesepoliciestostudentsandtheoutsideworld,theyreflectbetterthephilosophythatshouldguidehowMITthinksabouttakingtimeawayfromtheInstitute.

3. TheInstituteshouldcreateastatusof“leaveofabsence”thatwouldallowstudentstointerrupttheirstudiesforuptotwoyearsandthenreturnwithoutsubstantialbureaucraticbarriers.Theleaveofabsence,whichcouldbetakenonceduringastudent’sacademiccareer,maybeusedforavarietyofreasons,includingpartakinginmeritoriousopportunities,fulfillingpersonalobligations,orsimplyclearingone’shead.

4. TheCAPshouldmovetowardamodelofdecisionmakingaboutreturnsfollowingleavesthatclearlyseparatesthestudent-supportroleofS3fromthedecisionmakingroleoftheCAP.Thelogisticalhurdlestoachievingthisgoalaresubstantial,andwillrequiretheCAPtoexperimentwithnewmodesofoperatingtomakethishappen.

5. PoliciesaboutinvokinginvoluntarymedicalwithdrawalandpsychiatrichospitalizationareunclearandshouldbereviewedbyacommitteechargedbytheChancellor.Independentofthatreview,involuntarymedicalwithdrawalshouldneverbeusedtocoercestudentsintotakingavoluntaryleave.ThisattitudemustbecommunicatedandreinforcedthroughouttheInstitute.

ChargetotheCommitteefromtheChancellorInSeptember2015,ChancellorCynthiaBarnhartwrotealettertotheMITCommunityoutliningnewstepstoenhancementalhealthandwellnesssupportatMIT.Inthisletter,theChancellorstated“…studentshaveexpressedconcernsabouttheclarity,transparency,andfairnessofexisting(withdrawalandreadmission)policies,andaboutthelevelofsupportforstudentswhotaketimeawayandtransitionbacktoMIT.”TheChancellorlistenedtofeedbackfromthecommunityaboutthepoliciesduringinformalconversationwithstudentsandfromaformalreportbytheCommitteeonStudentLife,whoengagedinanextensiveconversationaboutthistopicduringthe2014-2015academicyear.ShechargedtheCAPandDUEwithgatheringfeedbackfromstudentsandfaculty,andrecommendchangestobolsterandclarifyourpolicies,whichhadnotbeenformallyreviewedsince2010.

ProcessofOurReviewTheCAPandtheDUEreceivedthechargeofChancellorBarnhartinSeptember2015.TheChairoftheCAP(ProfessorCharlesStewartIII)andthedean(ProfessorDennisFreeman)agreedthattheCAPwouldbedirectlyresponsibleforimplementingthechargeoftheChancellor.ThereviewitselfbeganatameetingoftheCAPattheendofSeptember2015;thisreportwasfinalizedinMarch2016.

Inadditiontotheoutreachactivitiesoutlinedbelow,theCAPhadninemeetingsonthetopic,beginningintheFallsemesterandendingatthebeginningoftheSpringterm,inwhichthecriticalissueswerediscussed.BecausethewithdrawalandreadmissionprocessesarecomplexandintersectwithmanypeopleandofficesacrosstheInstitute,theCAPdecidedattheonsetofitsreviewtoconsultwithabroadvarietyofstakeholders,includingthefollowing:

● AllreadmittedstudentscurrentlyatMIT● CommitteeonStudentLife● ChairoftheFaculty● FormerChairsoftheCAP● Housemasters● MITMedicalDepartment● MITMentalHealthandCounseling● OfficeofMinorityEducation(OME)FacultyAdvisoryCommittee● OMEStudentAdvisoryCouncil● Panhellenic,InterfraternityCouncil,andDormCon(tworepresentativesfromeachgroup)● SeniorleadersintheDivisionofStudentLife(DSL)● StudentsatMITAlliedforStudentHealth(SMASH)board● StudentSupportServicesDeans● UndergraduateAdministrators● UndergraduateAdvisingandAcademicProgramming(UAAP)StudentAdvisoryBoard● UndergraduateAssociation’sWellnesssub-committee● UndergraduateOfficers

Inmostcases,feedbackfromthesestakeholdergroupswasgatheredinaface-to-facemeetingwithmembersoftheCAP.Generally,atleastonestudentandonenon-studentmembermetwitheachgroup.FeedbackfromreadmittedstudentscurrentlyatMITwasreceivedinthreeways.First,allcurrently-enrolledreadmittedstudentsweresentananonymoussurvey(23%responserate).Second,everystudentwasinvitedtoafocusgroupdiscussionabouthisorherexperiencesledbyafacultyandstudentmemberoftheCAP.Third,anyMITstudentswhowantedtosharetheiropinionsprivatelywereofferedtheopportunitytomeetwithamemberoftheCAP.Inadditiontotheformalinterviewslisted,students’opinionsandexperiencesweresolicited,andstudentswereconsultedonthefinalrecommendations.TheCAPChairStewartandDeanFreemanco-wrotetwoarticlesintheTheTechaboutthereviewprocess.Thecommunitywasinvitedtosharetheirideasviaemail.Thecommitteelistenedtostudentleaders,studentswhohadbeenthroughthewithdrawalandreadmissionprocesses,andstudentswhohadnodirectexperiencewithwithdrawalorreadmission,butstillhadaninterestintheissue.AspartofournewlyformedpartnershipwiththeJedFoundation,2thecommitteealsoconsultedwiththemaboutgeneralbestpracticesregardingleavesandreturn.

2TheJedFoundationisanorganizationdedicatedtopromotingemotionalhealthandpreventsuicideamongcollegestudents.

Itshouldbenotedthatinformationgatheringwithstudentsbeganlongbeforethisreviewwasannounced.The2014–2015academicyearwaschallengingfortheMITcommunity,withthreeundergraduatestudentsuicides,andconcernsaboutthewithdrawalandreadmissionprocesses.Manyconversationswerehadwithgroupsofstudents,includinganActiveMindseventonMarch2015inwhichthecommunitywasinvitedtolearnandaskquestionsaboutthewithdrawalandreadmissionprocesses.ThefacultyCommitteeonStudentLifealsoconductedareviewofthewithdrawalandreadmissionprocessduringtheacademicyearandissuedareportthatemphasizedtheimportanceofcommunicatingwithstudentswhohadwithdrawninamoresensitivefashion.SurveyofReadmittedStudents—SummaryofResultsTheCAPbelievedthatitwouldbeimportanttosurveyallrecentlyreadmittedstudents,togaintheirperspectivesonhowtheprocessiscurrentlyfunctioning.Itwasfeltnecessarytoconductasurveybothtogiveavoicetostudentswhowouldfeelreluctanttosharepubliclytheirexperienceswiththewithdrawalandreadmissionprocess,andtoprovideabaselineagainstwhichtoevaluatetheseprocessesinthefuture.Therefore,asurveywassenttoallcurrentlyenrolledMITundergraduateswhohadatsometimeinthepastbeenreadmittedtotheInstitute.Thesurveyconsistedof17questions(4Likert-stylequestions,10open-endedquestions,and3demographicquestions),andwasdividedintofoursections:thewithdrawalprocess,timeawayfromtheInstitute,thereadmissionprocess,andthereturntoMIT.Itwassentoutviae-mailtoalistservof194currentstudentswhohavereturnedfromwithdrawals;45studentsresponded(responserateof23%).Sixteenoftherespondentshadbeenonvoluntarywithdrawal,20onmedicalwithdrawal,and9onrequiredwithdrawal.Whiletheresponseratewasrelativelylow,whichmeanswecannottreattheresponsesasbeingrepresentativeofallreturnedstudents,theresponsesdidprovideimportantinsightsaboutwithdrawalandreadmission,astheyarecurrentlyexperienced.Answerstotheopen-endedquestionsinthesurveyhavebeenincorporatedintothefeedbackgivenduringthemeetings,andareincludedinthe“FindingsandRecommendations”sectionbelow.Wehavereporteddetailsabouttheclosed-endedquestionsintheappendixtothisreport,butwehaveincludedthegraphicalsummaryoftheresultsbelow.Pleasenotethatthenumberstotheleftofthegraphsareactualnumbersratherthanpercentagesofstudentrespondents.

05101520253035

Negative SomewhatNegative

Neutral SomewhatPositive

Positive

OverallImpressionoftheWithdrawalProcess

05101520253035

Positive

OverallImpressionofResourcesWhileAway

05101520253035

Positive

OverallImpressionoftheReadmissionProcess

InformationfromPeerInstitutionsInadditiontoreceivingfeedbackfrommembersoftheMITcommunity,particularlystudents,weconcludedthatitwasimportanttosurveypeerinstitutions,tolearnhowtheyhandlewhatMITcallswithdrawalandreadmission.AlthoughMITisadistinctlearningenvironmentamongeliteuniversitiesintheUnitedStates,muchcanbelearnedfromhowourpeershandletheseprocesses,sincethestudentsatthoseinstitutionsfacemanyofthesamepressuresandopportunitiesconfrontingMITstudents.Thereweretwomajorgoalsinthissurvey:first,tobenchmarkMITagainstthepracticesofpeerinstitutionsand,second,toascertainwhethertherewerebestpracticesattheseinstitutionsfromwhichwecouldlearn.ThesurveyofthepracticesatpeerinstitutionswasconductedbytheAssociateDeanforS3,Dr.DavidRandall,whoreviewedtheirpoliciesonlineandspokebyphonetoknowledgeablestaff.3Furthermore,wetookanespeciallycloselookatYaleUniversity,whichrecentlyconductedsimilarstudentandadministrativereviewswhenconcernsaroseabouttheirwithdrawalandreadmissionprocesses.4Thisresearchrevealedthatthereisnoonesinglewaythatwithdrawalsandreadmissionsarehandledatinstitutionsweregardasourpeers.Ourpoliciestendtobeontheconservativeendofthespectrum,thatis,MITtendstobemuchmorerestrictiveinsettingexpectationsandrequirementsforreturn.Ontheotherhand,ourhealthinsurancepolicyisgenerousincomparison.Furthermore,whilewereadmit65-75%ofallapplicantswhoapplyinaparticularyear,mostofourpeersreadmitallstudents,withrareexception.

3ThisreviewincludedCaltech,Chicago,Harvard,Yale,Stanford,andPrinceton.4Studentreport:http://www.ycc.yale.edu/files/2015/06/YCC-Withdrawal-Policies-25ncxs2.pdfAdministration’sreport:http://yalecollege.yale.edu/faculty-staff/faculty/policies-reports/report-yale-college-withdrawal-and-readmission-review

05101520253035

Positive

OverallImpressionoftheReturntoMIT

However,wedidlearnthatatourpeerinstitutions,theterm“withdrawal”tendstoimplyapermanentseparationfromtheuniversity,whiletheterm“leave”isusedtoindicateatemporarydeparture.This,ofcourse,iscontrarytoMIT’scurrentpractice,inwhichtheterm“withdrawal”appliestoallseparations,permanentortemporary.Mostoftheschoolswespoketoinvolvedafacultycommitteeandadean’sofficeinthewithdrawalandreadmissionprocesses,andmosthaveaninvoluntarywithdrawalpolicythatisoverseenbyadean.Moreover,proratingtuitionisstandardpractice,asisanexpectationthatstudentswholeavetheuniversityduringthetermhave72hourstovacatestudenthousing.Mostschoolsrequiretherebeseparationfromtheschooluponwithdrawal.Thatis,studentsgenerallyarenotallowedtolive,work,orparticipateinstudentactivitiesoncampus.

BackgroundofCurrentPoliciesWebeginthesubstanceofourreportbyreviewingcurrentwithdrawalandreadmissionpolicies.Thisoverviewisbasedonareviewofdocumentsthatdescribethepolicies,inadditiontooralreportsgivenbythoseinvolvedintheimplementationofthesepolicies.WithdrawalsfromtheInstituteTherearecurrentlysevencategoriesofactionsusedbytheInstituteforstudentswholeavebeforereceivingtheirdegree:voluntarywithdrawal,medicalwithdrawal,academicrequiredwithdrawal,failuretoregister(“noshows”),involuntarymedicalwithdrawal,disciplinarysuspension,anddisciplinaryexpulsion.Thenoshow,suspension,andexpulsionprocesseswereoutsidethechargeofourreview.However,intheinterestofdescribingthefullsetofreasonswhyMITstudentsleavetheInstitutebeforegraduating,webrieflydescribeeachcategoryhere,notingwhereresponsibilityliesfortheadministrationandoversightoftheseprocesses.

1. Voluntarywithdrawalsareintendedforstudentswhowishtotaketimeawayfornon-medicalreasons,suchasparticipatinginaneducationalorpersonalgrowthexperience(e.g.,internship,serviceexperience,orreligiousmission)orattendingtopersonalorfamilycircumstances(e.g.,deathofaparent).Underthetermsofavoluntarywithdrawal,astudentmustgenerallytakeatleastonefullsemesterawayfromMITandmustbereadmittedtoMITbytheCAPbeforeregisteringagain.5

5A“fullsemester”isdefinedbyadddate.Thatis,ifastudentwithdrawsonorbeforeadddate,theyareeligibletorequestreturnforthefollowingsemester.Iftheywithdrawafteradddate,theyneedtoremainoutofMITforthefollowingsemester.Studentsareabletowithdrawupuntilthelastdayofthesemester.About45voluntarywithdrawalsareprocessedeveryyear.

2. Medicalwithdrawals6areintendedforstudentswho,becauseofreasonspertainingtophysicalormentalhealth,areunabletomakesatisfactoryprogresstowardsmeetingInstitutegraduationrequirements.Underthetermsofamedicalwithdrawal,astudentmustgenerallytakeatleastonefullsemesterawayfromMIT(definedinthesamewayasvoluntarywithdrawal),andcompletetheprescribedcourseoftreatmentbeforebeingconsideredforreadmission.Aswithvoluntarywithdrawals,studentswhohavetakenmedicalwithdrawalmustbereadmittedtoMITbytheCAPbeforeregisteringagain.About55medicalwithdrawalsareprocessedeveryyear.

3. RequiredwithdrawalsforacademicreasonsarebasedonavotebytheCAPtakenatitsend-of-termmeetingsattheendoftheFallandSpringterms,aspartofitsresponsibilityto“reviewtheacademicrecordsofundergraduatestudentsandtotakeappropriateactioninthenameoftheFaculty.”7Undercurrentpractices,studentswhoarerequiredtowithdrawforacademicreasonsmustgenerallybeawayforatleastoneacademicyear(tworegularterms)beforetheyarepermittedtoapplytotheCAPforreadmissiontotheInstitute.Underthetermsofarequiredwithdrawal,astudentisgenerallyexpectedtotakeatleasttwoconsecutivesemestersofchallengingcoursesatanothercollegeoruniversity,receivinggradesofBorbetter.TheCAPvotestorequireanaverageof20–30studentstowithdrawforacademicreasonseachyear.

4. Thenoshowdesignationisreservedforstudentswhodonotregisterforthesemesterbyadddate,butwhoareotherwiseeligibletoregister.ThisisacategorythatallowstheInstitutetoaccountforthestatusofallstudentswhoareeligibletoregister.Generally,fewerthan5studentsaredesignatednoshoweachterm.StudentswhoaredesignatedasnoshowsmustbereadmittedtotheInstitutebytheCAPbeforebeingallowedtoregisteragain.

5. Involuntarymedicalwithdrawalisintendedforastudentwhoposesasignificantrisktothehealthorsafetyofselforothers,and/orwhenitisestablishedthatastudentisunabletofunctionacademicallyorparticipateincampuslife.8Thecircumstancesthatcouldleadtotheinvoluntarymedicalwithdrawalinclude,butarenotlimitedto,aninabilitytocompleteormakesatisfactoryprogresstowardsacademicrequirements.Inaddition,astudentmaybeplacedoninvoluntarywithdrawalformedicalreasons,ifastudentdoesnotcooperatewithefforts,deemednecessarybytheInstitute,todetermineifthestudentposesasignificantrisktothehealthorsafetyofselforothers.Todate,MIThasneverprocessedaninvoluntarywithdrawal.However,aswediscussbelow,thecircumstancessurroundingotherwithdrawalprocessesgivetheimpressionthatinvoluntarymedicalwithdrawalsare

6 Thejuxtapositionofthesetwowithdrawalcategories—“voluntary”and“medical”withdrawalshighlights oneunfortunateconsequenceoftheterminologycurrentlyusedtolabeltypesofwithdrawalsattheInstitute,tothedegreethatitisincorrectlyimpliedthatmedicalwithdrawalsareinvoluntary.Werevisitthisimportantpointbelow. 7MIT,RulesandRegulationsoftheFaculty,§1.73.5.c.8http://mit.edu/uaap/s3/withdrawals/medwithd_policy.html.

common,oriftheyarenotcommon,thestatusisusedtocoercestudentstowithdrawvoluntarily.

6. ThefinaltwocategoriesareoverseenbytheCommitteeonDiscipline(COD).Thesedisciplinarywithdraws,aswellastheentireCODprocess,havebeensubjecttoregularreviewovertheyears.Thelastcomprehensivereviewofthedisciplinesystemwasdonein2005andwaspublishedintheGibsonReport.9Thereviewofsuspensionsandexpulsionswereoutsidethescopeofourcharge,andwehavenofurthercommentstomakeabouttheprocesses.

a. Adisciplinarysuspensionistheremoval“ofastudentfromtheInstituteforadefinedperiodoftime”fordisciplinaryreasons,throughavotetakenbytheCOD.10StudentswhoaresuspendedfromMITmustbereadmittedtotheInstitutethroughaprocessoverseenbytheCOD.

b. Disciplinaryexpulsionsisthe“permanentseparationofastudentfromMIT”fordisciplinaryreasons,throughavotetakenbytheCOD.11

TheDUEisresponsibleforoverseeingallwithdrawals,evenwhendecisionsaboutthestatusaremadebytheCAP(requiredwithdrawals).TheDUEhasdelegatedtheday-to-dayadministrationofwithdrawalstoS3.SuspensionsandexpulsionsareoverseenbytheCOD,andtheDeanofStudentLife(DSL)hasdelegatedtheadministrationofsuspensionsandexpulsionstotheOfficeofStudentCitizenship(OSC).

Readmission

Asnotedpreviously,therearesevenwaysthatastudentcanleavetheInstitutebeforereceivingadegree.Inallcases,theRulesoftheFacultyrequirethatastudentwhohasinterruptedhisorherstudiesapplyforreadmissiontotheInstitute.Inthissection,wedescribethereadmissionprocess.BecausethechargetotheCAPexcludeddisciplinarysuspensionsandexpulsions,wedonotaddressreadmissionsfollowingdisciplinaryactionshere.

TheMITRulesoftheFacultyprovidethattheCAP“shallactwithpower...onapplicationsforreadmissionattheundergraduatelevelafteravoluntary,medical,orrequiredwithdrawal.”12TheCAPhasexercisedthisauthorityformanydecadesinclosecooperationwithS3anditspredecessors.Thereadmissionprocesshasbeenreviewedregularlyinthattime.Thelastreviewof

9ThefulltextoftheGibsonreportcanbefoundhere:http://web.mit.edu/faculty/reports/pdf/disciplinereport.pdf.Morerecently,theCODissuedacomprehensivereportconcerningthehandlingofstudentsexualmisconductcomplaints.TheCOD’srecommendationsmaybefoundhere:http://cod.mit.edu/sites/default/files/documents/COD-Task-Force-Recommendations-Summary-4-17-2015.pdf.10MIT,CODRulesandRegulations,§11.C.i.11MIT,CODRulesandRegulations,§11.D.i.12MIT,RulesandRegulationsoftheFaculty,§1.73.5.b.

thereadmissionprocessoccurredintheSpring2010.Thefollowingdescriptionofthereadmissionprocessreflectsproceduresthathavebeeninplacesincethen.ThereadmissionprocesshasbeendesignedtoverifythatstudentsarereadytoresumesuccessfulworkatMIT.Thismeansthatstudentsmustdemonstratethattheyfulfilledtherequirementsdiscussedduringtheirwithdrawalprocess,whichmayincludemedicaltreatment,rigorouscoursework,ormeritoriouswork.Generalrequirementsforreadmissionvarybythecategoryofwithdrawal;therequirementsfacedbyanyindividualstudentmaybemodifiedonacase-by-casebasis,buttheprocessforreadmissionisthesameforallwithdrawals.Studentsonwithdrawalmustcompletetheundergraduateapplicationforreadmission.Thereadmissionapplicationiscomposedofanessayandtimelineabouttimeaway,adetailedplanforcourseworkinfuturesemesters,inputfromtheacademicadvisorordepartment,transcripts,lettersofrecommendation,andmedicalletters(ifapplicable).Intheprocessoffilingtheapplication,studentsalsodiscussthecircumstancesoftheirwithdrawalandplansforreturnwiththerelevantS3dean.Forstudentsundermedicalwithdrawal,theapplicationisalsoreviewedbyarepresentativeoftheMITMedicalDepartment.13TheapplicationdeadlinesforreadmissionareJune15forreadmissiontotheFalltermandNovember15totheSpringterm;studentsareinformedthattheywillbenotifiedofthereadmissiondecisionnolaterthanAugust10andJanuary10respectively.Despitethesedeadlines,applicationsforreadmissionareconsideredonarollingbasis.Undertheprocessestablishedbythereadmissionreviewthatoccurredin2010,theReadmissionCommitteereviewsallapplicationsforreadmissionandmakesarecommendationtotheCAP,whichultimatelyapprovesordeniestheapplications.TheReadmissionCommitteeconsistsofthreedeansinS3andischairedbytheheadofS3.TheReadmissionCommitteemustseekconsensusonitsdecisionwhetherornottorecommendreadmissionofanapplicanttoCAP.Inrarecases,theReadmissionCommitteemayforwardadividedrecommendationtotheCAPforadecision.TheChairoftheReadmissionCommitteeisgrantedtheauthoritytoexpediteconsiderationofreadmissionapplicationswhentheinitialreviewindicatesthatthedecisionisclear,giventhereadmissionguidelinesandthespecificexpectationsforreturnassociatedwithastudent.Forinstance,ifastudenthadvoluntarilywithdrawntopursueaone-yearinternshipatApple,theReadmissionChaircanexpeditetherecommendationwithoutacommitteereview.Ontheotherhand,theReadmissionChairmayrecommendanexpediteddenialofanapplicationforastudentonacademicrequiredwithdrawalwhodidnotsuccessfullycompletecourseworkwhileawayfromMIT.

13Asageneralmatter,studentswhosewithdrawalwasrelatedtoissuesofmentalhealth(thevastmajorityofmedicalwithdrawals)arereviewedbycliniciansinMITMentalHealthandCounseling,whereasallothercasesofreadmissionaftermedicalwithdrawalarereviewedbytheDirectorofStudentHealth.

AllreadmissionrecommendationsareforwardedtotheCAPforfinalapproval.Undertheplanestablishedin2010,theCAPhasdelegatedtotheChairoftheCAPtheauthoritytoapproveunanimousrecommendationsbytheReadmissionCommitteeandtomakethefinaldecisioninthecaseofanon-unanimousReadmissionCommitteevote.TheCAPChairalsoreviewsexpeditedrecommendationsforapprovalorreferencetothefullCAP.TheChairoftheCAPmayoverturnaunanimousrecommendationoftheReadmissionCommitteeonlyafterreviewbythefullCAP.S3receivesapproximately150applicationsforreadmissioneveryyear.Abouthalfofthesearefromstudentsonmedicalwithdrawal,andaquartereacharefromstudentsonacademicrequiredorvoluntarywithdrawal.Roughly65-75%oftheseapplicationsareapproved,and25-35%aredeniedwithrecommendationsforhowtoreapplysuccessfullyandreturntoMIT.Studentswhoseapplications’weredeniedtypicallydemonstratedinadequateacademicperformanceatschoolawayfromMITorhadnotbeenclearedmedicallytoreturn.TheCAPandS3takegreatcareinthereadmissionprocessandbelieveMITisdistinctinthisregard.Formanyschools,thereturnprocessisanadministrativematteranddoesnotfullytakeintoaccountastudent’sreadinesstoreturn.AtMIT,thegoalistoreadmitsomeonewhenheorsheistrulyreadytoreturn.Webelievethisisappropriatefortwomajorreasons.First,MIT’sintenseacademicenvironmentmakesitdifficultforastudentwhoisnotpreparedtore-enteratahighlevelofperformance.Second,ifastudentreturnsandstrugglesagain,theassociatedshameandpainaretremendous.Thus,theMITprocessisaimedattryingtoensurethatareadmittedstudentwilldomorethanjustgetby,butwillsucceed.TheCAPinrecentyearshasendeavoredtosystematicallytracktheacademicperformanceofstudentswhohavewithdrawnandthenbeenreadmitted.Thedatacollectedsuggestthatthecurrentprocessleadsstudentswhohavewithdrawnunderdifficultcircumstancestosucceedoncetheyreturn.Forinstance,onaverage,studentswhowereonacademicrequiredwithdrawalseetheirGPAsimproveonefullpoint(from3.0to4.0onaverage)upontheirreturntoMIT.

FindingsandRecommendationsWefoundthatthereweremanypartsofthewithdrawalandreadmissionprocessesatMITthatworkquitewell;theyareorganized,thoughtful,andwellconnected.ThegoalsaretohelpstudentstransitionsmoothlyawayfromMITandthenreturntotheInstitutewhentheyareready.ThedeansinS3workcloselywithstudents,mostofwhomrequestwithdrawalsontheirown,todetermineaplanfortheirreadmissionandthebestpathbacktoMIT.Theprocessincludesimportantstakeholdersacrossthecampusincludingacademicadvisors,academicdepartments,MITMedical,MentalHealthandCounseling,DSL,theRegistrar,StudentFinancialServices,StudentDisabilityServices,theInternationalStudentsOffice,andtheOfficeofMinorityEducation.Wealsouncoveredseveralareasthatcouldbenefitfromchanges.Someoftheareasofchangearisebecausethisreviewhassimplysuggestedwaystoaccomplishthegoalsofthewithdrawaland

readmissionprocessesmoreeffectively.But,wemustalsonotethatsomeofthechangeswerecommendarisebecauseoftheheartfeltexpressionsofconcernweheardfromstudentsabouttheseprocesses,whichsometimesextendtooutrightwidespreaddistrust.Whilewerecognizethatthenatureofwithdrawalandreadmissiondecisionswillalwaysgeneratenegativefeelingsandmisunderstandings,itisundoubtedlytruethatasthelevelofdistrustgoesup,theeffectivenessofMIT’sstudentsupportsystemgoesdown,asdoestrustthatdecisionsarebeingmadewiselyandfairlyaboutimportantaspectsofstudents’lives.Therefore,therecommendationswedevelopedareaimedatmakingthewithdrawalandreadmissiondecisionsnotonlymoreeffective,butalsomoreopenandunderstoodbytheMITcommunity.Weorganizethissectionalongthelinesofthemostimportantthemesthatemergedinthefeedbackweheardfromthecommunity,especiallythestudents,aboutthewithdrawalandreadmissionprocesses.Indevelopingtheserecommendations,wewereguidedbythreegoals:

1. Thewithdrawalandreadmissionprocessesshouldbeeasilyunderstood;outcomesaboutdecisionsshouldbecommunicatedclearlyanddirectly.

2. WhilethedecisionisMIT’s,studentswhoaremostdirectlyaffectedbythewithdrawaland

readmissionprocessesshouldfeeltheyhaveameaningfulsayintheprocesses.

3. AllstudentswhowithdrawareexpectedtoreturntoMIT(iftheywantto)andreceivetheirdegree.Thisincludesthosewhoarerequiredtowithdraworwhovoluntarilywithdrawbecausetheyfaceprofoundpersonalandmedicalchallenges.

Therecommendationsinthissectionareorganizedalongfivemajorthemes:

1. Opennessofcommunication.DespitededicatedeffortsbyeveryoneatMITwhoisinvolvedinwithdrawalandreadmission,informationabouthowtheseprocessesunfoldisineffectivelycommunicatedtothecommunity.AllatMITwhoareinvolvedinthewithdrawalandreadmissionprocessesmustredoubletheireffortstocommunicateinformationabouttheprocessopenly,clearly,anddirectly.

2. Terminology.Theterms“withdrawal”and“readmission”imposeasignificantbarrierto

studentunderstandingoftheprocessesassociatedwithleavingandreturning.MITmustchangeitslanguageabouttheseprocesses.WemustemphasizethattimeawayfromtheInstitutedoesnotconstituteapermanentseveringofitsrelationshipwithastudent;returntotheInstituteshouldnotmakestudentsfeelthattheirinitialadmissiontoMITwasamistake.14

14Inthesefindingsandrecommendationssection,below,werecommendasignificantchangeinterminology.Fromthispointforward,“withdrawal”willbereplacedwith“leave”and“readmission”replacedwith“return.”Moreover,wewillreferto“readmissionapplication”as“requesttoreturn.”Thenotableexceptionswillbewhendiscussingstudentswhohavealreadygonethroughtheseprocesses,andwhendiscussinghistoricexperienceswiththeprocess.

3. NormalizationoftakingleavefromtheInstitute.ThecultureandpracticesoftheInstitutestandinthewayofstudentssteppingawayfromMIT,whendoingsowouldbetotheirbenefit.WemustlowerthebarrierstoMITstudentstakingtimeaway,notonlytopursuedistinguishedbusiness,economic,andsocialendeavors,butalsotoallowstudentstocleartheirheadsandtoassesstheirtrajectorythroughMIT.

4. Supportwhileonleave.Manystudentswhohavewithdrawnexpressthattheyfeellikethey

havebeenabandonedbytheInstitute;manycaringanddedicatedfacultyandstaffatMITfeelhamperedfromreachingouttowithdrawnstudentstohelpthemnavigateapathbacktoreadmission.MITmustdevelopnewwaystoengagewithstudentswhiletheyareonleavefromtheInstitute.

5. TransitionbacktoMIT.Somestudentsexpressfrustrationwiththetimingofdecisions

madeabouttheirrequesttoreturn—notonlyaboutthereturndecisionitself,butalsoaboutrelateddecisions,suchashousing.IfthegoalofthereturnprocessistoensurethesuccessfulreintegrationofstudentsonleaveintotheMITacademiccommunity,thenmanyadministrativepracticesattheInstitute,boththoseoverseenbytheDUEandbytheDSL,mustbereconsideredandrevised.

Aswell,therewerethreeitemsthataroseduringtheconsiderationofourchargethatthisreporthasrecommendationsabout.Theyare(1)involuntarymedicalwithdrawals,(2)psychiatrichospitalizations,and(3)issuesrelatedtograduatestudents.Weconsiderthesebroadcategoriesofrecommendationsinorder.OpennessofCommunicationThereisconfusionabouttheprocessesandexpectationsofleaveandreturn.Whilecomprehensive,clearinformationisavailableontheS3’swebsite,thecommunity,fromfacultymemberstostudents,seemtobeunawareofit.Bettereffortsneedtobemadetodisseminateinformation,andmakethecommunityawareofthepoliciesforleaveandreturn.Manystudentswhohavewithdrawnalsoexpressedconfusionabouttheexpectationsuponthemduringtheirtimeaway,andwhatrequirementstheyneededtofulfilltoreturntoMIT.Moreover,itappearsthatthestudentbodyisunawareoftheaccuratepercentageofstudentswhoaregrantedreturn.Werecognizethattheenvironmentinwhichleaveandreturnpoliciesarecommunicatedischallenging.Studentswhoarerequiredtoleaveforacademicreasonsorwhofaceseriousmedicalcrisesareoftennotreceptivetotheinformationprovidedaboutthesepolicies,oreveninaconditiontodiscoverit.Evenwiththeselimitations,webelievethateffortscouldbeundertakento

communicatemoreeffectivelywiththeMITcommunity,andespeciallystudents,aboutthepoliciesassociatedwithleaveandreturn.

1. Overalleffortsneedtobemadetocommunicateactivelyabouthowtheprocessesoperate,expectationsconcerningreturn,andresultsoftheleaveandreturnprocess.

a. TheCAPandDUEshouldreportannuallyaboutthenumberofstudentsseekingleaveandreturn,theratesofreturn,andmeasureofacademicsuccessamongstudentswhoreturnfromleave.TheCAPandDUEshouldalsoregularlycommunicatewiththefacultyandadministrativestaffabouthowtheseprocesseswork,andabouttheresourcesavailabletostudents,faculty,andstaffwhocomeincontactwithleaveandreturn.

b. TheCAPandDUEshouldworkwithTheTechandothercommunicationsresourcesattheInstitutetoensurethatthissameinformationisreportedonaregularbasistothecommunity.

2. S3shouldundertakeareviewofthesectionsoftheirwebsitethatcommunicateinformation

concerningleaveandreturnpolicies,toensurethattheinformationiscommunicatedclearlyandeffectively.ItshouldcreateandregularlyupdateaFAQsectionontheirwebsitethataddressescommonconcernsaboutleavesandreturn.

3. Aphysicalorvirtualbookofstudentexperienceswhileonleaveshouldbemadeavailableto

studentsconsideringleave.TerminologyStudentshaveclearlyexpressedafearanddistrustofthecurrentwithdrawalandreadmissionprocesses.BothprocessescommunicateasenseofrejectionbyMIT.Theterm“withdrawal”connotesthatstudentshavebeenpermanentlyseparatedfromtheInstitute—asensethatisreinforcedbythefactthatthistermisgenerallyusedbyuniversitieswhentherelationshipisinfactpermanentlysevered.Theterm“readmission”likewiseconnotesthattheinitialadmissionwasmistaken,thereforethestudentmustprovealloveragainthathisorherinitialadmissionwasvalid.Evenincaseswherereturnseemslikeaforegoneconclusion,studentsreportthattheymustrelivethestressoftheirinitialapplicationforcollegeadmissiontoMIT,sincereadmissiontoMITisnotguaranteed.Also,thecurrentcategoriessendunintendedmessagesaboutthereasonsforthewithdrawals.Thelabelsassociatedwithtwofrequently-usedcategories—“voluntarywithdrawal”and“medicalwithdrawal”—communicatethemistakenimpressionthatall(ormost)medicalwithdrawalsoccurinvoluntarily.ThenomenclaturesurroundingthestatusofstudentswhohavewithdrawnfromMITcanbeunclearandembarrassingtostudentswhomustexplaintheirstatustotheoutsideworld.Toallay

thissenseofshame,theInstituteshouldencouragetheuseofabettertermtodescribethestatusofstudentswhentheyarewithdrawn.

1. Thetermsassociatedwiththecurrentprocessesofwithdrawalandreadmissionshouldbechanged.

a. Theterm“withdrawal”shouldnolongerbeused;thecorrespondingprocessesshouldbetermed“leave.”15ImplementingthischangewillinvolveamendingtheRulesoftheFaculty.16

b. ThecategoriesofleavethattheInstitutemaintainsshouldbethefollowing:i. Personalleaveii. Medicalleaveiii. Involuntarymedicalleaveiv. Requiredacademicleave

c. Theterm“readmission”shouldnolongerbeusedandinsteadbecalled“returnfromleave”orjustsimply“return.”

d. Theterm“readmissionapplication”shouldnotbeused.StudentsarenotapplyingtoMIT,theyare“requestingtoreturnfromleave.”

2. Studentsshouldbeencouragedtousethegenericdescriptionofbeing“onleave”whenthey

interrupttheirstudiesattheInstituteforthereasonsoutlinedinthissectionofthereport.17Thecategorizationofthetypesofleave(personalleave,medicalleave,etc.)isstrictlyforinternalpurposes,andshouldnotbereflectedonthetranscript,inkeepingwithcurrentpracticerelatedtowithdrawals.Weencouragetheregistrartousetheterminology“leaveofabsence”ratherthan“withdrawal”ontheexternaltranscriptwhenstudentstakeleaveinthemiddleofthesemester.18

15WerecognizethatFederalregulationsrequiretheFinancialAidOfficetousetheterm“withdrawal”ontheirmaterials.However,MIT’sfinancialaidmaterialsshouldmakeeveryefforttoindicatethattheircontinueduseofthistermisduetofederalrequirements,andnotMITpolicy.16TheRulesoftheFacultywouldneedtobeamendedatthefollowingplaces:

● §1.73.4(pertainingtothejurisdictionoftheCommitteeonUndergraduateAdmissionsandFinancialAid).Thefollowingphrasewouldbedeletedfromthissection:“exceptincasesofstudentsapplyingforreadmission,”ThisphraseisthestrongestlanguageintheRulesoftheFacultythatequatesreadmissionwithadmission.

● §1.73.5(pertainingtothejurisdictionoftheCAP).Thissectionwouldberewrittenasfollows:“TheCommitteeshallactwithpoweronpetitionsfromindividualundergraduatestudentsrelatingtoexceptionstoestablishedacademicstandards,andestablishregulationsrelatedtothereturnofstudentsattheundergraduatelevelafterapersonal,voluntaryorinvoluntarymedical,orrequiredacademicleave.”

17StudentswhohavebeensuspendedorexpelledshouldnotidentifythemselvesasbeingonleavefromMIT.18Thecommitteesupportscontinuingthecurrentpracticeofnotnotingawithdrawal(orleave)onastudent’stranscriptwhenstudyisinterruptedbetweensemesters,simplyleavingagapinthedatesonthetranscript.

StreamliningtheProcessesofLeavingandReturningtoMITInadditiontothefearstudentsexperienceabouttheprospectofleave,therearealsologisticalissuespertainingtobothleavingtheInstituteandreturningthatwereraisedbystudents,faculty,andstaff.Asageneralmatter,manystudentswholeaveinthemiddleofthetermorwhoarerequiredtoleaveforacademicreasonsreportfeelingliketheyarerushedoutthedoor.Atthepointofreturn,studentsoftenexpressfrustrationattheconditionsplacedonthemandthereturnprocess.ThecommitteerecognizesthevalueofhavingstudentswhoareonleavedepartfromtheInstituteassoonasarrangementscanbemade,bothforthebenefittothestudentandtothelargerInstitutecommunity.However,leavesoftenoccurunderdifficultcircumstances,anditisappropriatetoallowasmallamountofadditionaltimetodepart.Studentswhoseleaveisunplannedmustmakeaseriesoflifedecisionsinanextremelybriefperiodoftimeunderverystressfulcircumstances.TheymustvacateInstitutehousingandfindnewlodging.Theymustnavigatecomplexandconfusingrulesaboutfinancialaidtoreceiverefunds,andfigureoutissueslikehealthinsurancewhentheyarenolongercoveredbyMIT’spolicy.ThetimecrunchassociatedwithunplannedleavesisparticularlysalientinthecaseofvacatingInstitutehousing,wherethecurrentexpectationthatstudentsdepartwithin48hoursofaleavecausesahardshipformany.Theadditionaltimewerecommendisnotverymuch—anextraday.Webelieve,however,thatinmanycasesgivingastudent72hourstocheckoutofInstitutehousingwouldeasesomeoftheanxietyoftenassociatedwithleaving,andalsohelpwiththeadministrativedetails.19Currently,everystudentwhoseeksaleaveisgivenasetofexpectationstomeetbeforereturn.Settingtheseexpectationsforallstudentsisconsistentwiththephilosophythathasgovernedreturnpolicyformanyyears,whichisthattheInstitutehaswantedtoensurethateveryonewhotakestimeawayfromtherigorsofMIT’sacademicenvironmentisreadytoreturn—evenstudentswhointhepastshowednosignsofstrugglingwiththeenvironment.Studentswholeavetopursueanexcitingeducationalopportunityortofulfillapersonalcommitmentareexpectedtofollowthroughontheirannouncedplans,completeessaysthataccountfortheirtimeandreflectonwhattheyaccomplishedwhileaway,assemblelettersofrecommendation,andplotoutadetailedacademicroadmapbeforetheyarereadmitted.StudentswholeaveundermedicalleavearegenerallyrequiredtospendatleastonesemesterawayfromtheInstituteundergoingtreatment.Inapplyingforreturn,notonlymusttheyassembleadossierthatparallelsthatofstudentswhotakevoluntaryleave,theirtreatmentmustalsobedocumentedbyhealthcareprovidersandverifiedbyMIT’sMedicalDepartment.Studentswhoarerequiredtoleave

19TheCAPrecognizesthattherewillberarecaseswhereitwillbeappropriatetorequireastudenttovacateInstitutehousinginlessthan72hours,especiallyincircumstancesinwhichthesafetytothestudentorcommunityareatissue.Thesearenottypicalcases,however,andthecommitteebelievesthatdeparturepoliciesshouldnotbedeterminedprimarilybyatypicalcases.

foracademicreasonsareexpectedtospendatleasttwosemestersawayfromtheInstitute,generallytakingrigorouscollege-levelclassesandgettingAandBgrades;thesestudents,too,mustalsocompleteanextensiveapplicationthatrequireslettersofrecommendation,transcripts,andreflectiveessays.StudentswholeaveMITmeetwithadeanfromS3tohelpmoldexpectationstomeetthespecificcircumstancesofthestudents.However,allstudentswhotakeleavemuststillreapply,andtheexpectationsfortimeaway(i.e.,onesemesterformedicalleaveandtwosemestersforrequiredacademicleave)arerarelyrelaxed.InthemindsofstudentswhohavetakenleavefromtheInstitute,therequesttoreturnprocessoftenappearstocreatebarrierstoreturning,andmayseemarbitraryandunrelatedtoeducationalpurposes.Settingdetailedexpectationsaboutreturningseemsextraneousforthosetakingtimetoexploreanexcitingeducationalopportunity(aprestigiousinternship,developingastart-up,orvolunteeringinternationally)orfulfillapersonalcommitment(familymember’sillness,militaryservice,orreligiousmission).Moreover,theexpectationthatstudentswhoarerequiredtoleaveforacademicreasonspursueafullyearofcollege-levelstudyasanon-degreestudentatanothercollegecanbeaninsurmountableobstacleforstudentsofmeagerfinancialmeans.Also,theprospectofhavingtosurmountthebarrierofreturnloomslargewhenstudentsconsiderwhethertoleaveinthefirstplace.Afterall,ifevenajuniorwitha5.0averagewholeavesforayeartopursueaninternshipwithMicrosoftisnotguaranteedreturntotheInstitute,whatisastudentwhoisstrugglingacademicallytothink?AlltheseconsiderationstogetherleadustorecommendaseriesofpolicychangestoeasetheprocessesoftemporarilyleavingtheInstituteandreturningafterahiatus.Thecommitteeparticularlyurgestheadoptionofthefirstrecommendationthatimmediatelyfollows.

1. TheInstituteshouldcreateaflexiblecategoryofleave,the“leaveofabsence,”thatwouldbeavailabletoallstudentswhoareeligibletoregisterinthefollowingsemester.Thiscategoryshouldbeflexible,bothasitrelatestothepurposeoftheleaveandtheadministrativeprocessesrelatedtoclaimingtheleaveandreturningfromit.

a. Thisstatuswouldbereservedforstudentswhoareeligibletoregisterintheupcomingsemester.Thus,itwouldnotbeavailableforstudentschoosingtowithdrawinthemiddleofthesemesterortoavoidreviewbytheCAPattheend-of-termmeetings.

b. StudentstakingaleaveofabsencewouldbepermittedtoreturntotheInstitutewithintwoyearsfromthedateoftheleavewithoutformalreview.

c. Studentswouldbeallowedtotakeoneleaveofabsenceovertheirundergraduatecareer.

d. Theadministrativeprocesstotakealeaveofabsencewouldbeminimal,butstillrequirestudentstoconsultwiththeiradvisorsandwithadeanatS3.Itisappropriatetorequirestudentstakingaleaveofabsencetodiscusstheirplansand

receiveadvicefromtheiracademicadvisorandS3dean,buttheseconsultationsshouldnotbeconsideredpartofaprocesstoapprovetheleave.

e. TheleaveofabsenceandreturnprocesseswouldbemanagedbyS3andinvolveverylittleeffortonthepartofthestudent.Studentswouldnotneedtosubmitaformalrequesttoreturn,althoughitwouldbeappropriateforstudentstonotifytheDUE(viaS3)oftheirintendedreturndateaccordingtoapublisheddeadline.

2. Letterssenttostudentstakingleaveformedicalorrequiredacademicreasonsshouldbe

revisedtomoreclearlydelineateexpectationsforstudentreturn.LeavelettersissuedbytheCAPandS3shouldbereviewedandmodifiedtobesupportiveintone.

3. Studentsshouldbepermitted72hourstomoveoutofInstitutehousingatthetimeofleave.

S3shouldcarefullycoordinatewithHousingtoensurethatstudentshaveadequateabilitytomoveoutinthistimeframe.

4. StudentFinancialServicesandtheRegistrar’sOfficeshouldcontinuetoproratetuitionfor

studentstakingleavefromtheInstitute.However,thereshouldbeatendaygraceperiodatthestartofthesemestersothatstudentsmaydecidetotakealeaveandstillbegivenafulltuitionrefund.

5. TuitioninsuranceshouldbemoreprominentlyadvertisedbyStudentFinancialServices.

6. Moreflexibilityshouldbeallowedforpersonalandmedicalleaveprocesses;S3deans,in

consultationwithappropriatecampuscolleagues,shouldhavetheabilitytodecreasetherequiredminimumamountoftimeawayorprovidefewerexpectations.

7. Requiredacademicleaveshouldstillbeforafullyearbutstudentsshouldbeaskedto

demonstrateacademicreadinessoverthecourseofonesemesterratherthantwo.TheserecommendationslargelyrelatetotheactionstakenbytheInstituteonbehalfoftheFaculty,orinadministeringleavepolicies.TheserecommendationsdonotaddresstheinternalproceduresoftheCAPasitactsonbehalfoftheInstituteFacultyindeterminingwhetherstudentsarepreparedtoreturntotheInstitutefollowingpersonal,medical,andrequiredacademicleaves.SupportWhileonLeaveTheseparationofastudentfromtheInstitute,especiallywhenitisunplannedorunwanted,canresultinagreatdealofconfusion,eveninthebestofcircumstances.Werecognizethattherewillalwaysbemisunderstanding,anger,anddisappointmentassociatedwithleaveandreturn.However,thisrealitydoesnotexempttheInstitutefromseekingtominimizefrictionthatisassociatedwithleave.

Thefirststepineasingthenegativefeelingssurroundingleave(andtheassociatedreturn)processistomakeonefactclear:TheInstituteintendstowelcomebackthestudent,inthefuture,whoisleaving,andultimatelytoseethestudentgraduate.Becausetheformsofleavethatarereviewedinthisreportaretemporary,notpermanent,itisimperativethattherelationshipbetweentheInstituteandthestudentreflectthisfactfortheperiodwhenthestudent’sstudieshavebeeninterrupted.Foravarietyoflegalandadministrativereasons,theremustbedistinctionsbetweenstudentswhoareregisteredandthosewhoareonleave.However,astudentwhogoesonleaveremainspartoftheMITcommunityandisexpectedtoreturntoMITasastudent.Inmakingthisstatement,wenotethatsturdybarriershavebeenerectedinthepastbetweenwithdrawnstudentsandtheInstitute,andthatsomeofthosebarriershavebeennecessary.Inparticular,inthenot-too-distantpast,theInstitutehadadifficulttimeensuringthatunenrolledstudentshadvacatedInstitutehousingandthatthesmallnumberofwithdrawnstudentswhoweredisruptivetothecommunityhadleft.However,itisourbeliefthatproblemsassociatedwith“ghosting”inthedormitoriesareundermuchbetter(ifimperfect)control.Andinanycase,policiesthatgoverntheInstitute’srelationshipwithstudentsonleaveshouldnotbegovernedbythebehaviorofasmallnumberofpeople.Whileitisstandardpracticeacrossuniversitiestoprohibitstudentsonleavefromusinguniversityservices,thelanguageandpracticeassociatedwiththeuseofservicesduringastudent’sleavecausesagreatdealofconfusionacrosstheMITcommunity.Departmentaladministratorsexpressedtousuncertaintyaboutwhethertheyareallowedtocontactthosewhoareonleave,housemastersexpressedconcernaboutthesupportofstudentswhileaway,andstudentscommunicatedthattheyfeelisolatedbythepoliciesthatseemtorestricttheircontactwiththeirsupportcommunity.ThisconfusionacrosstheInstituteresultsininconsistentcommunicationbetweenthosewhoareawaywithstaffandfaculty,whichleadstogreaterfeelingsofisolation.Withtheseconsiderationsinmind,werecommendthefollowing.

1. ItshouldbemadecleartostudentswhentheytakeleavefromtheInstitute,especiallyiftheleaveisrequiredorunplanned,thattheiradmissiontoMIThasnotbeenwithdrawn,theyarestillapartoftheMITcommunity,andthatweareeagertoseethemreturnandgraduate.

2. AnactionplanshouldbedevelopedforeverystudentwhotakesleavefromMIT,regardless

ofthereasonfortheleave.Thisactionplan—whichshouldbesharedanddevelopedwiththeactiveparticipationofthestudent—shouldnotonlyrecordexpectationsaboutwhatthestudentwillbedoingwhileonleaveandwhatisrequiredtore-registerinthefuture,butshouldalsoexplicitlyidentifyMITcontactsforstudentsattimeofleaveforwhiletheyareaway.

3. Bettereffortsshouldbemadetoclarifytostudentsanddepartmentsthatstudentsonleavearestronglyencouragedtobeincontactwiththeirdean,academicadvisor,anddepartmentforsupportandguidance.

4. TheInstitute’sSuspensionofServicesstatement20shouldbereviewedtomakeclearto

studentsboththesupportavailable,aswellasthelimitsofwhattheymaydointhecommunity.ItisappropriatethatstudentsonleavenotliveinMITownedoraffiliatedhousing,attendclasses,participateinUROP,orhaveanactivatedMITcard.However,asageneralmatter,studentsonleaveshouldnotbeprecludedfromactivitiesoncampusanymorethanmembersofthelocalcommunity.Inotherwords,itshouldgenerallybeappropriateforstudentsonleavetobeemployedatMITandparticipateincampusactivitiesthatareopentonon-students.21ThecommitteeagreesthatstudentsshouldbepermittedtoretaintheirMITemailaddressthroughsponsorship.Thecommitteeacknowledges,however,thatformanystudents,physicaldistancefromMITisexactlywhatisnecessarytoaddresstheissuesthatwerecausingproblemsattheInstitute.

5. S3shouldextenditsrobustandlaudedprogramofsupportforreturningstudentsto

studentsonleave,bydevelopinganextendedmentorshipnetworkwithreturnedstudents,alumni,andinterestedfacultymembers.

6. TheMITMedicalDepartmentshouldinvestigatethecostinvolvedtoofferMITHealth

InsurancetoallstudentswhotakeleaveandwereontheMITExtendedPlan.Thiswouldextendapolicythatcurrentlyappliestostudentswhotakemedicalleavetoallstudentsonleave.ForstudentswhodonotpurchasetheExtendedPlan,everyeffortshouldbemadebytheMITMedicalDepartmenttoeducatestudentsaboutthehealthcareexchangesandtheimportanceofadequatehealthinsurancecoverage.

7. MITshouldestablishafundtohelpsupportstudentswithfinancialhardshipswhoareon

leave,torelievetheburdensthatareoftenimposed,especiallywhenstudentsarerequiredtowithdrawforacademicreasons.Thefundingrequirementstofulfillthisrecommendationarenottrivial,andcouldapproach$500,000ayear.However,webelievethatsuchaneffortiscriticalifwearetomakeourcommitmenttostudentsonleaveareality.

ReturningtoMITTheCommitteeheardconsistentlyfromstudentsthatthereturnprocessisdaunting,andchallengespresentedbytheprospectofconfrontingitwereatthecenteroftheirdecisionwhetherornottheyshouldwithdraw.Thesurveyresultsfromreturnedstudentsshowedthatthoseon 20http://web.mit.edu/academic-guide/section_13.html21Thisisthegeneralexpectationthatwewouldrecommend,recognizingthattherewillbecaseswhereastudentwouldappropriatelyberequiredtobeabsentfromtheMITcommunity,eitherinwholeorinpart.However,sucharequirementshouldrarelybeimposed,andshouldonlybeaconditionofreturntoMITafterapprovaloftheCAP.

voluntaryleaveswerethemostdissatisfiedwiththeprocess.ManystudentsonalltypesofleavereportedthattheexpectationsoftheInstitutewereunclear;thisleadstoanxietyaboutthestrengthoftheirreturncase.Studentswhohadwithdrawnalsoexpressedconcernsaboutthetimingofnotificationofreturn.Studentsapplyingforreturncanbenotifiedofthedecisionjustacoupleofweeksbeforethebeginningofasemester,whichcauseslogisticaldifficultiesrelatedtohousing,financialaid,andthereactivationoftheMITIDcard.StudentsonmedicalandrequiredleaveoftenexpressedtheopinionthattherewasaconflictofroleswithS3,whichprovidessupportduringthetimethestudentisonleave,butthenisseenasmakingfinalreturndecisions.Housemastersquestionedwhetherthecurrentprocessfacilitatedtheplacementofstudentsinappropriatehousingtoensurecommunitysupport,andstatedthattheywereevenunsureofwhichstudentsintheirdormitorieswerereturning.Academicdepartmentsalsostatedthattheywereunsureoftimelinesforreturn,andthattheywishedtobekeptinformedaboutdecisions,especiallyinthosecasesinwhichastudentreturnedtotheInstituteasamajorinanotherdepartment.Ofalltheseconcerns,theonethatseemedthemostfundamentalwastheproblemofthedual,seeminglyconflicting,roleofS3intheprocessofreturn.TheroleofS3istosupportstudentsinallphasesoftheirrelationshipwiththeInstitute.AlthoughtheroleofS3inthereturnprocessisadvisory,theclearimpressionpastwithdrawnstudentsgetisthatS3isthesolearbiteraboutwhetherornotastudentmayreturn.Asnotedearlier,returndecisionsaremadebytheCAP,butfromtheperspectiveofstudentsapplyingforreturn,S3makesthedecision.ThisconfusionisreinforcedbythepracticeofhavingtheletterthatnotifiesthestudentofthereturndecisioncomeoverthesignatureoftheheadofS3.Thissourceofmisunderstandingiseasilyremedied.Howtoprovideamoremeaningful“airlock”betweenS3andtheCAPhasbeenoneofthemostcomplexmatterswhichthecommitteewrestledwith.ThedesignchallengeisthatthedeansofS3arethemostknowledgeableMITemployeeswhenitcomestothespecificcircumstancesofstudentswhoareonleave,andyettheCAP,whichbyitsnaturewillalwayshavelessintimateknowledgeofstudents’specificcircumstances,mustmakethedecision.Therefore,awaymustbefoundtoapplytheinsightsofS3aboutindividualstudentstothefinaldecisionsaboutreturnthatmustbemadebytheCAP.However,thecalendarpresentsfurtherproblemsthatpreventthefullCAPfromconsideringapplicationsforreturn.ForreturnintheFallsemester,gradesthatarerelevanttoreturncasesaregenerallynotavailableuntiltheSpringsemesterhasendedandtheCAPcannolongerbeconvenedasafullbody.22ForreturnintheSpringsemester,gradesaremadeavailableduringthewinter

22CurrentCAPstudentmembersconfirmthattheirsummercommitmentstoend-of-termgradesanddeferredactionmeetingsalreadymakeitdifficulttonavigatewithsummerinternshipsandemployment.Furthermore,facultymembersareeithernotemployedbytheInstituteduringthesummer,orgrant

breakandduringtheperiodwhenS3andtheCAPareintensivelyengagedinend-of-termassessmentsofcurrentlyenrolledstudents.Becauseofthesecalendarconstraints,thereturnprocessdescribedatthebeginningofthisreportputsheavyemphasisonS3formingarecommendationabouteachstudent’sapplicationforreturnthatisthenpresentedtotheCAPChairforratificationorreferraltothefullCAP.Thisway,thefullCAPonlyneedstobeinvolvedinthemostdifficultofdecisions.ThefactthattheprocessisweightedheavilyinfavorofintensiveS3deliberationandlessintensiveactiveinvolvementofthefullCAP,otherthanbytheChair,easilyleadstothestudents’impressionthatdecisionsareinfactmadebyS3.OtheruniversitiesdealwiththesesamecalendarconstraintsinwaysthatavoidsomeoftheproblemsthatthecurrentMITreturnprocessisproneto,butinwaysthatseemalientoMIT’sculture.Manyuniversities,forinstance,leavethefacultyoutofthereturndecisionaltogether,puttingthedecisioninthehandsofasingledeanwhomay,ormaynotbe,amemberofthefaculty.MIT,ontheotherhand,valuestheprimacyoffacultyinallfundamentalacademicdecisions,includingdecisionsaboutwhetherstudentsarepreparedtoengageinclasses.Someuniversitiesonlyhaveonedeadlineforapplicationstoreturn,duringtheschoolyear,whichconstrainsreturntotheuniversitytooccuronlyintheFallsemester.Bysettingthedeadlineearlyenoughinthespring,itallowsfullerinvolvementoffacultyandstaffinreturndecisions,butitalsocreatesabiggapintimebetweentheclassesthatastudentmighttaketodemonstratetheirbeingreadytoreturntoMITandrecommencingstudyattheInstitute.Aftercarefuldeliberationofalltheissuessurroundingthereturnprocess,theCAPhasconcludedthatawaymustbefoundtomakeitclearthattheprimaryroleofthedeanswhoworkforS3istosupportstudentswhileonleavefromtheInstitute,nottodecidewhethertheyarereadytoreturn.S3’sroleinthereturnprocessistoprovideadvicetostudentswhoareonleaveabouthowtopreparetoreturn,andtoadvisetheCAPabouttheprogressthatstudentshavemadealongthepathtoreturn.Thedecisionmustbeinfact,andinappearance,madebythefacultyCAP.

1. TopositionS3andtheCAPtodotheirrespectivejobs,itisabsolutelycriticalfortheretobeclearandexplicitexpectationsatthetimeoftheleave(seerecommendation#2inthe“StreamliningtheprocessesofleavingandreturningtoMITsection”).Indeed,theleaveneedstobeconnectedcloselytothereturnandthisstartswithspecificexpectations.RecommendationsfromMITMedicalneedtobeclear,andtheCAPalsoneedstoclarifyastandardsetofexpectationsforstudentsonacademicrequiredleave.

2. WithaclearsetofexpectationsitisourhopethattheReadmissionCommitteeinS3could

bedissolved.S3’srolewouldtransformfrombeingadecisionmakerinthisprocesstobeingacoordinatorandsupporter.Weanticipatethattherewillbeatransitionperiodtogetto

restrictionsprohibitthemfromperformingadministrativedutiesunrelatedtotheirsponsoredresearchoverthesummer.

thisstate,andthattheCAPandS3willcollaboratewithS3tomakethechangeasquicklyandsmoothlyaspossible.

a. S3wouldberesponsibleforassemblingthereturnmaterials,shepherdingthestudentsthroughtheprocess,andprovidingtheCAPwithinformationaboutwhetherornottheconcreteexpectationsforleaveweremet.

b. MITMedicalandMentalHealthwouldbeaskedtoprovideclearguidanceaboutmedicalclearanceandacademicdepartmentswouldbeaskedtodothesameaboutacademicreadinesstoreturn.

c. OurvisionisthattheCAPChaircanmakedecisionsonbehalfofthecommittee,butwouldconsultwithadditionalmembersoftheCAPbeforedenyingsomeonetheabilitytoreturn.

3. SincetheCAPwillhavemuchmoredirectoversightofthereturnprocess,ensuringthe

committeeiswellinformedandtrainedwillbecritical.ThefullCAPwillreview(afterthefact)alldenialsandasampleofacceptances,forthepurposeofprovidingoversighttotheprocessandhelpingS3calibratetheadviceitgivestostudentswhoapplyforreturninthefuture.23

4. Decisionletters,bothdenialsandacceptances,willgooutoverthesignatureoftheChairof

5. Inadditiontothissignificantalterationofthereturnprocess,werecommendthefollowingwaystoimprovetheprocessofthereturnforstudents:

a. S3shoulddevelopanonlinereturnapplicationportalthatwouldmakeiteasierforstudentstosubmittheirmaterialsinatimelyfashion.Thiswillrequiresignificanttechnicalandfinancialsupport.

b. Allstudentslivingoncampusatthetimeoftheirleave,andwhohavenotusedtheireightsemestersofeligibilityforhousing,shouldbeguaranteedhousinguponreturn.TheHousingOfficeandS3shouldconsulteverysemesteraboutthelikelyreturncasestobeconsideredearlyenough,sothatroomscanbesetasideforstudentsreturningfromleave.Furthermore,thisplanningshouldprioritizereturningstudentstotheirpreviousdormitoryassignment,ifthatistheirwish.

c. ItiscriticalthatDSLforwardontothehousemastersthelisttheyreceivefromS3aboutreturningstudents,sothathousemasterscanpreparetosupportthosestudentsastheyreintegrateintothecommunity.

d. Thefollowingshouldoccurassoonaspracticableafterthedecisiontoreturn:i. ReactivationoftheMITIDcardii. Assignmenttohousing

23ThisrecommendationwillbeimplementedimmediatelyintheSpring2016semesterforthemostrecentsetofreadmissionapplications.TheremainingexperimentspertaintoreadmissionapplicationsforFall2016andbeyond.

iii. Decisionsaboutfinancialaid24e. Ifastudentswitchesmajorsuponreturntotheinstitute,notificationofthereturn

shouldbeprovidedtoboththestudent’snewdepartment,aswellastheoriginaldepartment.

OtherRecommendationsThroughoutthisreview,theCommitteeheardconcernsaboutMITpoliciesandpracticesthatareoutsidetheCAP’spurview,ornotinthechargeofthecommittee,butwhichnonethelessaffecttheleaveandreturnissueswehavereviewed.TheyshouldbeaddressedbytheInstitutewithoutunduedelay.Therelatedsetofissueswewishtoflagarethefollowing:

● Involuntarymedicalleave● Psychiatrichospitalization● Graduatestudentleaveandreturn

Webrieflyconsidertheseinorder.InvoluntaryMedicalLeaveAsmentionedearlier,involuntarymedicalleaveisaprocessintendedfortherarestofcases,whenastudentisadangertohim-orherself,thecommunity,orboth,andwhenthestudentrefusestovoluntarilycommittoacourseofactiontoaddressthestudent’sconditionthathascreatedthesituation.Students,faculty,andstaffwereoftenincreduloustolearnthatthepolicyofinvoluntarymedicalleavehasneverbeeninvokedattheInstitute.Weheardfromstudentsthefrequentclaimthatthethreatofinvokingtheinvoluntarymedicalleavepolicyhasbeenusedtocoercestudentsintotakingaleave“voluntarily.”Thismuststop.Ifthereis,infact,abeliefthatthepolicyshouldbeinvoked,itshouldbeinvoked,notthreatened.ThisattitudemustbecommunicatedandreinforcedthroughouttheInstitute.

Therefore,weurgetheChancellortoassigntheMedicalDepartment,theDUE,theDSL,andtheDeanforGraduateEducation(ODGE)thetaskofreviewingpoliciesrelatedtoinvoluntarymedicalleave,andthatthereviewbeconductedinsuchawaythatwidespreadengagementwiththecommunityoccurs.

24ItisparticularlyimportantforinternationalstudentstobemadeawareoftheirfinancialawardwellinadvanceoftheirreturntoMIT.

PsychiatricHospitalizationBetween40and50undergraduatestudentsarehospitalizedduringanacademicyear,owingtoconcernsaboutthestudent’smentalhealth.Wewerenotchargedwithreviewingpsychiatrichospitalizations,nordidwehavetheexpertisetoconductsuchareview.However,studentconcernsaboutthehospitalizationprocesswereuniversal.Theconcernsraisedincludedissuesofemotionalsupportwhileinthehospital,communication,coordinationamongthedifferentofficesinvolvedinworkingwiththestudentandthehospital,andfeelingsthathospitalizedstudentsoftenfeelcoercedtotakealeave.Theseconcernsloomsolargethattheyaremajorimpedimentstothesmoothoperationofcurrentleavepolicies.TheconcernsweheardwereoftenpreciselythesameonesthathavebeenexpressedfordecadesaroundtheInstitute.Thissuggeststwopossibilities.OneisthattheyareinevitableconsequencesofthecircumstancesthatoftenleadtohospitalizationsandMIT’sdecentralizedadministrativeculture.TheotheristhattheInstitutehasdevotedinsufficientattentiontothissetofproblems,andhasbeeninattentivetoworkingtoachieveacommunityconsensusabouthowtodealwithhospitalizations.

WeurgetheChancellortosponsorareviewofMIT’spoliciesconcerningstudenthospitalizationsthatengagestheentireInstitute.Webelievethisreviewwouldbeanaturalfitandcouldoccurtogetherwiththereviewmentionedpreviouslyoninvoluntarymedicalleaves.

GraduateStudentLeaveandReturnTheChancellor’schargetothecommitteeconfinedthisreviewtoprocessesthataffectundergraduatestudents.Asthelengthandcomplexityofthereportsuggests,simplyfocusingonundergraduatesisasubstantialtask.Severaltimesduringourreview,wewereremindedthatmanyoftheissuesweencounteredalsopertaintograduatestudents.BecauseofthedifferentadministrativecontextofgraduateeducationatMIT—namely,graduatestudentsareadmittedbydepartments,notbyacentralizedadmissionsprocess,andsupportforgraduatestudentsisfocusedinODGE(alongwithgraduateadministratorsinthedepartments)ratherthanwithS3—theprecisedetailsoftheissueswewrestledwithdifferwhenitcomestograduatestudents.Nonetheless,theissueofleavesfromandreturnstograduateprogramscausesdistressamonggraduatestudentsandconfusionamonggraduatedepartments.

WethereforeurgetheDeanforGraduateEducationtosponsorareviewoftheseissuesastheyrelatetograduateeducationatMIT.

CommitteeonAcademicPerformance

AcademicYear2015--2016

Votingmembers● Prof.CharlesStewartIII(Chair),PoliticalScience● Prof.ArnoldBarnett,SloanSchoolofManagement● Prof.RobertBerwick,ElectricalEngineering&ComputerScience● Prof.TanjaBosak,Earth,Atmospheric&PlanetarySciences● Prof.ScottHughes,Physics● Prof.KristalaJonesPrather,ChemicalEngineering● MsJeannetteMaisano-Brown'17,Physics● Mr.ObasiOnuoha'17,ComputerScience&Engineering● MsAmeliaTrainer'18,NuclearScience&Engineering

Ex-officiomembers

● MsLeslieBridson,DirectorofFinancialAid(DesigneeofStudentFinancialServices)● DeanDiOnettaJonesCrayton,DirectoroftheOfficeofMinorityEducation/DUE(Designeeof

theDeanofUndergraduateEducation)● Dr.HalehRokni,MITMedicalDepartment(DesigneeoftheMedicalDirector)● DeanKathleenMonagle,DirectorofStudentDisabilitiesServices● DeanJulieNorman,DirectoroftheOfficeofUndergraduateAdvisingandAcademic

Programming,DUE(DesigneeoftheDeanofUndergraduateEducation)● DeanDavidRandall,DirectorofStudentSupportServices● MsRiRomano,AssociateRegistrar(DesigneeoftheRegistrar)

Stafftothecommittee

● MrStephenPepper,StaffAssociateoftheOfficeofUndergraduateAdvisingandAcademic● MsKimberlyBenard,AssistantDirectorinGlobalEducationandCareerDevelopment

AppendixA

ResultsofReadmittedStudentsSurvey

Thereturnedstudentssurveywasdesignedtogatherfeedbackdirectlyfromstudentswhohavebeenthroughthewithdrawalandreadmissionprocess,butwhomightnotwishtoparticipatein-person.Thesurveywassentoutviae-mailtoalistservof194currentstudentswhohavereturnedfromwithdrawals.Thesurveyconsistedof17questions(4Likert-stylequestions,10open-endedquestions,and3demographicquestions),andwasdividedintofoursections:thewithdrawalProcess,TimeAwayfromtheInstitute,theReadmissionProcess,andtheReturntoMIT.Seventystudentsbeganthesurveyand45completeditforaresponserateof23%.Sixteenoftherespondentshadbeenonvoluntarywithdrawal,20onmedicalwithdrawal,and9onrequiredwithdrawal.Whiletheresponseratewaslow,wefeltthiswasanimportantpartofourreviewprocessbecauseitwouldallowstudentsmostaffectedbytheprocessawaytosharetheirfeelingsanonymously.Answerstotheopen-endedquestionsinthesurveyhavebeenincorporatedintothefeedbackgivenduringthemeetings,andaretogetherinthe“FindingsandRecommendations”sectioninthebodyofthereport.TheWithdrawalProcessThesurveyincludedthreequestionsaboutthewithdrawalprocess,beginningwithstudents’overallimpressions:“Usingthefollowingscale,indicateyouroverallimpressionofthewithdrawalprocess,takingintoaccountalltheMITofficesyouworkedwith.”Overallresponseswerenormallydistributedwithmostoftheresponsesclusteringaroundaneutralimpression.Ingeneral,studentswhotookmedicalwithdrawalsreportedamorenegativeexperience(43%negativeorsomewhatnegative)andthosewhotookrequiredwithdrawalhadalessnegativeexperience(18%negativeorsomewhatnegative).Studentswhotookvoluntarywithdrawalsgenerallyhadaneutralimpressionoftheprocess.Seethegraphinthebodyofthetextformoreinformation.TimeAwayfromMITStudentswereaskedfourquestionsaboutresourcesduringtheirtimeawayfromMIT,beginningwiththeiroverallexperience:“Usingthefollowingscale,indicateyouroverallimpressionoftheresourcesMITprovidedduringyourtimeawayfromMIT.”Overall,veryfewstudentsreportedapositiveimpression(10%positiveorsomewhatpositive).Thestudentsonrequiredwithdrawalportrayedanegativeexperience(44%negativeorsomewhatnegative,0%positiveorsomewhatpositive)asdidthestudentsonmedicalwithdrawal(33%negative).Mostofthestudentsonvoluntarywithdrawalreportedfeeling“neutral”aboutresourceswhiletheywereaway(78%).

TheReadmissionProcessThenextsectionofthesurveyfocusedonthereadmissionprocess.Itincludedthreequestions,beginningwithaskingstudentstoratetheiroverallimpressionofthereadmissionprocess.Studentsonrequiredwithdrawalhadamorepositiveexperience(55%somewhatpositiveorpositive).Studentsonvoluntarywithdrawalreportedamorenegativeexperience(50%somewhatnegativeornegative).Studentsonmedicalwithdrawalweremoremixed(45%negativeorsomewhatnegativeand40%positiveorsomewhatpositive).ReturningtoMITThesurveycontinuedbyaskingaboutstudents’experiencescomingbacktoMIT:“Usingthefollowingscale,indicateyouroverallimpressionofthereturnprocess,takingintoaccountalltheMITofficesyouworkedwith.”Studentsweremorepositiveoverall(60%somewhatpositiveorpositive).Noneofthestudentsonrequiredwithdrawalreportedanegativeorsomewhatnegativeimpression,withthemajorityreportingpositiveexperiences(77%positiveorsomewhatpositive).Asisshowninthegraphinthebodyofthereport,therewereveryfewnegativeimpressionsoverall(19%ofstudentsonvoluntarywithdrawal,10%ofstudentsonmedicalwithdrawal).

AppendixB

SummaryofAllRecommendationsOpennessofCommunication25

1. Overalleffortsneedtobemadetocommunicateactivelyabouthowtheprocessesoperate,expectationsconcerningreturn,andresultsoftheleaveandreturnprocess.

a. TheCAPandDUEshouldreportannuallyaboutthenumberofstudentsseekingleaveandreturn,theratesofreturn,andmeasureofacademicsuccessamongstudentswhoreturnfromleave.TheCAPandDUEshouldalsoregularlycommunicatewiththefacultyandadministrativestaffabouthowtheseprocesseswork,andabouttheresourcesavailabletostudents,faculty,andstaffwhocomeincontactwithleaveandreturn.

b. TheCAPandDUEshouldworkwithTheTechandothercommunicationsresourcesattheInstitutetoensurethatthissameinformationisreportedonaregularbasistothecommunity.

2. S3shouldundertakeareviewofthesectionsoftheirwebsitethatcommunicateinformation

concerningleaveandreturnpolicies,toensurethattheinformationiscommunicatedclearlyandeffectively.ItshouldcreateandregularlyupdateaFAQsectionontheirwebsitethataddressescommonconcernsaboutleavesandreturn.

3. Aphysicalorvirtualbookofstudentexperienceswhileonleaveshouldbemadeavailableto

studentsconsideringleave.Terminology26

1. Thetermsassociatedwiththecurrentprocessesofwithdrawalandreadmissionshouldbechanged.

a. Theterm“withdrawal”shouldnolongerbeused;thecorrespondingprocessesshouldbetermed“leave.”27ImplementingthischangewillinvolveamendingtheRulesoftheFaculty.28

b. ThecategoriesofleavethattheInstitutemaintainsshouldbethefollowing:i. Personalleaveii. Medicalleaveiii. Involuntarymedicalleaveiv. Requiredacademicleave

25Forfullrecommendation,seepp.13-4.26Forfullrecommendation,seepp.14-5.

c. Theterm“readmission”shouldnolongerbeusedandinsteadbecalled“returnfromleave”orjustsimply“return.”

d. Theterm“readmissionapplication”shouldnotbeused.StudentsarenotapplyingtoMIT,theyare“requestingtoreturnfromleave.”

2. Studentsshouldbeencouragedtousethegenericdescriptionofbeing“onleave”whenthey

interrupttheirstudiesattheInstituteforthereasonsoutlinedinthissectionofthereport.29Thecategorizationofthetypesofleave(personalleave,medicalleave,etc.)isstrictlyforinternalpurposes,andshouldnotbereflectedonthetranscript,inkeepingwithcurrentpracticerelatedtowithdrawals.Weencouragetheregistrartousetheterminology“leaveofabsence”ratherthan“withdrawal”ontheexternaltranscriptwhenstudentstakeleaveinthemiddleofthesemester.30

StreamliningtheProcessesofLeavingandReturningtoMIT31

1. TheInstituteshouldcreateaflexiblecategoryofleave,the“leaveofabsence,”thatwouldbeavailabletoallstudentswhoareeligibletoregisterinthefollowingsemester.Thiscategoryshouldbeflexible,bothasitrelatestothepurposeoftheleaveandtheadministrativeprocessesrelatedtoclaimingtheleaveandreturningfromit.

a. Thisstatuswouldbereservedforstudentswhoareeligibletoregisterintheupcomingsemester.Thus,itwouldnotbeavailableforstudentschoosingtowithdrawinthemiddleofthesemesterortoavoidreviewbytheCAPattheend-of-termmeetings.

b. StudentstakingaleaveofabsencewouldbepermittedtoreturntotheInstitutewithintwoyearsfromthedateoftheleavewithoutformalreview.

c. Studentswouldbeallowedtotakeoneleaveofabsenceovertheirundergraduatecareer.

d. Theadministrativeprocesstotakealeaveofabsencewouldbeminimal,butstillrequirestudentstoconsultwiththeiradvisorsandwithadeanatS3.ItisappropriatetorequirestudentstakingaleaveofabsencetodiscusstheirplansandreceiveadvicefromtheiracademicadvisorandS3dean,buttheseconsultationsshouldnotbeconsideredpartofaprocesstoapprovetheleave.

e. TheleaveofabsenceandreturnprocesseswouldbemanagedbyS3andinvolveverylittleeffortonthepartofthestudent.Studentswouldnotneedtosubmitaformalrequesttoreturn,althoughitwouldbeappropriateforstudentstonotifytheDUE(viaS3)oftheirintendedreturndateaccordingtoapublisheddeadline.

31Forfullrecommendation,seepp.16-8.

2. Letterssenttostudentstakingleaveformedicalorrequiredacademicreasonsshouldberevisedtomoreclearlydelineateexpectationsforstudentreturn.LeavelettersissuedbytheCAPandS3shouldbereviewedandmodifiedtobesupportiveintone.