mit faculty newsletter, vol. xxv no. 2, november/december...

in this issue we offer commentary on the recent Task Force Report onCommunity Engagement in MIT 2030 (see below and page 4); articles concerningsignificant issues for our graduate student population (pages 6 and 9); a piece onthe Office of Faculty Support (page 12); and an article analyzing those collegerankings (page 16).

MITFacultyNewsletter

Vol. XXV No. 2November/December 2012

http://web.mit.edu/fnl

MassachusettsInstitute ofTechnology

continued on page 8

Beyond the ClassroomWhat Students WantFrom Faculty

Report of the Task Forceon CommunityEngagement in 2030Planning on Developmentof MIT- Owned Property inKendall Square

continued on page 24

Kendall Square T Stop

October 12, 2012

Background TH E TAS K F OR CE ON CommunityEngagement in 2030 Planning, consistingof eight faculty members* was appointedin August, 2012 by Provost Chris Kaiserand asked to provide guidance onupcoming decisions related to campusdevelopment within the context of thecapital planning process known as MIT2030. Specifically, the Task Force wascharged with:

1. Providing advice regarding the devel-opment of MIT- owned property inKendall Square.

2. Determining the most effective ways toengage the MIT community in the overallcampus planning process going forward.

Edmund Bertschinger

THE THOUGHTFUL AND PENETRATING

report from the Faculty Task Force onCommunity Engagement in MIT 2030Planning is published in full in this issue(page 1). We share the Task Force view(Finding #3) that:

“…financial return should not be theprincipal criterion of value creation andsuccess for this area of campus. Equallyimportant are criteria related to the 21stcentury image of MIT, creation of a signifi-cant eastern gateway to the campus, theenhancement of student life, and providingopportunities for future academic buildingsand activities that we have yet to invent. Wealso believe these latter considerations,which go the heart of MIT’s mission, will bemore important to sustaining financialreturns to the Institute in the long run.”

EditorialFaculty MIT 2030Task Force ReportClearly IdentifiesKey Issues

continued on page 3

This is the first in a series of occasional arti-cles relating rewarding faculty/studentinteractions outside the classroom.

I KNOW AN MIT faculty member whogrew up in a poor Latino neighborhood,whose immigrant mother had only aneighth-grade education and whose fathernever graduated from college, and whowas rejected by MIT freshman admis-sions. Worse, a mediocre performance infreshman physics led to his TA’s writtenadvice to pursue something other thanhis ambition of theoretical physics. Thatfaculty member is me.

Despite the odds and my TA’s assess-ment, I succeeded; as can current MITstudents who may, unknown to their pro-fessors, have experienced difficultiessimilar or even worse than mine.

2

Vol. XXV No. 2 November/December 2012

Robert BerwickElectrical Engineering & Computer Science

*Nazli ChoucriPolitical Science

Olivier de WeckAeronautics & Astronautics/Engineering Systems

Ernst G. FrankelMechanical Engineering

Jean E. JacksonAnthropology

Gordon KaufmanManagement Science/Statistics

*Jonathan King (Chair) Biology

Helen Elaine LeeWriting and Humanistic Studies

Stephen J. LippardChemistry

Seth LloydMechanical Engineering

Fred MoavenzadehCivil & Environmental Engineering/Engineering Systems

*James OrlinSloan School of Management

*Ruth PerryLiterature Section

George Verghese (Secretary)Electrical Engineering & Computer Science

Patrick Henry WinstonElectrical Engineering & Computer Science

David LewisManaging Editor

*Editorial Subcommittee for this issue

AddressMIT Faculty NewsletterBldg. 11-268Cambridge, MA 02139

Websitehttp://web.mit.edu/fnl

Telephone 617-253-7303Fax 617-253-0458E-mail [email protected]

Subscriptions$15/year on campus$25/year off campus

Beyond the Classroom 01 What Students Want From FacultyEdmund Bertschinger

01 Report of the Task Force on Community Engagement in 2030 Planning on Development of MIT- Owned Property in Kendall Square

Editorial 01 Faculty MIT 2030 Task Force Report Clearly Identifies Key Issues

From The 04 Task Force on Community Engagement Faculty Chair with 2030 Planning

Samuel M. Allen

06 Graduate Student Life, Research Productivity, and the MITIMCo ProposalJonathan King

09 The Millenials@MIT: Discussions on the Generational Changes in the Graduate Student PopulationChristine Ortiz, Ellan Spero

12 The Office of Faculty Support: What Can We Do To Help You? Diana Henderson

15 Preparing for a New Industrial Revolution Ernst G. Frankel

16 MIT: First in the World, Sixth in the U.S.?

18 An Opportunity for Faculty to Help Shape MIT’sRemarkable Graduate Student CommunityCostantino J. Colombo, Christine Ortiz

19 Faculty Committee Activity: Fall 2012 UpdateAaron Weinberger

20 Progress Report on the Bernard M. Gordon – MITEngineering Leadership ProgramJoel Schindall

22 MITAC: Your Ticket to Cultural and Recreational Activities

Letters 23 Why We Need HumanitiesXJanet Wasserstein

23 The Alumni Class Funds Seek Proposalsfor Teaching and Education Enhancement

M.I.T. Numbers 28 Campus Population FY 1981 – 2012

contentsThe MIT FacultyNewsletterEditorial Board

Photo credit: Page 1: Patrick Gillooly

MIT Faculty NewsletterNovember/December 2012

3

We note too the call for increasedattention to housing needs, which hasbeen addressed in these pages in recentissues (see: MIT Faculty Newsletter, Vol.XXV No. 1, “Concerns Over Affordabilityof On-Campus Housing,” and Vol. XXIVNo. 5, “Concerns Over the Lack ofGraduate Student Housing in the MIT2030 Plan.”). The current issue includes afurther article, page 6, that develops thecase for the importance of on-campusgraduate student housing. Other aspectsof graduate student life are described inthe article on page 9.

In response to Faculty Chair SamAllen’s summary of the Task Force reportat the most recent MIT faculty meeting,Prof. de Neufville noted that, given thereport’s call to re-examine and redesignthe campus development plan in theMITIMCo proposal, it might not be wiseto present the existing petition to theCity’s Planning Board and OrdinanceCommittee at this time. He suggestedthat, in view of the further planning andanalysis needed to develop a proposalreflecting the priorities of the Task Forcereport with respect to campus needs, itwould be wiser to wait until a petition wasprepared that represented MIT’s actualplans. Similar views had been expressedby faculty members speaking at the July12 Faculty Forum on MIT 2030.

MIT Governance, CommitteeFunction, and Transparency

Most U.S. research universities have afaculty senate that provides a forum forexchange of ideas and information amongfaculty, and for responses to changingeducation and research policies. MIT doesnot have such a forum, but relies on asystem of committees, which periodicallyreport to the faculty on their activities and

deliberations. When issues arise that thesestanding committees are not suited todealing with fully, ad hoc committees ortask forces have generally been estab-lished, such as those on gender equity setup in each School under President CharlesVest’s administration. Because of our con-cerns about the commercial use of

campus land in the MIT 2030 Plan, wewere gratified when the Provost estab-lished the Task Force on CommunityEngagement in MIT 2030 Planning.

This more consultative process forMIT 2030 planning is described clearly inFaculty Chair Sam Allen's report on page4. Prof. Allen correctly refers back to theimportant 1988 ad hoc faculty committeereport that responded to the controversyover the abrupt closing of the Departmentof Applied Biological Sciences. It was theneed for a forum for faculty input intoadministration decisions that led to thefounding of the Faculty Newsletter.

Faculty members serving on Institutecommittees and task forces are not staff tothe executive branch, but representativesof the faculty as a whole. In MIT’s modelof shared governance, such committeeshave to be able to share their views, con-cerns, and information with their facultycolleagues. At a minimum, we need to befully briefed about matters of importanceto the MIT community. We can then offerinformed consideration and useful guid-ance before any final decision is made.

The ultimate decision with respect tothe MITIMCo up-zoning petition andMIT 2030 rests with the administration.But MIT operates best when there is ahigh level of trust and engagementbetween faculty and administration. Tomaintain the critical degree of trust, theadministration must adequately consider

faculty views and guidance, and thenmake decisions in as transparent amanner as possible. The advantages ofopen processes strongly outweigh thepotential costs. Drawing on a diversity ofperspectives, viewpoints, and expertisehelps to make MIT a great university.With its thoughtfulness, insight, andbroad scope, the report from the FacultyTask Force on MIT 2030 is testimony tothis view.

We will be living with the conse-quences of the MIT 2030 decisions longbeyond the current administration. Welook forward to substantial and robustfaculty discussion of the serious issuesraised by the Task Force’s assessment ofthe MIT 2030 and MITIMCo proposals.The implementation of the report’s sug-gestion to establish a broad-based stand-ing committee on Campus DesignPlanning would go a long way towardsavoiding the errors that can arise from anarrowly constituted planning process.

Editorial Subcommittee

Task Force Report Identifies Key Issuescontinued from page 1

The ultimate decision with respect to the MITIMCo up-zoning petition and MIT 2030 rests with theadministration. But MIT operates best when there is ahigh level of trust and engagement between faculty andadministration. To maintain the critical degree of trust,the administration must adequately consider facultyviews and guidance, and then make decisions in astransparent a manner as possible.

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XXV No. 2

4

Samuel M. AllenFrom The Faculty ChairTask Force on Community Engagementwith 2030 Planning

MY B IGGEST ASPIRATION IN takingon the role of Chair of the Faculty hasbeen to improve faculty/administrationcommunication, collaboration, and trust.Whether justified or not, many facultyhad told me they felt that important deci-sions were made by “the administration”before faculty had the opportunity toprovide their perspective on the issues.Examples included initiating major inter-national initiatives, launching MITx, andparticipation in the MIT 2030 planningprocess. A major faculty concern was thebelief that faculty should have a say indecisions that would have a significantimpact on how faculty members spendtheir working hours.

Over the past summer the new admin-istration took a major step towardencouraging faculty engagement byannouncing the formation of the TaskForce on Community Engagement in2030 Planning, a group of eight seniorfaculty with diverse perspectives, to con-sider and make recommendations on twotopics. First, should MIT re-file its “up-zoning” petition with the City ofCambridge, seeking to increase thedensity of development around KendallSquare? Second, how should the MITcommunity provide input to long-rangeplanning encompassing the entirecampus?

What factors led to formation of theTask Force? From my direct experience, Ican identify a few:

1. Several lively discussions at meetings ofthe Faculty Policy Committee duringthe 2011–12 academic year focusedattention on the fact that among ourfaculty there are numerous experts in

urban design, city planning, and realestate, yet only Adele Santos, Dean ofArchitecture and Planning, had beenincluded in the 2030 planning activities.

2. Significant attention over several yearswas given in the Faculty Newsletter tofaculty concerns about the develop-ment of Kendall Square.

3. A plea was made at the May 2012faculty meeting to broaden the discus-sion of Kendall Square development toinclude more faculty input.

4. A Faculty Forum held in July 2012 wasdevoted to Kendall Square planningand a number of colleagues expressedconcerns about the very limited engage-ment with the planning process.

Would the Task Force have beenformed without the faculty having spokenout? It seems unlikely. Would it have beenformed without an attitude of respecttoward the faculty on the part of theadministration? Again, I doubt it.

The Task Force’s creation is a tangiblesign that the administration values facultyengagement in decision-making. This issomething that the faculty have longexpected. Not too long ago, as part of myConflict Resolution studies at UMassBoston, I had the occasion to review the1988 report, “Report of the Committee onReorganization and Closing of AcademicUnits: Learning from the ABSExperience.” [This report makes for veryinteresting reading, as it chronicles anespecially low point in MIT administra-tion/faculty relations. It is available at:orgchart.mit.edu/node/6/pnr.] This

report was prepared by an ad hoc facultycommittee in response to the way inwhich the decision to close theDepartment of Applied BiologicalSciences was implemented. I was struckwith the current relevance of a portion ofthe report’s conclusion:

“It is the view of this committee, and webelieve of the faculty at large, that a key tothe success of the Institute has been themaintenance of a system of shared gover-nance. Few of the MIT faculty see themselvesin an employee/employer relationship to theAdministration. Rather, most feel that theAdministration and faculty share a jointresponsibility for sustaining the excellence ofthe Institute. They expect that, when impor-tant choices arise about mission or internalorganization, they will naturally be involvedin the process leading up to decisions and inthe planning of implementation.”

The administration’s recent decision toform the Task Force on CommunityEngagement with 2030 Planning is anaffirmation of this principle of sharedgovernance.

The Task Force completed its report[available at: orgchart.mit.edu/node/6/pnr] on the up-zoning petition in mid-October, and I had the privilege to presentthe main findings of the report at theOctober faculty meeting. [The Task ForceChair, Tom Kochan, was out of town thatday.] Faculty received copies of the reportby e-mail shortly after the faculty meetingconcluded. Quoting from the report:

“The Task Force’s key finding was that theKendall Square design proposed byMITIMCo [the MIT Investment


5

Management Company] falls short of MITlevel expectations, standards, and aspirationswe have for the future of the campus. We canand must do better and we suggest optionsfor improving the design. We believe theseoptions can be considered and implementedin the design phase after the up-zoning peti-tion is approved. For this reason, and becausea number of City officials are anxious toreceive MIT’s petition, we support filing thepetition now, provided that:

1. A comprehensive urban design plan forEast Campus is developed in the post up-zoning stage but before any buildingstarts. This has not been done yet andneeds to be done as part of the planningfor Kendall Square development.

2. Our faculty Task Force or a similar groupparticipates directly in the developmentof the East Campus plan and KendallSquare project design.

3. The plan and design of Kendall Square isevaluated against a broader set of princi-ples than just return on investment prin-ciples that reflect the things we valuewhen designing academic space andspaces for student use.”

All of the feedback I’ve received on thecontents of the report has been very posi-tive. This includes faculty who had beenmost vocal in expressing concerns withthe Kendall Square development processand several members of the FacultyNewsletter’s Editorial Board.

The Task Force is now engaged inweekly meetings, working with MITIMCoplanners and members of the MITadministration, to discuss and evaluaterevisions to the plan presented with theprior up-zoning petition, filed with thecity in April 2011. Our aim is to develop aframework for a design that addresses theconcerns of the Task Force, which when

complete will accompany a new up-zoning request. I am hopeful that thisthree-way collaborative process will resultin a much-improved design for MIT’s realestate east of Ames Street, which includesa dramatic and functional eastern gatewayto the campus.

The Task Force will continue its effortsthis fall, including making a recommen-dation about community engagementwith planning for the entire MIT campus.

The Task Force’s formation, breadth offaculty expertise and viewpoints, andprogress to date bode well for serving as amodel for future engagement of the com-munity in MIT’s decision-making processes.Much remains to be accomplished before Iam willing to call this an unqualified success,but I am very hopeful.

Samuel M. Allen is a Professor in theDepartment of Materials Science andEngineering and Faculty Chair([email protected]).

The area within the dashed lines comprises the portion of campus considered in the Institute’s up-zoning petition that was submitted to the City of Cambridge in April 2011.

Source: MITIMCo


6

Jonathan KingGraduate Student Life, ResearchProductivity, and the MITIMCo Proposal

The value of a residential campusFEW FACU LTY, STU D E NTS , OR

administrators doubt the advantage of aresidential campus over a commutercampus for undergraduate education.The ability of students-in-residence tocontinuously interact with each other,with their TAs, with grad students andfaculty in UROP projects, provides adeeply enriched educational environ-ment, compared to a dispersed commut-ing campus. This is even truer forgraduate students. Particularly for thosegraduate students whose theses requirehands-on work (e.g., in biology, chem-istry, chemical engineering, and manyother experimental disciplines), the inter-action of students with each other, withpostdoctoral fellows and research techni-cians, is absolutely critical for optimalresearch productivity. In addition, manygraduate students have to be able to spendextended and irregular time with theirexperiments, unrelated to the rhythms ofthe conventional workday.

The MIT 2030 Task Force report (seepage 1) notes the absence of housingneeds or goals in the MIT 2030 plan, andcalls for a study of housing needs of MITgraduate students, faculty and staff.

The table (next column) shows thatmany leading research universities house asignificant fraction of their graduate stu-dents on campus. For some strongresearch universities, low graduate studentresidence numbers are misleading, as thecampuses are surrounded by residentialneighborhoods providing graduatestudent housing adjacent to campus.Though there are few studies on the rela-tionship between graduate student resi-

dences and research productivity, there arevery few full commuter campuses in thetop tier of research universities.

The graduate student housingdilemma

With limited on-campus graduatehousing, more than half of MIT graduatestudents have to secure housing offcampus. Unfortunately, the increased costof housing in Cambridge is causing con-siderable distress for our graduate stu-dents. As described in the May/June issueof this Newsletter [“Concerns Over theLack of Graduate Student Housing in theMIT 2030 Plan”], vacancy rates inCambridge are around 1%, among thelowest in the nation. Given the commer-cial development in Cambridge, housingcosts are very high and increasing signifi-cantly faster than graduate student

stipends. Graduate students cannotcompete financially with employees ofNovartis, Shire, Pfizer, Microsoft, orGoogle.

One consequence of this is that ourstudents are being pushed further awayfrom the campus, resulting in an everincreasing time spent commuting, andsignificantly decreasing their productivetime on campus. In practice, many stu-dents are limited to housing that is nearthe Red Line or other public transit, withattendant higher rents. Furthermore, asmany faculty know, commuting by carinto and out of Cambridge, across the BUBridge, through the Alewife Brook inter-change, on McGrath Highway, or throughUnion Square, meets with increasing con-gestion. If the proposed developments inKendall Square, Central Square, AlewifeBrook, and North Point – on the order of18,000,000 square feet – are built, thenumber of auto trips/day into and out ofCambridge will increase by more than50,000, with a similar increase in Red Lineand bus trips. Given that the Red Line isalready close to saturation point, and thecritical road interchanges are alreadyheavily congested, commuting to andfrom MIT is going to be more and moretime consuming. Thus it is not practicalfor graduate students who have to spendconsiderable time with their experimentsto try to lower their rents by living outsideof Cambridge.

The solution is campus graduatestudent housing

The solution – just as for undergradu-ates – is to build sufficient housing on thecampus. Many of our nation’s leading

Percentage of GraduateStudents Housed on Campus for Some Peer Institutions

Stanford 56%UCSD 52%MIT 41%Harvard 34%Rice 20%UCLA 20%Chicago 15%Georgia Tech 10%Penn 6%UT Austin 6%UNC 3%Vanderbilt 1%

Source:Office of the Provost/Institutional Research


7

research universities have followed thispath.

President Vest’s administration lis-tened to the housing concerns of graduatestudents [see: MIT Faculty Newsletter, Vol.13 No. 2, “Pressing Issues for GraduateStudents”] and launched an effort toincrease on-campus graduate studenthousing to 50% of the need. This resultedin the renovation of 224 Albany Streetinto graduate housing and the construc-tion of the Pacific Street housing. Thatwas an important step in the right direc-tion, but the initiative was not sustainedunder President Hockfield. That pathshould be pursued by building additionalgraduate student housing. Campus spaceto the northwest between MassachusettsAvenue and Main Street has already beenleased for 40- and 60-year periods toPfizer and Novartis. That leaves the MITland between Main Street and MemorialDrive on the East Campus as the mostnatural area for new construction of grad-uate residences.

The MITIMCo proposal ignores gradu-ate student housing needs and itsrelation to research productivity

Unfortunately, MIT 2030 and theMITIMCo up-zoning proposal ignorethis need. In particular, the MITIMCoproposal focuses on building commercialoffices on campus land, which will beleased for long terms as a source ofincome. No student housing has beenincluded in any of the MITIMCo presen-

tations to the Cambridge Planning Board.This lack of housing was sharply criticizedat the Planning Board hearing by bothrepresentatives of the East Cambridge andKendall Square communities, and by

MIT’s Graduate Student Council. It isperhaps not surprising that real estateexecutives who have driven the MITIMCoproposal would be insensitive to issueslike graduate student housing. In addi-tion, there is an intrinsic conflict of inter-est with MITIMCo’s real estate managersreceiving much larger bonuses from long-term commercial leases than from build-ing affordable graduate student housing.These are among the many reasons MITneeds a standing Campus PlanningCommittee of faculty, administrators,staff, and students, as suggested by thefaculty MIT 2030 Task Force in theirclosing section.

The MIT 2030 plan focuses on theincome generated from the commercial

leases. But real estate profits can be real-ized in many venues in the Boston area,elsewhere in the U.S., and abroad.Graduate student housing is only of useto MIT if it is on the campus or in close

proximity. In addition, a significant frac-tion of MIT income – overhead onresearch grants – depends on graduatestudent productivity. Reducing thequality of life and productivity of a sig-nificant fraction of MIT’s graduate stu-dents has real costs, even though theymay not be easy to assess. At a minimum,the MITIMCo up-zoning proposalshould be put on hold until the Provost’sTask Force on Community Engagementin 2030 Planning has been digested bythe faculty and graduate students, andthe redesign called for has been assessedand adopted.

In particular, the MITIMCo proposal focuses on buildingcommercial offices on campus land, which will be leasedfor long terms as a source of income. No studenthousing has been included in any of the MITIMCopresentations to the Cambridge Planning Board. Thislack of housing was sharply criticized at the PlanningBoard hearing by both representatives of the EastCambridge and Kendall Square communities, and byMIT’s Graduate Student Council.

Jonathan King is a Professor of Biology andChair of the MIT Faculty Newsletter EditorialBoard ([email protected]).


8

The challenges I overcame in collegeexist even now at MIT. I hear about itfrom some of the students I mentor aftermeeting them in MIT’s Interphase EDGE(a pre-freshman summer program) or

through the American Physical Society’sMinority Scholarship program. Some ofthese students receive the kind of discour-agement I got 33 years ago at Caltech, andeven though the faculty may think theyare being helpful, they are not.Nationwide, only about 30 physics PhDdegrees are awarded annually to under-represented minorities. Many more areneeded. Millie Dresselhaus and the lateMichael Feld showed me by example howeasy and rewarding it is to improve thesenumbers. Each of them supervised the

PhDs of five African American students atMIT.

Fifteen years ago, the MIT AdmissionsOffice asked me if I would supervise apromising young summer student in aprogram called Research Science Institute.It was the first time since graduate schoolthat I had worked with a high school

student in research. I was most fortunateand hit the jackpot as a research mentor –the 13-year-old Hispanic girl I supervisedwon first place in the Intel Science TalentSearch the next year and soon graduatedfrom MIT with an SB in physics, followedby a PhD at Harvard. She is now a tenuredprofessor and a leading theoretical parti-cle physicist. I have supervised or helpedfind supervisors for RSI students eversince.

The MIT Summer Research Program(MSRP) also presents a golden opportu-

nity for faculty. MSRP seeks to boost theacademic careers of undergraduates fromoutside MIT who show strong promisefor graduate education. It also seeks toimprove the research enterprise throughincreased diversity. It has been inspiring tosee our MSRP physics students admittedinto PhD programs at MIT, UC Berkeley,and other top universities. As a result ofthese and other efforts, the MIT PhysicsDepartment trains (through MSRP andour own degree programs) more than10% of the underrepresented minorityPhDs in physics.

My greatest satisfaction as a facultymember has come from mentoring stu-dents – not just research students, but alsoundergraduates who want and need theencouragement of a role model. TheOffice of Minority Education creates anexcellent framework in its MentorAdvocate Partnership program, making iteasy for any faculty or staff member tohelp our students thrive. Freshman advis-ing plays a similarly important role, andhas provided my greatest satisfaction thissemester. Unfortunately, these programshave a severe shortage of faculty mentors.

These are just a few of the ways we canmake a huge difference in the lives of ourstudents. I invite you to add your ownexamples to the list. Please consider whatyou can do – our students want and needyour advice and encouragement.

What Students Want From FacultyBertschinger, from page 1

Edmund Bertschinger is Department Headand Professor, Department of Physics([email protected]).

My greatest satisfaction as a faculty member has comefrom mentoring students – not just research students,but also undergraduates who want and need theencouragement of a role model. The Office of MinorityEducation creates an excellent framework in its MentorAdvocate Partnership program . . . . Freshman advisingplays a similarly important role . . . . Unfortunately, theseprograms have a severe shortage of faculty mentors.


9

Christine OrtizEllan Spero

The Millenials@MIT: Discussions on theGenerational Changes in the GraduateStudent Population

OVE R TH E PAST TWO YEAR S, wehave had extensive discussions with grad-uate students at monthly “Dinners andDialogue,” a number of focus groups,panels and many one-on-one meetings.Recently, we held a round table discussionwith a cross section of seven MIT gradu-ate students representing all five Schools, avariety of backgrounds, ethnicities,genders, nationalities, departments,research and extracurricular interests,family status, and lengths of study at MIT(see Acknowledgements). The aim was tofocus on a single topic in depth: the gener-ational changes of the MIT graduate pop-ulation − the majority of which (85%)include “The Millenials” (birth years 1980to present, see figure below) − and howthese changes were reflected in andimpacting their educational experience.

We also discussed how MIT could

evolve to better support this generation ofgraduate students in order that they maymore efficiently and easily find their pathand passion, engage strategically in theinnumerable educational opportunitiesMIT has to offer, unlock their imaginationand creativity, realize their uniquestrengths and potential and achieve all oftheir academic, personal, and professionalgoals. A number of themes emerged fromthis fascinating discussion (see box, nextpage) which were often heard in our pre-vious outreach and are supplemented bysupporting data when available, follow-ing. The goal of this article is to providefaculty with a snapshot into the educa-tional experience of this generation ofgraduate students, to serve as impetus forcontinued dialogue and exploration ofnew areas for improving the quality ofgraduate education at MIT.

Taking Action to Have a PositiveImpact in the World This generation of MIT graduate stu-dents are community and global mindedand, hence, interest in “grand challenge”research areas is flourishing (e.g., energy,environment, health, poverty, water, etc.),as well as non-traditional learning, publicservice, entrepreneurship, leadership,international projects, and educationaloutreach. Approximately 440 graduatestudents were involved in the MIT GlobalIdeas Challenge and 12 of the 14 winningteams in 2012 were led by graduate stu-dents. Approximately 2000 graduatestudent “seats” were taken in 36Entrepreneurship subjects and about1000 graduate student “seats” were takenin 18 “Innovation” subjects (Committeefor Innovation and Entrepreneurship

continued on next page

Millennials 4,475, 99.9%

Gen X 2, <1%

Undergraduate Students

Millennials 5,576, 85%

Gen X 889, 14%

Baby Boomers 58, 1%

Graduate Students Millennials

48, 5%

Gen X 397, 39%

Baby Boomers 404, 40%

The Silents 169, 16%

The GI Generation

3, <1%

Faculty

Generational demographics of MIT undergraduates (AY2013 degree-seeking candidates), graduate students (AY2013 degree-seekingcandidates) and faculty (AY2013 as of 10/14/2012); Millenials or Generation Y (Birth Years 1980-present), Generation X (Birth Years1965-1979), Baby Boomers (Birth Years 1946-1964), Silents (Birth Years 1928-1945), and GI Generation (Birth Years Prior to 1928).

Source: Office of the Provost/Institutional Research


10

Education, Sub�Committee Report,2012). Many graduate students alsoengage in the $100K EntrepreneurshipCompetition and the MIT EntrepreneursClub. Participation in graduate studentgovernance continues to thrive with closeto 600 students volunteering and gradu-ate student representatives serving onmore than 30 Institute-level committees.Graduate students also engage in interna-tional engagements through individualfaculty-driven research collaborationsand Institute-supported global researchteams (e.g., The Singapore-MIT Alliancefor Research and Technology orSMART), internships (The MITInternational Science and TechnologyInitiatives or MISTI) and globally-ori-ented curricula (e.g., MIT Sloan ActionLearning Labs).

On a Journey of Self-Discovery andWilling to Take Risks Today’s MIT graduate students are notonly immersed in a diverse array of aca-demic, co-curricular, and extra-curricularopportunities (“drinking from the fire-hose”) but in addition must manage 24/7access to information, hyper-communica-tion, national and global uncertainty andincreasing expectations for productivity.Within this turbulent maelstrom ofchoice and interactivity, they are searchingfor purpose and meaning in life andseeking to explore and define their owneducational and life path. The graduatestudent participants expressed a desire fora guided, supported, more flexible andpersonalized education, e.g., greater easeto study boundary-crossing and non-tra-ditional research areas, increased access tointerdisciplinary and extra-departmentalinteractions and holistic mentoringbeyond the primary thesis advisor, includ-ing peer advising, for educationalmapping and navigation. An evolution forgraduate evolution was proposed; a coreof academically rigorous foundational,discipline-specific training integratedwith long-term transferable professional

skills development and personal growth,in particular, critical thinking and theability to produce creative solutions tobroad complex problems, manage failure,self-reflect, and develop self-confidence.All of the student participants in theround table felt that they had in some waytaken educational “risks” during theirtime at MIT, for example: switching fieldsto pursue a deeper passion, choosing anon-conventional interdisciplinaryresearch topic, creating a start-upcompany with scholars outside of thecurrent field of study, going abroad withprograms like the MIT Sloan Action Labs,and engaging in leadership and studentgovernment; they felt it would be highlybeneficial to reduce the “invisible” barriersto such activities.

Increasingly Diverse and InclusiveCompared to previous generations, ourgraduate population is increasinglydiverse (approximately 38% interna-tional, 12% domestic underrepresentedminority, 32% women), which is reflectiveof recruitment efforts at all levels of theInstitute, national demographic shifts,and the increasing globalization of highereducation. Diversity is a core value of MITand deep-rooted inclusivity is an aspira-tion for MIT. The Office of the Dean forGraduate Education (ODGE) hasadopted a vision to foster an environmentwhich embraces the potential of all itsmembers, where all feel intellectually andsocially engaged, valued, interacting, andconnected to the MIT community. Thisphilosophy is a component of the recently

launched “MITogether” campaign. Theparticipating students in the round tablecited the benefit and prevalence of over450 interest groups along many dimen-sions − from faith and cultural groups toarts and athletic communities − as coresupport structures that often enable stu-dents to go out and engage more confi-dently in the broader MIT community.Cross-disciplinary and cross-culturalinteractions are also facilitated by the largeresidential graduate community thathouses approximately 38% of graduatestudents on campus and related program-ming such as Sidney Pacific CulturalInterExchange or SPICE.

However, challenges do exist, in partic-ular for underrepresented minority stu-dents with regards to the perceivedtension between diversity and excellencewhich creates a need to justify qualifica-tions and belonging (see The Tech,Volume 132, Issue 5, 2012), the smallnumber of faculty role models of similarbackgrounds, disconnection with faculty,self-doubt, isolation, and self-confidence.International students may also face issuesrelated to cultural acclimation. Whilethere is still work to be done, the studentswho participated in the round tableviewed MIT as a place where dialoguinghas begun, the barriers to having difficultconversations are decreasing, and cross-cultural interactions are growing.

Exhibiting the Paradox of SimultaneousOptimism and PessimismThe participating students in the roundtable expressed a paradox of outwardlyfacing optimism and confidence simulta-neously with inward pessimism and self-doubt (the “imposter syndrome”). Whenthey look from MIT out into the world,they were optimistic about tackling theworld’s challenges, but when they lookwithin the bubble of MIT at their educa-tional journey, they are sometimes pes-simistic about being able to make itthrough. The students commented thatthis may be due in part to the high qualityand accomplishments of their peers, thelack of experience with failure andlearned coping mechanisms, the large

The Millenials@MITOrtiz and Spero, from preceding page

Generational Characteristics of the MITGraduate Student Population

• Taking Action to Have a PositiveImpact in the World• On a Journey of Self-Discovery andWilling to Take Risks• Increasingly Diverse and Inclusive• Exhibiting the Paradox ofSimultaneous Optimism andPessimism• Natives of the Digital World• Striving for Work-Life Integration


11

number of choices and decisions, theincreasing expectations of productivity,and the drive to achieve an artificialvision of perfectionism. In the worse-casescenario, these contributing factors canlead to isolation and factor into depres-sion and mental health issues; in fact, thevolume and complexity of personalsupport needed and requested by gradu-ate students has increased dramatically inrecent years and 42% of graduate stu-dents cite academic and/or social isola-tion as a barrier to their academicprogress (2011 Enrolled GraduateStudent Survey). Graduate education andits supporting infrastructure at MIT canserve to proactively prevent and mitigatesuch issues, to build self-confidence sothat an equilibrium can be achievedbetween these two diverging facets oftheir character. A Quality of Life Surveyfor the entire MIT student populationspearheaded by the Chancellor’s office isplanned for the spring of 2013 to betterunderstand such issues and guide futureprogramming.

Natives of the Digital World This generation of graduate students usestechnology and diverse and personalmedia ubiquitously and simultaneouslyfor communication, classwork, andresearch. They are infiltrated by techno-logical tools that affect their educationalexperience in a myriad of ways: socialinteractions, communication with theirthesis advisor, remote online instrumen-tation training and experimentation,scholarly conferences, online disciplinarydiscussion groups, virtual internationalcollaboration, nearly instantaneous litera-ture alerts, etc. The research of ProfessorSherry Turkle (MIT Program in Science,Technology, and Society) reveals how theuse of technological devices causes theperiodic mental and emotional removalfrom face-to-face interactions, the sacri-fice of deep and meaningful conversationsand a reduced capacity for self-reflectionand solitude, ultimately increasing vulner-ability to loneliness and isolation. As deepintellectual discourse is the currency ofcollaboration, research innovation, and

knowledge generation central to graduateeducation, Professor Turkle’s commentson the creation of sacred times and spacesfor deep thought, active listening, andface-to-face interactions warrant consid-eration as we consider the evolution of thetwenty-first century residential researchuniversity: for example, curriculum,MITx, the physical plant and teaching,learning, collaboration and communityspaces, co-curricular activities and trans-ferable skills development, and in mentor-ing and advising.

Striving for Work-Life IntegrationThe Millenial generation is evolving theconcept of work-life balance to a moreflexible work-life integration. Manyaspects of graduate education enable thecapability to work whenever and wher-ever is most productive. Faculty, whoserve as role models for our graduate stu-dents, report increased satisfaction withthe ability to integrate work and per-sonal/family life from 40% in 2008 to64% in 2012 (Faculty Quality of LifeSurvey). Many of our graduate studentshave families; 49% report having aspouse or partner and 9% report havingone or more children (2011 EnrolledGraduate Student Survey). For graduatestudent families, the dual role of parent-ing and being a graduate student is chal-lenging, with regards to finances,childcare, and scheduling. It requires pri-oritizing, time management, and comingup with creative solutions. Simul-taneously, there is great opportunity forfamilies of graduate students sharing theMIT culture and lifestyle to build a con-tinuous integrated experience. MITincreasingly plays a role as a resource foreducation, creativity, and inspiration forgraduate student families.

The FutureThe ODGE Strategic Plan(odge.mit.edu/about/strategy/) sets fortha future vision for graduate educationwhich considers the generational changesof our graduate students − expandingupon its foundation of the creation anddissemination of original knowledge at

the frontiers of a field, to include also therecognition of what the new knowledgegenerated means in a broad context, andthe development of a metacurricularskillset and the character to act on thisnew knowledge for the benefit of human-ity. ODGE strategic initiatives on facilitat-ing cross-cutting interdisciplinaryintellectual networks, diversity and inclu-sion, personal support and professionaldevelopment were all areas raised in theround table and in many other discussionforums. New ideas were raised as wellwithin these general themes and provideopportunities, as we continue to dialogueon how we may best advance the qualityof graduate education at MIT. It is clearthat as higher education is undergoingdisruptive change, it is taking our studentsalong with it; our creativity and collabora-tion will allow us to direct this wave ofchange.

AcknowledgementsWe would like to thank the following grad-uate students who participated in theround table discussion: AdekunleAdeyemo, Department of ChemicalEngineering; André Du Pin Calmon,Operations Research Center and the SloanSchool of Management; Aalap Dighe,Department of Mechanical Engineering;Russell Jensen, Department of Chemistry;Mareena Robinson, Department ofNuclear Science and Engineering; andKatia Zolotovsky, Department ofArchitecture; in addition to the co-authorof this article Ellan Spero, Program inHistory, Anthropology, Science,Technology, and Society. The authorswould also like to thank Chancellor EricGrimson, Dean for UndergraduateEducation Dan Hastings, and Dean forStudent Life Chris Colombo for providinginput on a draft of this article. The authorswelcome feedback and comments on thisarticle.

Christine Ortiz is Dean for GraduateEducation and Professor of Materials Science([email protected]);Ellan Spero is a Doctoral Student in theProgram in History, Anthropology, Science,Technology and Society ([email protected]).


12

Diana HendersonThe Office of Faculty Support: What Can We Do To Help You?

OUR NAME SAYS IT ALL – the Officeof Faculty Support (OFS) is here to helpfaculty in your educational endeavors.OFS staff members assist in developingand coordinating the undergraduate cur-riculum and educational programming,support our remarkably strong facultygovernance system, and provide informa-tion and infrastructure related to under-graduate education. We also advocate onbehalf of the faculty for improvements tothe educational infrastructure andresources.

Specifically, OFS:

• Supports the Committee on theUndergraduate Program, theSubcommittee on the CommunicationRequirement, the Subcommittee on theHumanities, Arts, and Social Sciences(HASS) Requirement, and other com-mittees related to the undergraduatecurriculum

• Oversees the CommunicationRequirement and the HASSRequirement, and advises undergradu-ates about both requirements

• Manages the Margaret MacVicar FacultyFellows Program

• Convenes monthly meetings of depart-mental Undergraduate Officers

• Distributes grants from the d’ArbeloffFund for Excellence in Education andthe Alumni Class Funds, and analyzestheir outcomes to help disseminate suc-cessful innovations

• Administers student subject evaluations

• Gathers and represents faculty, student,and staff perspectives in projects toimprove online academic services

• Provides outreach and communicationsregarding the undergraduate programgenerally and the General InstituteRequirements (GIRs) in particular, bothonline and person-to-person

Frequently partnering with staff fromother offices, OFS staff members are cur-rently involved in a number of projectsincluding:

• Fostering curriculum innovation, partic-ularly in the GIRs, in cross-disciplinaryareas, and in online education that con-tributes to MIT students’ learning

• Coordinating the transition to a newDistribution Component of the HASSRequirement

• Supporting the experimental HASSExploration (HEX) Program

• Moving the HASS Concentration Formsonline

• Designing better tools to help instructorsmanage enrollments in MIT subjects

• Streamlining the Institute subject evalu-ation questions

Support for Faculty CommitteesMIT is, in my experience, unique in thepersisting strength of its commitment to

faculty governance: the “hands on” atti-tude that we value in our educationalprograms extends to our role in oversee-ing the curriculum and helping to run theInstitute. With such involvement comesmuch responsibility, as well as the need tounderstand how the varied parts of ourcurriculum combine to provide our stu-dents with an excellent education. To helpin this process, OFS keeps track of facultyeducational policies and principles overtime and supports the work of manycommittees.

Dean for Undergraduate EducationDaniel Hastings created OFS andappointed me director and Dean forCurriculum and Faculty Support in 2006,just as the Task Force on theUndergraduate Educational Commonswas publishing its recommendations toimprove the quality and clarity of theundergraduate educational experience.Dan and I served on that Task Force, andseveral of the members of the new OFS hadprovided support. OFS worked with theEducational Commons Subcommittee andthe Committee on the UndergraduateProgram (CUP) as the Task Force recom-mendations were refined, discussed, andvoted on by the faculty.

Among the curricular changes OFShelped implement were MIT’s offering ofdouble majors instead of double degreesand the revised Distribution Componentof the HASS Requirement, which is replac-ing the limited list of HASS-D subjects. Asoversight of the HASS Requirementshifted to a new CUP subcommittee,support for that Subcommittee on theHASS Requirement (SHR) moved to OFS,joining our ongoing support for CUP and


13

the Subcommittee on the CommunicationRequirement (SOCR).

At the behest of faculty on these com-mittees, OFS staff often track emergingissues related to undergraduate education,and assist in coordinating work across thevarious groups. They collaborate closelywith faculty members chairing the com-mittees, preparing background materialsfor meetings and disseminating policydocuments and recommendations thatresult from committee consideration. Animportant part of the staff work is main-taining committee records, which thoseinvolved in faculty governance often findof use subsequently – as when perennialconcerns (such as student advising, orpace and pressure) appear on our agenda.

OFS staff also try to assist facultymembers in departments as they presentcurricular changes such as the introduc-tion of new majors or minors. The itera-tive process that requires presentations tovarious faculty committees and thefaculty as a whole can appear daunting, sorecently staff from OFS, the Registrar’sOffice, and the President’s Office devel-oped guidelines and a proposal templatefor a New Undergraduate DegreeProgram, which are available on thefaculty Website at web.mit.edu/faculty/governance/degree.html. Work is under-way to develop parallel materials forfaculty seeking to propose new under-graduate minor programs.

For faculty wishing to have their sub-jects designated as fulfilling componentsof the Communication and/or HASSRequirements, OFS staff (KathleenMacArthur for the CommunicationRequirement and Genevre Filiault for theHASS Requirement) can provide infor-mation on both the criteria for and licens-ing of subjects. Typically they will serve asliaisons to the subcommittees and assistfaculty and departments throughout theproposal process. The subject proposaldeadline for both requirements isDecember 7, 2012.

Advising for the Communication andHASS RequirementsBecause of the overlap between the

Communication and HASS Require-ments, OFS created a position that pro-vides a single point of advising to ensurethat students stay on track in bothrequirements. Patricia Fernandes, the

advisor for the Communication andHASS Requirements, is available to stu-dents, advisors, and administrators whohave questions about either requirement(as am I).

Staff from OFS and from InformationServices and Technology (IS&T) are cur-rently working to move the HASSConcentration process online so that stu-dents will be able to submit proposal andcompletion forms electronically forreview and approval by concentrationadvisors. The forms will also be availablefor viewing by students’ major advisors.

Curriculum InnovationEach year faculty can apply for financialsupport from two funds administered byOFS: the d’Arbeloff Fund for Excellence inEducation, and the Alumni Class Funds(supported by the Classes of 1951, 1955,1972, and 1999). The application periodsfor the funds are staggered to providemore options to faculty, with applicationsdue in the fall for the d’Arbeloff Fund andat the beginning of spring term for theAlumni Class Funds – all for projectsoffered during the subsequent academicyear. Proposals for Alumni Class Fundsare due February 1, 2013.

These grants foster experimentation inresidential-based undergraduate educa-tion with particular emphasis on theGIRs, the experience of first-year stu-dents, interdisciplinary and cross-discipli-nary offerings, and development of onlinelearning modules for use at MIT.

Selections are decided by a committeeof faculty from across the five Schools, aswell as the donors. Last year 17 facultygroups received almost $373,000. Fiveprojects received d’Arbeloff awards, while

12 grants were made from the AlumniClass Funds. Even when a grant is notawarded, we try (within the bounds ofconfidentiality) to share any helpful feed-back or to redirect applicants to other,

potentially more appropriate sources offunding or assistance. Please feel free tocontact Mary Enterline or myself withyour proposal ideas or questions aboutthe funds.

Beyond the funds, OFS supports theefforts of the CUP in licensing educa-tional experiments, and is currentlyinvolved in discussions at faculty commit-tees on the impact of MITx and onlinelearning on residential-based undergrad-uate education. I sit on the MIT Councilon Educational Technology (MITCET) aswell. We also collaborate with our DUEcolleagues in the Teaching and LearningLaboratory (TLL) and the Office ofEducational Innovation and Technology(OEIT) to promote educational innova-tion at MIT.

Margaret MacVicar Faculty FellowsProgramThe Margaret MacVicar Faculty FellowsProgram is the newest addition to the OFSportfolio, having become part of OFS lastacademic year. The program, whichhonors MIT’s first Dean forUndergraduate Education, is MIT’shighest undergraduate teaching award.OFS staff oversee the nomination andselection process for fellows, who are rec-ommended by a committee of faculty andstudents for the Provost’s approval.

New MacVicar Faculty Fellows arehonored at MacVicar Day events eachMarch. MacVicar Day also features aprogram focused on undergraduate edu-cation, which is open to the entire MITcommunity. Last year we had a wonderfulpanel of speakers, in a tribute honoringthe late Professor and Dean of Science


Each year faculty can apply for financial support fromtwo funds administered by OFS: the d’Arbeloff Fund forExcellence in Education, and the Alumni Class Funds . . . .


14

Robert Silbey; the event highlighted theongoing excellence and commitment ofsome star teachers. The next MacVicarDay will be March 13, 2013. As well asMacVicar Day, we organize other eventsfor the fellows and for the public.

The MacVicar program provides anopportunity for these dedicated facultyacross MIT to learn from one another,share their innovations, and advocate forexcellence in our undergraduate educa-tional mission. We meet several timeseach year, and I have tried to institute newopportunities for sharing perspectivesamong and by the MacVicar Fellows, forthe benefit of the wider community.

Undergraduate Officers Group andFaculty OutreachIn OFS we see ourselves as a bridgebetween teaching faculty and members ofthe administration. During the academicyear, I convene monthly meetings of theUndergraduate Officers from all depart-ments, sections, and programs. This is anopportunity both to provide informationfor the officers to take back to their col-leagues and also to get feedback on educa-tional issues and on administrative andinfrastructure changes. For example, at arecent meeting, we had presentations anddiscussions on streamlining subject evalu-ation questions, changes to the grade-book module in Stellar, and actions totake if you perceive students are highlystressed. We welcome hearing more fromdepartments about their instructionalstaff ’s concerns and interests, especially asthey might help us maintain and improvethe education of our MIT undergradu-ates. We are happy to put you in touchwith people and offices whom you mightwish to have visit your faculty meeting.

Subject EvaluationMIT’s subject evaluation system movedentirely online in fall 2010 after a two-yearpilot which benefited from the experienceand perspectives of many departments(including Courses 2, 6, and 16, who had

previously set the way forward by estab-lishing local online systems, and havesince joined our common system: manythanks!). OFS now manages the Institute-wide system.

This past spring, after consultationwith the Officers of the Faculty, I con-vened a Subject Evaluation AdvisoryCommittee (SEAC) comprised of facultywith expertise in education, surveys, andevaluations from all five Schools, as well asundergraduate and graduate student rep-resentatives.

SEAC’s first task was to examine theInstitute-wide questions asked on theevaluations. We had continued to use thetwo sets of 30-plus questions from thepaper forms (with slight variationsbetween those for Science/Engineeringsubjects and those for SHASS/SAP) as theonline system was established, so that wecould compare responses between thetwo systems without introducing extravariables. However, following the recom-mendations of an earlier advisory group,OFS has since worked with the Teachingand Learning Laboratory and SEAC tocreate a shorter, more universally relevantset of questions. Fewer common ques-tions will make the basic forms lessonerous for our busy students whileallowing greater customization bySchools, departments, and instructorswho are now able to add a limited set oftheir own specific questions. We hopethat reducing the standard set of ques-tions may also help response rates bykeeping surveys to a reasonable length.

The streamlined set of questions hasbeen shared with the CUP, the Committeeon the Graduate Program, the FacultyPolicy Committee, and the Undergrad-uate Officers. We hope to introduce andtest the new set of questions during thisacademic year with the cooperation of theSloan School, who could help us become

the rare university to have a single set ofevaluations.

Summary subject evaluation data con-tinues to be available to everyone in thecommunity while instructors, departmentheads, and academic administrators canalso access student comments. OFS staffhelp departments, Schools, faculty com-mittees, and administrative offices analyzethe data as they consider curricular ques-tions and policies. We also stand ready tosuggest good practices for encouragingstudent participation: At the top of the

list, perhaps hearteningly, is facultymaking a point of valuing the responses,and letting students know that directly.Many faculty encourage students to bringlaptops to class (the MIT Library hasloaners if needed) and reserve time fortheir responses.

Enrollment ManagementAs part of the Online Registration PhaseTwo initiative, I am the business lead on aproject team that was formed this pastspring to deliver tools that supportinstructors’ ability to manage enrollmentwithin individual subjects. Through thesetools, we hope that students will moreeasily find appropriate subjects in atimely fashion, instructors will be able toaccommodate those students with thegreatest need in limited enrollment sub-jects, and departments will be able toimprove their advance planning. OFS isproviding sponsorship and staffing forthis project jointly with the Registrar’sOffice and IS&T.

The project team received preliminaryinput through discussions with facultygroups including CUP, SOCR, and theUndergraduate Officers Group. This pastspring, a subset of the team interviewedfaculty and staff from eight departments(2, 5, 6, 9, 14, 18, 21L, 21W) in an attemptto better understand the issues depart-

The Office of Faculty SupportHenderson, from preceding page

In OFS we see ourselves as a bridge between teachingfaculty and members of the administration. During theacademic year, I convene monthly meetings of theUndergraduate Officers from all departments, sections,and programs.


15

ments face with enrollment management.In May, the team administered an onlinesurvey to all active faculty and non-facultyinstructors, to which 505 people (includ-ing 326 faculty members) responded.Some who were on leave may not havereceived the survey, and if you have addi-tional input do please feel encouraged tocontact me directly.

The project team has identified the fol-lowing items as potentially in scope forthe project:

• Tools for adding, removing, approving,and denying student enrollmentthroughout the term

• Capacity to enforce limited enrollmentcaps

• Tools to set priorities for enrollment

• Support for waitlists

• Capacity to track and enforce pre/co-requisites

• Tools for managing and enforcing per-mission of instructor

• Tools for section management

• Tracking and managing conflicts withinan individual student’s schedule

The team has just begun prioritizingthese items. It is possible that some may beaddressed in other IS&T projects – and, ofcourse, getting these projects right takestime. We’ll keep in touch as the work evolves.

As you can see, we have manyongoing projects in OFS. At all times,however, our first priority is to supportfaculty members in their educationalendeavors. When you have an idea or aquestion and don’t know where to go,don’t hesitate to contact us. We’relocated in Building 12, just off the maincorridor, down the hallway by Café 4. Orcall (x36776) or e-mail us ([email protected]).Our Website is web.mit.edu/facultysupport.It includes links to the program Websitesand contact information for the staff.We’ll help you, or try to direct you tosomeone who can.

Ernst G. FrankelPreparing for a New Industrial Revolution

MAN U FACTU R I N G AN D S CI E N CE

have converged and the new manufactur-ing environment has little in commonwith traditional ways of making things.Similarly, it is no longer labor intensiveand therefore labor cost differentials playa declining role and no longer serve as anexcuse for outsourcing to low labor costcountries or regions. There is an urgentneed to teach manufacturing not onlybased on simple mechanical and physicalprocesses, but on smart processes andassembly decisions.

Supply channels as well as idea chainsare now global and virtually real-time, aselectronic communication permits bothinformation and command transferalmost instantaneously. We must teach anew generation of technical design andmanufacturing engineers capable of inte-grating new material, information, and

technology not just into new productsand uses, but also into effective manufac-turing, assembly, and delivery. This willrequire a new kind of engineer, one withmulti-disciplinary skills, a broad view andunfettered imagination, who questionseverything and is willing to ignore tradi-tion. Such a person must learn not onlythe basics but, more importantly, how,what, and when to question.

We must teach our students not justthat the sky is the limit, but that humanimagination can solve and resolve anyproblem, as well as develop new solutions.We have developed unique new technolo-gies; let us now do the same for their man-ufacturing, assembly, and use. Such achallenge may require a new approach toengineering education, and MIT is wellpositioned to lead this revolution.

In addition to new types of degree pro-

grams, we should also consider offeringtrade or apprenticeship programs, usingMIT’s workshops and laboratories notjust for research, but also for the trainingof a new generation. The objective wouldbe to develop a cadre of new, well-trained,motivated, and equipped manufacturingleaders who not only have the requiredskills, but also the knowledge and incen-tive to always question how things aredone, and the ability to get them donebetter, cheaper, and faster.

Concomitantly, there is an urgent need forexpanding the re-education and trainingprograms offered by MIT, with engineers andscientists, as well as skilled workers, returningevery 7-10 years to renew their knowledgeand maintain their credentials.

Ernst G. Frankel is an Emeritus Professor inthe Department of Mechanical Engineering([email protected]).

Diana Henderson is Dean for Curriculum andFaculty Support and a Professor in theLiterature Section ([email protected]).


16

MIT: First in the World, Sixth in the U.S.?

MANY OR GAN I ZAT I ON S CR EATE

and publish rankings of institutions ofhigher education. They range from thetrivial – Princeton Review’s top partyschools – to the much-hyped U.S. News &World Report rankings. One goal most ofthese rankings have in common is puttingthe top institutions into a simple rank-order list that somehow captures thequality of the entire educational experi-ence. Colleges and universities are suffi-ciently complex that any comparison willby nature be reductive, but the publishersof these rankings each claim that they arereducing to the most important factors.

Here at MIT, Institutional Research (inthe Office of the Provost) routinely collectsand distributes to our Schools and depart-ments four popular ranking systems: theaforementioned U.S. News & World Report(which has overall university rankings aswell as undergraduate and graduatesubject rankings), Times Higher Education(from the U.K. magazine of the samename, also divided into institutional andsubject rankings), the QS World UniversityRankings, and the National ResearchCouncil ranking of graduate programs.These rankings incorporate a variety ofmeasures to arrive at an overall score. Foreach category, say teaching for example,the rankings usually incorporate quantita-tive measures, such as the faculty-studentratio, and qualitative measures, such asteaching ratings from reputation surveys.In addition to measures of teaching, otherdrivers of these rankings methodologiesinclude indices of research productivity(such as numbers of publications and cita-tions), financial resources, and the ill-defined construct of reputation.

Generally speaking, the differentrankings adopt different orientationswhich can be broadly categorized intoinput-centric and output-centric.Nearly half of the U.S. News & WorldReport ranking is composed of inputmeasures such as incoming undergrad-uate class rank, incoming undergradu-ate SAT scores, undergraduateselectivity, financial resources perstudent, and student-to-faculty ratio. A

third of the U.S. News ranking is basedon outputs (graduation and retentionrates and alumni giving).

Two other rankings are more output-based than U.S. News. 60% of The TimesHigher Education (THE) World UniversityRankings is based on faculty researchoutputs (publications and citations), and20% of the QSWorld University Rankingsis related to citations. Both of these rank-ings, as their names would suggest,include institutions from around theglobe, not just in the United States. MITtends to do much better in these rankingsthan in the U.S. News rankings, due totheir focus on research. The most recent

THE rankings have MIT third worldwide,and the QS rankings have MIT as thenumber one institution in the world.While this may sound perfectly reasonableto those of us who work here, U.S. Newsdisagrees and most recently had us tied forsixth place nationally with Stanford.

While these systems of rankings assigndifferent weights to different categories, allthree of them include some arguablyobjective, verifiable measures, such as pub-

lications and citations, student characteris-tics, or student-to-faculty ratios. Thesurvey-based measures of reputation aremore opaque, and influence the rankingsto a considerable extent. Each of the rank-ings includes the results of surveys sent tofaculty, department chairs, employers ofgraduates, and/or college and universitypresidents. As a part of these surveys, aca-demics from the participating institutionsare asked to score the other institutions,and an average of these scores is a part ofthe final tally. The most reputation-basedranking is QS, with 50% of an institution’srank derived thereof. U.S. News is 22.5%reputation, and THE is 15%.

Here at MIT, Institutional Research (in the Office of theProvost) routinely collects and distributes to our Schoolsand departments four popular ranking systems: theaforementioned U.S. News & World Report (which hasoverall university rankings as well as undergraduate andgraduate subject rankings), Times Higher Education(from the U.K. magazine of the same name, also dividedinto institutional and subject rankings), the QS WorldUniversity Rankings, and the National Research Councilranking of graduate programs.


17

All three of these publishers alsoproduce rankings at the subject/courselevel. THE uses the same methodology fortheir subject rankings as they do for theirinstitution rankings. QS’s subject rankingsare more simplified than their institu-tional ones and rely only upon a survey ofacademics, of employers of graduates, andcounts of citations. The relative weight ofeach category is tailored to each field asdeemed appropriate to that field. U.S.News, however, includes no objectivemeasures in their undergraduate andgraduate subject rankings. These aredetermined entirely by surveys sent todeans (for their rankings of undergradu-ate engineering and business) and depart-ment heads (for their rankings ofgraduate programs).

The last ranking system mentioned inthe introduction, but purposefully left sep-arate, is the NRC’s 2010 ranking of doc-toral programs. The methodology for theNRC rankings was designed to use meas-urable data on doctoral programs andapply both the stated preferences of aca-demics in the field and their revealed pref-

erences. This was done using a survey thatasked not only how respondents wouldrate each program, but the importance ofcertain factors – such as graduate studentsupport or number of publications byfaculty – to compute a range of rankingsfor each program. One range was calcu-lated using weights derived from the statedimportance of the factors, while the otherwas calculated using the revealed impor-tance of these factors based upon ratingsof programs. So, for example, if respon-dents to the NRC survey (i.e., faculty in thefield) said that diversity was very impor-tant, but then the top-rated programs werenot diverse, measures of diversity would bea large part of one ranking but not theother. The end result was a ranking that,despite its noble goal of capturing the“multidimensionality” of doctoralprogram quality, gave programs tworanges of rankings (e.g., from fourth tofourteenth for stated importance and fifthto eighth for revealed importance) that aredifficult to understand or interpretbecause the typical consumer of rankingswants a single number.

All of these rankings attempt to dosomething very difficult by quantifying –at a single point in time – the relativequality of one school or program that isconstantly evolving. For those of us atMIT, the difference in our rank from oneyear to the next, say from fifth to sixth,seems arbitrary. But for institutions andprograms on the margin of the top 10 orthe top 50 or top 100, being bumped outof one of these groups could mean a dif-ference in which students apply foradmission. Perhaps the greatest source ofanxiety is being ranked first, as there isnowhere to go but down. In summary,while it is important to watch the rankingsin order to know how your institution orprogram will be perceived by consumersof these rankings, it is also important toknow that the methods behind theserankings determine the results just asmuch as the quality of the school ordepartment.

RankTimes HigherEducation Rank QS Rank

U.S. News &World Report

1 CalTech 1 MIT 1 Harvard

2 Oxford 2 Cambridge 1 Princeton

3 Stanford 3 Harvard 3 Yale

4 Harvard 4 Oxford 4 Columbia

University College

5 MIT 5 London 4 U of Chicago

6 Princeton 6 Imperial College London 6 MIT

7 Cambridge 7 Yale 6 Stanford

Imperial College

8 London 8 U of Chicago 8 Duke

9 Berkeley 9 Princeton 9 U of Pennsylvania

10 U of Chicago 10 CalTech 10 CalTech

This article was written by the Office of theProvost/Institutional Research at the request ofthe Faculty Newsletter.

2012-2013 World Rankings of Colleges/Universities


18

Costantino J. ColomboChristine Ortiz

An Opportunity for Faculty to Help ShapeMIT’s Remarkable Graduate StudentCommunity

H OU S E MASTE R S HAVE B E E N AT

the heart of the MIT graduate studentexperience since the 1930s, when Dr.Avery Ashdown (PhD ’24) was selected asthe first live-in faculty resident of any ofthe dormitories at MIT. Today, faculty stillhold a vital place as the intellectual andcommunity leaders of the residentialsystem for graduate students. [stu-dentlife.mit.edu/housemasters]

This year, MIT is seeking to appointfaculty housemasters to two graduate dor-mitories for a term beginning in the 2013-2014 academic year. At Ashdown House,MIT’s oldest graduate community, EECSProfessor Terry Orlando and Dr. AnnOrlando will be stepping down after morethan a decade of living alongside graduatestudents, including overseeing Ashdown’s2008 move from its former location to abrand new building at Pacific & AlbanyStreets. [Ashdown: whereis.mit.edu/?go=NW35]

Next door at Sidney Pacific, HSTProfessor Roger Mark and Dorothy Markare also ending their terms after leadingtheir building through its first 10 years.They have overseen the development of aremarkable community at MIT’s largestresidence hall, including a wonderful 10thanniversary celebration this past July.[Sidney Pacific: whereis.mit.edu/?go=NW86]

“We have had the pleasure of support-ing incredibly talented, creative, and com-mitted student leaders as they haveworked hard to develop our residentialcommunity into a welcoming, supportive,

and very socially active home,” RogerMark says of the experience. “The dorm ishighly diverse: close to half of the 700 res-idents are international students frommore than 50 different countries. We havemade many close friends from all over theworld, and for me a pinnacle experiencewas officiating at the marriage of two of

our officers! Serving as a Housemaster hasdefinitely been the highlight of my MITyears.”

Graduate Housemasters have a rich,engaging, and influential position. As thesenior residents in the community, theyserve in a role that is part advisor andadvocate, mentor, and neighbor. They alsoare central to fostering community andsustaining the special traditions of eachlocation in partnership with very activeand mature student executive commit-tees. Besides the personal and social expe-rience of working directly with graduatestudents, there are several other more tan-gible benefits. Housemasters receive freehousing, in beautiful apartments locatedright on the MIT campus, as well as asalary supplement.

“One of the joys of ‘Housemastering’ iswatching a student grow in leadershipskills as they participate in the governing

structure of Ashdown House. And there isdeep satisfaction during graduation to seea student whom we have assisted over a‘rough patch’ graduate as an accomplishedand confident professional,” says AnnOrlando. “Living with a vibrant group ofinternational scholars has enriched ourlives more than we could have imagined –

from music to art to photography tocooking to athletic skills. And mostly wewill cherish the friendships made over theyears.”

If this sounds exciting to you, pleaseconsider applying to serve as a graduateHousemaster. To learn more about therewards and responsibilities, contactHenry Humphreys, the Senior AssociateDean for Residential Life, [email protected] or (617) 252-1505.Dean Humphreys will be happy to answeryour questions about the logistics ofmoving to campus or to put you in touchwith other graduate Housemasters so youcan learn more about this special positionin the MIT community.

Costantino J. Colombo is Dean for StudentLife; Housemaster, Next House([email protected]);Christine Ortiz is Dean for GraduateEducation; Professor of Materials Science([email protected]).

Graduate Housemasters have a rich, engaging, andinfluential position. As the senior residents in thecommunity, they serve in a role that is part advisor andadvocate, mentor and neighbor.


19

Aaron WeinbergerFaculty Committee Activity: Fall 2012 Update

I N A PRACTICE B EG U N last spring,the Office of the Faculty Chair publishes abiannual article in this Newsletter summa-rizing the work of the StandingCommittees of the Faculty. In a meetingof the Committee Chairs in September, anumber of common themes emerged.

Across the board, the committees arethinking about the potential impact ofMITx on education and student life.Online learning could affect nearly everyaspect of MIT, including curriculumdevelopment, course credit, the Library’sOpen Access Policy, space planning, andtechnology. Committee Chairs are eagerto hear more about the Institute’s plansfor the governance of MITx in order tostart planning for the appropriate over-sight and support infrastructure.

The Committee on Nominations isfacing a challenge as it tries to recruit newmembers to serve on the StandingFaculty Committees. The annual com-mittee preference questionnaire generatesonly a 37% response rate. As a result, thesame faculty members are consistentlycalled upon to serve while many othersremain unengaged in faculty governance.In recent years, there also seems to be anincrease in the number of faculty whochoose to leave their three-year servicecommitment early. The Committee isconsidering ways to increase faculty par-ticipation, including asking departmentheads to place a higher premium on com-mittee service.

The Library continues to face obsta-cles to its Open Access Policy, most

notably from Elsevier. As ProfessorRichard Holton described in an article inthe FNL last spring [“New Open AccessWorking Group Formed: FormulatingResponse to Elsevier’s Policy Change,” Vol.XXIV, No. 4] the Committee on theLibrary System has charged a workinggroup to reassess the policy in light ofElsevier’s revised author contract requir-ing authors to obtain an express waiverfrom MIT’s policy in order to publish.The Library is committed to building onthe success of the Open Access Policy andmaintaining a free flow of faculty scholar-ship online.

In consultation with the FacultyOfficers, the Committee on theUndergraduate Program (CUP) and theCommittee on Curricula are consideringmodels for the governance of interdisci-plinary minors. Last spring, an experi-ment initiated by the CUP to govern theEnergy Studies minor came to an end.The committees have worked withadministrators in the Energy Initiative toformulate a long-term plan for governingthe minor, and are working to implementoversight for interdisciplinary minors thatare comparable to those provided fordepartmental minors.

The Committee on UndergraduateAdmissions and Financial Aid is closelymonitoring the case of Fisher v.University of Texas now in front of theSupreme Court. The case focuses on awhite student who was denied admissionto the University of Texas, allegedlybecause of discriminatory admissionspractices. If successful, the suit could

impact the way universities assess andadmit underrepresented minority appli-cants. MIT has made great strides in culti-vating a diverse student body; there areconcerns that the Court’s ruling couldnegatively impact MIT’s commitment todiversity.

The Faculty Policy Committee’s (FPC)IAP Subcommittee continues its work toexamine the evolution of IAP since itsintroduction in 1971. IAP has clearlychanged over the last 40 years, mostnotably with the inclusion of for-creditsubject offerings. Many would argue thatthe evolution of IAP has been positive andthat the current state of IAP is now inte-gral to the MIT experience, while othersare concerned that the term-like qualitiesof IAP are at odds with its original inten-tion. The Subcommittee plans to submit areport to the FPC later this fall.

The FPC is also preparing to charge aworking group to examine the Septemberstudent holiday experiment that waslaunched in 2009. The experiment shiftedthe date of the September student holiday,which according to the Rules andRegulations of the Faculty must fall on aMonday, to a Wednesday in 2011 and to aFriday in 2012. The impetus for the exper-iment was to align the holiday with CareerDay; the students in 2009 felt that it wasnot ideal to hold Career Day on a Monday.With the experiment now complete, theFPC must assess its success to determinethe appropriate long-term placement ofthe September holiday.

Aaron Weinberger is HR and FacultyGovernance Administrator ([email protected]).


20

Joel SchindallProgress Report on the Bernard M. Gordon –MIT Engineering Leadership Program

IntroductionIN MAY 2009, MY fellow co-director EdCrawley (Ford Professor of Aeronauticaland Astronautical Engineering), and I,wrote an article in the Faculty Newsletter[Vol. XXI, No. 4] describing a newprogram housed in the School ofEngineering: The Bernard M. Gordon -MIT Engineering Leadership Program(Gordon ELP). At the time, we had beenin existence for almost two years and had14 students. After spending a solid yearplanning program pedagogy, we hadenthusiasm and high hopes – but fewresults to report.

The purpose of this article is todescribe the background and philosophyof the program, to provide a statusupdate, and to report some encouragingassessment results concerning how theGordon ELP is advancing the confidence(self-efficacy) of MIT engineering under-graduates.

Program Background and PhilosophyIn early 2008, with initial funding from a$20M pledge (with a matching require-ment) to the School of Engineering by theGordon Foundation (headed by MITalumnus Bernard M. Gordon, ’48, MS’49), we worked with prominent educa-tors, MIT alumni, industry leaders, mili-tary leaders, community leaders, andthose from other leadership programs atMIT to design, develop, and implementan integrated undergraduate program inengineering leadership.

This group started with the premise –strongly validated by the industry leaders– that engineers design and build thingsthat meet the needs of customers, benefi-

ciaries, and ultimately society. As a con-sensus of this group, we generated ourguiding pedagogical document, TheCapabilities of Effective EngineeringLeaders. (For an explanation of TheCapabilities of Effective EngineeringLeaders, see the Program Websiteweb.mit.edu/gordonelp.)

Guided by The Capabilities of EffectiveEngineering Leaders, the Gordon ELPseeks to educate and develop the characterof outstanding MIT students as thepotential future leaders (not necessarilyentrepreneurs) of engineering practiceand development. In this program, wedefine engineering leadership as the tech-nical leadership of change: the innovativeconception, design, and implementationof new products/processes/projects/mate-rials/molecules/software/systems, sup-ported by the invention of enablingtechnologies, to meet the needs of cus-tomers and society.

The capabilities of engineering leader-ship upon which our curriculum is builtare based on the Four Capabilities model,developed at the MIT Sloan School ofManagement (Ancona 2007), andanchored in the scholarship of leadership.The educational task of our program is toprovide opportunities for all engineeringundergraduate students to furtherdevelop, deepen, and broaden their engi-neering leadership capabilities.

Program Specifics: The GEL ProgramTodayThe Gordon ELP is designed toaugment MIT’s educational commonsby providing engineering undergradu-ates with the design thinking, system

thinking, teamwork skills, and engineer-ing leadership skills that are vital to aneffective engineering career (in eitherindustry or academia).

The Gordon Engineering Leader(GEL) component combines:

• immersive experiences on and offcampus in which students practice,observe, and discuss engineeringleadership, with

• courses that provide conceptual andanalytical models and frameworksthat support engineering leadership,and

• reflection, evaluation, and feedbackfrom faculty, peers, and experiencedengineering industry mentors on lessonslearned from leadership activities.

The GEL program can begin as early asthe sophomore year, with students partic-ipating in UPOP (the UndergraduatePractice Opportunities Program). Over500 sophomores have applied for thisyear’s program. UPOP students are intro-duced to engineering practice, receive per-sonalized coaching, a summer internship,post-internship reflective activities, andhone basic interpersonal proficienciessuch as effective networking. Partici-pating in UPOP is not required for appli-cation to the GEL program, but it isrecommended and many students havefound it useful.

Although we hope to expand to serveall MIT students, both undergraduate andgraduate, the existing GEL funding is des-


21

ignated for engineering undergraduates.In February preceding their junior andsenior year, engineering students canapply for the GEL Year One (GEL1)program consisting of short subjects inengineering leadership and engineeringinnovation and design, weekly hands-onEngineering Leadership Labs (ELLs), andprojects, mentorships, and a personalleadership development plan. GELs par-ticipate in guided reflection on their suc-cesses and discover opportunities forimprovement. Mentors, faculty, staff,peers, and program alumni provide guid-ance in reflecting on and learning fromleadership experiences. The time commit-ment of GEL1 is equivalent to an MITconcentration.

Students who successfully completethe GEL1 requirements may apply for themore intensive GEL Year Two (GEL2)program of two additional short subjectsin project engineering and planning, andhuman and organizational contexts, moreweekly ELLs, and projects, an InternshipPlus, additional mentoring and coaching,more leadership roles, and a compellingfinal presentation of their personal leader-ship development plan. The time com-mitment of the two-year program (GEL2)is equivalent to an MIT minor.

In our short subjects, weekly ELLs,and other activities, it is important tonote that we are not lecturing studentsabout leadership; rather, we are develop-ing their ability to “be” effective engineer-ing leaders by immersing them in anenvironment of intensive practice inengineering leadership or team memberroles and giving them active, candid feed-back, coaching, and mentoring on theireffectiveness.

The Engineering Leadership Labs(ELLs)A distinguishing element of the GELprogram is the inclusion of experientiallearning opportunities for the develop-ment of leadership capabilities in theweekly two-hour Engineering LeadershipLaboratories. GEL1s (two semesters) andGEL2s (four semesters) fully participatein ELLs that are each designed to provide

The Capabilities of Effective EngineeringLeaders.

Small teams of GEL1s are placed inengineering situations and challenges.The assignment of team leader rotatesamong the GEL1s and the GEL2 assignedto the team giving all team membersseveral opportunities each semester to bethe team leader. The situations – oftendesigned in collaboration with practicingengineers – are set in a context that pro-vides a feeling of authentic industry prac-tice (e.g., setting up an assembly processfor simple testing devices), and each lab isdesigned to practice a different leadershipcapability.

The team leaders are observed byfaculty, staff, GEL alums, or guest engi-neers, a leadership capability assessmentcard is completed, and team leaders andevaluators give private feedback on theleader’s performance, including whatwent well, what did not go well, and whatneeds to go differently at the next leader-ship opportunity. In keeping with learn-ing pedagogy, students also reflect on theirperformance and complete a reflectiondocument.

GEL2s also act as a cadre, helping runmost of the ELLs, providing support forthe GEL program outreach and team-building events, and designing andrunning one ELL each semester entirelyon their own.

Other Program ComponentsTo serve non-GEL engineering under-graduates, the program partners withdepartments to promote capability devel-opment by providing activities, class ses-sions, materials, and workshops onleadership, teamwork, and project engi-neering. We can also collaborate withdepartments by funding and trainingteaching assistants to facilitate studentteams in project-based courses.

Status UpdateAfter four years, the Gordon ELP is thriv-ing: Although a voluntary, co-curricularprogram, we currently have 102 studentsin GEL1 and 24 students who advancedlast year from GEL1 to GEL2 this year.

Last year we touched a total of 1100 stu-dents through GEL1, GEL2, UPOP, andthe teamwork and team leadership work-shops that we conduct in a significantnumber of MIT’s project-orientedcourses. We have received many accoladesfrom students in the program, from theemployers for their internships, and fromfaculty who have observed GELs in theirclassrooms.

Significant Increase in Leadership“Self-Efficacy”From the inception of the Gordon ELP, wehave been focused on measuring programeffectiveness through a variety of directand indirect assessment measures. Allsubjects in the GEL component havedefined and measurable learning out-comes, as does each ELL, that continue tobe based on The Capabilities of EffectiveEngineering Leaders.

We assess progress against these out-comes annually for the subjects andweekly for the ELLs, making program-matic changes based on the findings. Inaddition, each student completes anEngineering Practice requirement, whichprogram faculty review, along with staffand outside mentors and reviewers whereappropriate. GEL2s undertake anInternshipPlus under the guidance of anindustry supervisor. Program staff and theindustry supervisor evaluate the student’sexperiences and competence. We alsocollect anecdotal experiences from bothstudents and from either their industrysupervisor or mentors. The Industrysection of the Program Website(web.mit.edu/gordonelp/industry.html)features industry supervisor and studentcomments.

The GEL component also has a rigor-ous program of indirect assessmentfocused on the change in student confi-dence in their ability to do specific leader-ship tasks before and at the end of theprogram. The gains in student confidencecover a range of tasks that students prac-tice in GEL, including their ability toorganize teams.



22

• Their confidence that they can insistthat a team agree on objectives and aschedule of work rose from 66.5% to87.2%, and confidence that they canpersuade a team to set up a consistentdecision-making process rose lastyear from 64.3% to 85.3%.

• Confidence that they can create ashared vision for a project went from71.1% to 86.4%.

• Other domains showing substantialincrease are interpersonal communi-cation skills, assessed by asking theirconfidence that they can listen care-fully to those who disagree with them(from 69.5% to 93.1%) and whetherthey know how to ask questions to

help others clarify their ideas (74.0%to 89.4%).

Comparative data supports the viewthat the program has an independent andconsequential effect on leadership capa-bilities. Questions placed on the MITgraduating senior survey included thestudent’s confidence they could “Makefirm decisions and take action even ifsome of the facts about the best choice arenot clear,” and “Recognize when youshould stop talking about improvementsand focus on what can be fully imple-mented.” For these and a few other capa-bilities that have been emphasized in theGEL program, GELs had higher confi-dence of accomplishing key leadershiptasks than non-GELs in engineeringdepartments, and slightly higher confi-dence than graduating seniors inManagement.

SummaryThe Gordon ELP has come a long way since2008. MIT students appear to value theeducation the program provides, withprogram admissions increasing as follows:14 in year 1, 35 in year 2, 70 in year 3, 115 inyear 4, and 135 in year 5. We continue toreview and rework our program, gatheringand assessing internal and external feed-back to improve the educational experiencewe offer students. We welcome any feed-back you may have about our program orour students. We also urge you to encour-age your students to apply for this program.We are confident that it will make a signifi-cant difference in their career effectiveness,both in industry and in academia.

Gordon-MIT Engineering ProgramSchindall, from preceding page

MITAC: Your Ticket to Cultural andRecreational Activities

LEISURE TIME WITH FR IENDS andfamily is precious, which is why the MITActivities Committee (MITAC) is pleasedto offer discounted tickets to cultural andrecreational activities to Institute facultyand staff.

Whether you are interested in movies,sports, seasonal activities, family activities,theater, or music, you can save time andmoney – and enjoy friendly customerservice – thanks to MITAC, an employeebenefit program. In addition to purchas-ing tickets for your own use, you also maybuy them as gifts for family, friends, andcolleagues.

MITAC offers a wide spectrum ofmore than 250 cultural and recreationalevents annually to our community.Regularly discounted tickets include thosefor:

• Boston Celtics• Broadway Shows

• Holiday Pops• Boston Symphony Orchestra• World Music• Local Attractions (Boston Children’sMuseum, Museum of Science, NewEngland Aquarium, and PeabodyEssex Museum)• Blue Man Group• Special Family Events

Current event offerings include:• Boston Celtics – 13 games (includingthe LA Lakers), balcony and prome-nade seating, $47 – $125/ticket• Holiday Pops, 3 performanceoptions, December 8, 9, or 15, $38 –$64/ticket• Jersey Boys, Sunday, February 24, 6:30pm, $96/ticket

Launched as a pilot program in 1983 inBuilding 20, MITAC now serves morethan 4,800 customers, saving MIT com-

munity members $170,000 annually.MITAC is guided by both a program com-mittee and presidentially appointedAdvisory Council, which provides guid-ance on long-term goals and planning,business practices, and policies.

For more about MITAC, subscribe toour weekly and monthly electronicnewsletter, and send us your questionsand activity suggestions via [email protected].

Visit MITACOnline: web.mit.edu/mitacOn campus: Stata Lobby, Tuesday–Friday,11 am – 4 pmAt Lincoln Laboratory: A-109, Thursdayand Friday, 11 am – 4 pm

Thanks – we look forward to seeingyou soon.

–The MIT Activities Committee

Joel Schindall is a Professor in theDepartment of Electrical Engineering andComputer Science; Co-Director, Bernard M.Gordon – MIT Engineering Leadership Program([email protected]).


23

To The Faculty Newsletter:

I HOPE THAT H U MAN ITI E S will beincluded in any edX course offerings. Iwas one of the first students to enroll inthe UK’s Open University (OU) when itfirst began in the 1970s. There was noonline presence only specially preparedunits, BBC TV and radio programs, text-books, and a week’s summer school. Wewere graded by mailing in our essays,computer marked assignments, and afinal exam. I had practically no contactwith other students and only met a tutoronce when I could not understand how towrite about “the lords and peasantsduring the 1848 revolutions.”

But the required foundation course inthe humanities has had an enduring effecton my life. It gave me a love of learning,taught me about music, art, philosophy,and literature I could never have imag-ined, and far from being passive made methink and create work of my own. Eventhough the end degree made a huge dif-

ference to my career, learning does not always need to be career-focused orgeared towards a credential.

As Professor Perry points out [MITFaculty Newsletter, Vol. XXV No. 1], MITfaculty do not have the time to gradeessays from thousands of online students,but I am sure this a problem that MIT cansolve (possibly by forming online studentgroups similar to writing or readinggroups). It is possible to prepare a test thatcan be graded by computer as this wasdone as early as the 1970s.

The point for the humanities is notreally the credential. No employer is goingto hire you for your essay or grade on JaneAusten. But an employer might well beglad to see that an individual is well-rounded and brings a humanities’ per-spective to their job.

Professor Perry asks: “For whosebenefit are we developing online modulesin the Humanities and why?” I would

answer that an MIT quality humanitiescourse could change the lives of students globally as much as Circuits andElectronics. Creating a course that is cul-turally diverse, that would have meaningfor MIT residential students as well as stu-dents around the world, is challenging.The OU course materials were expensiveto create, but given the materials nowavailable through the Internet, the costmight not be prohibitive. I hope that ahumanities course can be considered andmade a priority. I believe it would asProfessor Perry states, educate “people tobe informed citizens in a genuine democ-racy and for enriching their lives.”Democracy is slowly trying to build acrossthe globe and an MIT humanities coursewould, I believe, make a difference.

Janet WassersteinSenior Associate Director MIT’s Office of Foundation Relations

lettersWhy We Need HumanitiesX

The Alumni Class Funds Seek Proposalsfor Teaching and Education Enhancement

THE OFFICE OF FACULTY SUPPORT

is requesting proposals for projects for the2013-2014 academic year that improvethe quality of teaching, enrich students’learning experiences, and uphold the tra-dition of innovation at the Institute. TheAlumni Class Funds are comprised of giftsfrom the classes of 1951, 1955, 1972, and1999.

Over the past 15 years more than 150

projects were made possible through thegenerous assistance of the Alumni ClassFunds. These projects have had substan-tial impact on education both inside andoutside MIT. Grants typically range from$10,000 to $50,000 and cover a widevariety of creative curricular and peda-gogical projects. Larger scale projects willalso be considered, as well as projectrenewals and multiple year projects, but

funding commitments will be made on ayear-by-year basis.

Proposals are due on Friday, February1, 2013. Guidelines, forms, instructions,and descriptions of previously fundedprojects can be found at:web.mit.edu/alumnifunds. Please contactthe Office of Faculty Support at 617-253-6776 or [email protected] for moreinformation.


24

[The full charge to the Task Force is pro-vided in Appendix 1.]

At present, MIT faces a decision whetherto move forward with submitting a rezon-ing petition to the City of Cambridge forformal approval, which would enable theInstitute to proceed with further plan-ning, design, and construction of a seriesof capital projects in Kendall Squareexpected to span roughly the next tenyears. Specifically, the petition requests an“up- zoning” to increase the permitteddensity of development in the target areato allow taller buildings.

Because of timing considerations relatedto this decision, this report addresses thefirst part of our charge. Specifically, weoffer our recommendations on the ques-tion of whether or not, or under whatconditions, MIT should file the up- zoningpetition with the City of Cambridge toallow development of Kendall Square toproceed.

Later this fall term, we intend to submit afollow- up report that addresses thesecond part of our charge.

Process The Task Force met weekly from earlyAugust through early October 2012.Meetings primarily involved interviewswith stakeholders in the MIT 2030 processin general and in the Kendall Squaredevelopment issues in particular. Thesestakeholders included individuals bothwithin and outside of the MIT commu-nity. [A list of individuals interviewed isprovided in Appendix 2.]

In addition, the Task Force reviewed MITinternal documents related to the devel-opment of MIT- owned property inKendall Square and elsewhere on campus,as well as public documents related todevelopment in relevant areas ofCambridge, in order to better understandthe Institute’s campus planning process as

well as its interaction with the City ofCambridge on these issues.

The Task Force focused primarily on anassessment of the current rezoning peti-tion, involving the 26- acre MIT EastCampus property in Kendall Square pro-posed for development by the MITInvestment Management Company(MITIMCo), a division of MIT thatmanages the Institute’s endowment andreal estate investments. The petition seeksthe City of Cambridge’s permission toallow MIT to add more total gross squarefootage, including taller building heights,than allowed under current zoning in thisarea of the campus. The design conceptthat accompanies the petition includes aset of illustrative building sites for com-mercial office/laboratory use, plus poten-tial academic, retail and residential usesand other improvements.

Findings The following key findings about the up- �zoning petition reflect our discussionswith stakeholders and review of the data:

1. The MIT property that will be affectedby the proposed up- zoning petition is firstand foremost part of the MIT campus, asit lies within the area of Kendall Squaresouth of Main Street that has traditionallydefined one of the Institute’s East Campusboundaries. It is intimately tied to theInstitute’s campus structure and patternsof movement extending from 77Massachusetts Avenue to the SloanSchool. This area of land is also the lastpiece of undeveloped, contiguous campusspace lying between the Charles River,Main Street and Ames Street, with readyaccess to the MBTA Red Line, represent-ing an extremely precious resource.

2. The planning and development processaffecting this part of campus has becomeintertwined with MIT’s commercial realestate investment goals. MIT land devel-opment for investment purposes tradi-tionally has taken place beyond the edgeof what normally is considered to com-prise the MIT campus, often a significant

distance away from the center of campusactivity. Such development seeks to maxi-mize financial returns.

3. Setting aside the question of whethercommercial development is appropriateat this location, financial return shouldnot be the principal criterion of value cre-ation and success for this area of campus.Equally important are criteria related tothe 21st century image of MIT, creation ofa significant eastern gateway to thecampus, the enhancement of student life,and providing opportunities for futureacademic buildings and activities that wehave yet to invent. We also believe theselatter considerations, which go to theheart of MIT’s mission, will be moreimportant to sustaining financial returnsto the Institute in the long run.

4. The current rezoning plan (as outlinedby MITIMCo) for development of theKendall Square area falls short of the aspi-rations described above. The Task Forcehas concerns with the single diagram thatMITIMCo has presented as its design pro-posal. We have been reassured byMITIMCo that its proposal is flexible andthat, if the up- zoning is approved, MITretains options to work with the city andsurrounding neighborhoods to alterbuilding heights, densities, and footprints(within the constraints of the zoning) toimprove the project.

5. MIT needs to carefully consider theneed for additional campus- servinghousing, especially for graduate students.Concerns were raised with our Task Forcethat there is a need to expand graduatestudent housing either on campus or offcampus in some affordable way. CertainCambridge resident groups also haveexpressed concern for more housing inthis area of the city. MITIMCo’s currentproposal includes provision for 120,000square feet of new housing, tentatively tar-geted for a new building adjacent to OneBroadway in Kendall Square. These will beprimarily market priced units and notlikely within the reach of graduate stu-dents (although Cambridge will require

Task Force Reportcontinued from page 1


25

that 15% of the units be reserved for lowand moderate income families). At thispoint our Task Force does not have suffi-cient information to judge whether moregraduate student housing is needed on oroff campus and, if so, how much. Norhave potential housing needs or goalsbeen incorporated into the MIT 2030planning process to date. Therefore, astudy of housing needs of graduate stu-dents, faculty, and staff should be under-taken with involvement from theseconstituent groups as part of the MIT2030 process. The study should considerthe benefits and costs of Kendall Squareand other on- or offcampus potentialhousing sites.

6. The likely traffic impacts of KendallSquare development need further analysisand discussion as well. We heard very dif-ferent views on whether the KendallSquare development would affect futuretraffic flows in the surrounding areas.Again we do not have sufficient informa-tion to decide what the impacts on traffic,parking, use of public transportation, etc.will be and we worry that these issues havenot yet been studied adequately – particu-larly from the student point of view – orintegrated in the Kendall Squaredesign/development process. MIT hasample faculty, student, and staff expertiseto draw on to address these questions, andthis analysis should be incorporated into acomprehensive planning process for EastCampus.

7. The City of Cambridge HistoricalCommission has designated three build-ings on the south side of Main Street ashistorical landmarks that must be pre-served. This significantly constrains thedesign and development options for useof this space for ground floor retail, aca-demic or commercial purposes and limitsthe opportunity to create a landmarkgateway connecting Kendall Square toMIT. Creative options for preserving thehistorical importance and awareness ofthese sites in particular, and of KendallSquare more generally, need to beexplored jointly by MIT and the City.

8. The City Manager and the CambridgePlanning Commission have expressedinterest in receiving MIT’s up- zoningpetition soon and look forward toworking closely with MIT in developingthis area in ways that meet the mutualneeds and interests of the City, the MITcommunity, area residents, and currentand future commercial businesses thatwill enhance the area’s reputation as aworld- class hub of innovation.

Conclusions and RecommendationsGiven these findings, we support movingforward with MIT’s submission of therezoning petition provided that:

1. A comprehensive urban design plan forEast Campus is conducted and completedafter the petition is approved but beforeanything is built in the area covered by thepetition. The plan needs to consider alter-natives to the current MITIMCo diagramfor commercial building sites, floor plates,program, heights, and scale of develop-ment, keeping in mind the findingsdescribed above.

2. This Task Force or a similarly consti-tuted faculty group participates directly inthe East Campus planning process anddesign of the Kendall Square project.and

3. The work of preparing and deliberatinga plan for East Campus, and subsequentdevelopment of the area, includingKendall Square, is guided by a set ofdesign principles, described in the nextsection.

Design Principles/Criteria. Any develop-ment of the parcels under considerationin Kendall Square must honor the follow-ing principles/criteria for evaluatingdesign options and decisions that involveMIT- owned property developed either foracademic purposes or for commercialpurposes (with the possibility that com-mercial may house some academic uses atsome point in the future). Our sense isthat MITIMCo currently evaluates devel-opment opportunities primarily against a

return on investment (ROI) criterion.This is appropriate when property issolely for investment purposes, away fromthe core of the MIT campus. But KendallSquare, with its Red Line MBTA station,clearly has the potential to serve as a newgateway to MIT, similar to the functionnow served by 77 Mass. Ave. to the west.Equally important, much of the propertythat would be developed for commercialtenants could house MIT uses at somepoint in the future. Therefore, it is criticalthat these buildings and the space theycreate on the ground be considered first asa part of the campus designed to supportour students, faculty and staff. To ensurethis, we recommend the following princi-ples to guide decisions about develop-ment and design of this area:

• There must be a gateway to MITworthy of MIT and its aspirations,mission and standards of design excel-lence. The gateway should not just be anentrance, but a physically prominent nodeof activity, equivalent to the function ofMIT’s Lobby 7, containing destinationsrelevant to the MIT community andhelpful to visitors (e.g. an informationoffice) linked to clearly recognizablespaces that support learning and research(e.g. laboratories, studios, classrooms,study and meeting spaces accessible to thepublic). It should connect MIT directly toKendall Square with minimal physicalbarriers or gaps. The gateway should bewelcoming to residents and visitors.

• East Campus buildings and spacesmust create and convey a campus feelingthat serves the needs of the MIT commu-nity in ways that attract people to the areaacross the broad band of hours that typi-fies the rhythm of student, faculty, andstaff life.This means, for example, provid-ing amenities and services for students,faculty, staff and residents, with a minimalcorporate presence (on the campus side),and well- defined public space for peopleto gather, affordable places to eat, bicycleparking, and access, etc. To ensure this, theground floor space on all buildings should



26

be primarily reserved for inviting aca-demic, student life, or retail uses, and nothave a “gated,” privatized character.

• Any commercial space in KendallSquare should serve as an extension ofthe campus and not the other wayaround. The businesses invited tolocate there should complement andsupport the mission of MIT topromote innovation and start- ups andallow maximum access to students andfaculty for research, class projects, andother mutual learning opportunities.Kendall Square should not just be acommercial or corporate office loca-tion that happens to be adjacent to auniversity.

• The portion of the developmentintended for commercial use shouldgenerate an appropriate financialreturn to warrant investment of MITendowment funds.However, given thelocation of this development oncampus and the need to support aca-demic and student life, it may not bereasonable to expect the same level ofreturn as that from commercial prop-erty developed in sites removed fromthe campus. Alternatively, it would beappropriate for the Institute to con-sider investing a portion of the incomefrom the Kendall commercial develop-ment into developing the campusspaces, facilities and academic environ-ment planned for the area.

• Design of commercial developmentshould proceed only in the context ofa comprehensive plan for the future ofthe East Campus, including its publicrealm, academic, student life, trans-port, and recreational functions,taking into account potential disposi-tion of all property between MainStreet and the Charles River. It is notsufficient or prudent to design com-mercial buildings in the absence of asystematic analysis and clear under-

standing of how the remainder of theEast Campus is intended to evolve. It isimportant that ample space for futureacademic expansion be reserved in theup- zoning petition. We have notstudied this issue in sufficient depth toreach a conclusion about how muchspace at this point, and, therefore, it isanother issue for further review anddiscussion in the post- up- zoningdesign phase and plan for EastCampus.

Flexibility: Envelope versus Constraints.We have heard from the Cambridge CityManager, MITIMCo, and others that theup- zoning petition would create an“envelope” that would allow for consider-able flexibility in design and developmentoptions going forward. The key con-straints from the City of Cambridge’sperspective would be limitations onbuilding height, total square footage ofnew development, the need to retainthree historical buildings, and provisionof an appropriate amount of housing.Given these minimal constraints, we needassurance from MIT leadership that theprinciples listed above are acceptable andthe path clear to consider design alterna-tives. Among the options that should beconsidered are:

• Less commercial development in thearea shown as Site 3 on the MITIMCoplan, providing the potential todevelop a significant gateway to thecampus.

• A better defined campus space con-necting to Eastgate and Sloan that ismore closely associated with MainStreet, so there can be sufficient inter-action and permeability to supportcampus activity. This space should alsofacilitate interaction with the rest ofthe Institute, which is vital to achievingthe goal of a “One MIT” campusculture.

• More space for academic developmentand student life.

• Reallocation of height and massing tothe edges rather than heart of thecampus area, or a smaller commercialproject overall.

• Alternate sites for commercial officeand housing development that reduceimpact on the campus.

Historic Preservation Options. Wecommend the City and MIT for honoringthe principle that the history and co- evolution of Kendall Square and the MITcampus be preserved, honored, and fea-tured in the design of this site. At the sametime, we are deeply concerned that simplypreserving the three buildings on MainStreet proposed as historic landmarks willsubstantially increase development costsand limit design options for the spaces thesebuildings now occupy. We believe that byworking together and in consultation withresidents and the business community inthe area, the historic preservation objectivescan be met in creative ways while alsoopening up the space needed to create aworld class gateway to the Institute. Oneway to do so would be to design and build amulti- media supported entrance and infor-mation center that provides a visual, inter-active timeline of the past, current, andfuture contributions of this region to theadvancement of knowledge, industry, andcity life. We urge a joint Cambridge/MITstudy be undertaken of creative options formeeting these objectives.

Process moving forward We commend the Provost and Presidentfor creating this Task Force and providingthe faculty an opportunity to weigh in onthe Kendall Square proposal. As statedearlier, we believe that this Faculty TaskForce, or a similarly constituted groupthat is broadly representative of thefaculty and includes individuals withspecial expertise in design, planning andreal estate economics, should continueinto the post- up- zoning design stage ofthe Kendall Square development processto advise the Provost and President on theacademic issues associated with campusdesign and planning.

Task Force Reportfrom preceding page


27

We thank the MIT staff, faculty and stu-dents and Cambridge leaders who pro-vided inputs to our work. We look forwardto continuing to work together on futurephases of this important opportunity.

We welcome comments from the MITCommunity and Cambridge neighborson this report and/or on our future workas we take up the second item in ourcharge from the Provost – considering thebest way to engage the MIT Communityin the ongoing development of the MIT2030 vision and plan.

Appendix 1 Provost’s Charge to the Task Force

Dear Faculty Colleagues,

The capital planning framework known asMIT 2030 was launched two years ago toguide the Institute in making decisionsabout campus renewal and development inthe decades ahead, relying on the broadengagement of the campus community tohelp inform these decisions. In recentmonths the effort has begun to transitionfrom planning to implementation, particu-larly for development of MIT- owned landin Kendall Square in ways that continue torevitalize this important area of Cambridgewhile best serving the long- range interests ofthe Institute. To ensure that we maintainconstructive community engagementthrough the implementation process, I haveappointed an ad hoc faculty committee, theTask Force on Community Engagement in2030 Planning, which is charged withadvising me about decisions related specifi-cally to the development of MIT property inKendall Square and about the most effectiveways to engage the MIT community in the2030 decision process generally, goingforward. Members of the Task Force includeThomas Kochan (chair), Samuel Allen,Xavier de Souza Briggs, Peter Fisher,Dennis Frenchman, Lorna Gibson, WilliamWheaton, and Patrick Winston.

The Task Force will begin engaging withmembers of the faculty and other Institutestakeholders on these issues in the weeks and

months ahead. I want to thank ProfessorKochan and other members of the TaskForce for their willingness to devote theirtime and effort to this process, and I lookforward to our continuing discussionsregarding MIT 2030.

Sincerely,

Chris A. Kaiser

Appendix 2 Individuals interviewed by the TaskForce

Chris Kaiser, Provost

Martin Schmidt, Associate Provost

Israel Ruiz, Executive Vice President andTreasurer

John Reed, Chairman of the MITCorporation

Lawrence Fish, Member of the MITCorporation

Steven Marsh, Managing Director, RealEstate, MITIMCo

Michael Owu, Director, Real Estate,MITIMCo

Patrick Rowe, Associate Director, RealEstate, MITIMCo

Sarah Gallop, Co- Director, Office ofGovernment and Community Relations

Jonathan King, Professor, Biology

Edward Roberts, David Sarnoff Professorof Management of Technology

Nigel Wilson, Professor, Civil andEnvironmental Engineering

Frederick Salvucci, Senior Lecturer,Center for Transportation and Logistics

John Attanucci, Research Associate, Civiland Environmental Engineering

Pamela Delphenich, Director of CampusPlanning and Design

Peter Roth, Lecturer, Center for RealEstate

O. Robert Simha, Research Affiliate,Urban Studies and Planning

Representatives of the Graduate StudentCouncil

Representatives of the UndergraduateAssociation

Robert Healy, Cambridge City Manager

Timothy Rowe, CEO, CambridgeInnovation Center

Charles Sullivan, Executive Director,Cambridge Historical Commission

* * * * * * * * * *

*Task Force Members:Samuel Allen, Materials Science andEngineering;

Xavier de Souza Briggs, Urban Studiesand Planning;

Peter Fisher, Physics;

Dennis Frenchman, Urban Studies andPlanning, Center for Real Estate;

Lorna Gibson, Materials Science andEngineering;

Thomas Kochan (chair), Management;

William Wheaton, Urban Studies andPlanning, Economics, Center for RealEstate;

Patrick Winston, Electrical Engineeringand Computer Science;

Staff to the Task Force: Douglas Pfeiffer


M.I.T. NumbersCampus Population* FY 1981 – 2012

Source: Office of the Provost/Institutional Research

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

1981

19

82 19

83 19

84 19

85 19

86 19

87 19

88 19

89 19

90 19

91 19

92 19

93 19

94 19

95 19

96 19

97 19

98 19

99 20

00 20

01 20

02 20

03 20

04 20

05 20

06 20

07 20

08 20

09 20

10 20

11 20

12

Faculty Other Academic/Instructional Research Postdocs Medical Administrative Support Service

*Excludes the Broad Institute and Lincoln Laboratory

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

1981

19

82 19

83 19

84 19

85 19

86 19

87 19

88 19

89 19

90 19

91 19

92 19

93 19

94 19

95 19

96 19

97 19

98 19

99 20

00 20

01 20

02 20

03 20

04 20

05 20

06 20

07 20

08 20

09 20

10 20

11 20

12

Undergraduates Graduate Students

Faculty and Staff

Students

Note: Other Academic/Instructional includes: Adjunct/Visiting/Emeritus Professors, Affiliates, Instructors, Lecturers, Sr. Research ScientistsResearch includes: Principal Research Scientists, Research Scientists, Technical Assistants

mit faculty newsletter, vol. xxv no. 2, november/december...

Documents