EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Unified Student Proposal for an MIT Residence System is a comprehensive and systemic design. We address a complete set of issues related to the residence system, ranging from capital investment to governance to residential programs. We believe this proposal addresses the interests and concerns of all relevant stakeholders: future MIT students, the parents of undergraduates, Fraternities, Sororities, Independent Living Groups, Theme Houses, Residence Halls, graduate students, faculty, staff, and alumni. This proposal was composed and is submitted by the Strategic Advisory Committee to the Chancellor and the united student governments of MIT: the Undergraduate Association, the Dormitory Council, and the Interfraternity Council. In developing this proposal, we used a uniquely open community process. Our process has been completely open and public - notes from all meetings have been posted on the web for public comment. To date, most of the sections of report have been written by students, but we have received and incorporated input from other students, faculty, staff, and alumni. Further, in creating the proposal we relied heavily on past reports concerning residential life, including the Report of the Task Force on Student Life and Learning, Principles for a Residential System (Clay Committee Report), and the Institute Dining Review. We also incorporated ideas from the designs presented as part of the Residence System Design Contest, as well as from the Phase 2 and 3 reports of the Residence System Steering Committee. We have the following objectives for this proposal: * To become the blueprint for the future of MIT's residence system. * To demonstrate that students can be involved in all levels of planning at the Institute. * To show that students can reconcile diverse interests through integrative design and negotiation. We invite you to review our work to date, available at http://web.mit.edu/advise. Our proposal continues to evolve, and we invite you to make recommendations concerning it. I. OBJECTIVES OF THE RESIDENCE SYSTEM We recognize three major objectives of the residence system. 1. Provision of Housing. On the most fundamental level, MIT must provide housing for its students. This housing must be safe, clean, and affordable. 2. Provision of Home. The residence system must support its students psychologically. Students must be able to find the close friendships that will support them during their stay at the Institute and beyond. On a larger scale, they must find residential communities that support their well-being. Problems (whether directly residence-related or not), must be resolved quickly and equitably. 3. Provision of Community. We support the recommendations of the Task Force and the Clay Committee in that the residence system needs to be a pillar in MIT's efforts to encourage community interaction and provide informal but invaluable educational experiences. While these goals are not prioritized, it should be noted that they follow a logistical order. If housing is not provided, either by denial of housing or provision of inadequate facilties, providing a supportive environment and encouraging community and educational experiences is not possible. If a supportive environment is not provided, any efforts to provide community interaction and other educational experiments will not succeed. All of the following recommendations relate directly to successful provision of the above objectives. The arguments for why the recommendations are needed are abbreviated necessarily, but are given in detail in the body of the Proposal. II. COMMUNITY INTERACTION AND STUDENT SUPPORT The current residential system fosters strong communities within the individual living groups. These communities provide a preliminary structure for campus wide interaction, while also contributing a strong base of support for students. It is essential that the residence system encourage interaction between all members of the MIT community, including undergraduate and graduate students, alumni, faculty, and staff. Interactions of this sort, while sometimes spontaneous in nature, often require an additional degree of organizational support. The idea is not to force interactions, but to break down the barriers that prevent these interactions and increase the total number of possibilities. 1. Recognition of the Importance of Student Life Activities Perhaps our most important recommendation in this section, the faculty and staff must recognize the importance of residential and extra-curricular activities as part of a student's education. Consequently, they must ensure that students have time to participate in these activities. To do this, existing regulations allowing students time to participate in these activities (including restrictions on evening exams, classes during dinner hours, and end-of-term regulations) must be uniformly enforced. On a larger scale, departments should carefully consider the content and courseload of their course classes to avoid "busywork," as well as quality of instruction. 2. Community Dining The Institute Dining Review has discussed in great detail the critical importance of community dining for supporting students and encouraging community interaction. We strongly recommend that the complete set of recomendations within the Review be implemented with full funding. 3. Faculty-Student Interaction A. We recommend a major increase in the House Fellows Program. If possible, each living group should have one or more house fellows. Each house fellow should receive approximately $1000 in research grants. This grant, combined with additional funding from the administration, would allow for significant programming, including academic, cultural, social, and service events. B. To facilitate residential programming, each housemaster should receive one half-time assistant. These support staff would assist in day-to-day residence operations, and in planning student events. C. The Programming Committee of the Student Life Council should have a budget of $100,000 per year to support student-faculty-staff gatherings. These shall include projects supported by the Committee, by staff offices, or by residences. (For more information on the Student Life Council, see Part IV.) 2. Programming by Graduate Residence Tutors GRT's and RA's should conduct at least one dorm-wide social or educational event per term. The tutors of each dorm should collectively be responsible for one campus-wide event held outside of the residence hall. Funding for these social events shall come from the Office of Residence Life and Student Life Programs. 3. Community-wide Events Living groups should be responsible for one event per year which is open to the community and (if possible) held outside of the living group. These events need not be large in terms of the number of attendees, but should be of interest to a variety of students, faculty, staff, and alumni. 4. Professional Development 1. MIT should support a 'Student Development Program' (SDP) which help students develop non-classwork competencies that will serve the student well in future career positions. This program will provide instruction in the following areas: teamwork, communications skills, leadership, service, self-management, and inter-personal relationships. Particular classes and experiences would be developed and controlled by individuals and groups, with MIT providing funding and coordination. Participation should be voluntary, but should be well-integrated into the residential (and academic) experience. 2. As part of the SDP, students should have the opportunity to participate in internships that build SDP competencies such as leadership. MIT, through ORLSLP should actively create, and solicit for the creation, of these internships, would publicize their existence and coordinate hiring, and sponsor concurrent seminars that would allow participants to share their experiences and trade suggestions. 5. Peer Advising and Support A. MIT should support the creation of a network of peer advisors throughout the residences. The peer advisors would comprise students who have a variety of skills, ranging from conflict resolution, to solving MIT-related problems, to health advice, to advice on subject selection. The Student Life Council and ORSLP would support training programs in these areas, ensuring their quality. ORSLP would also maintain a central registry of peer advisors, so that students would always know who to go to for particular situations. B. GRT's should receive substantial training concerning introductory peer counseling, conflict resolution, and techniques and processes for solving student problems related to the Institute. 6. Rewards and Recognition MIT should offer a variety of rewards and recognition for inviduals and groups who further the goals of community interaction. These should include additonal prizes similar to the Compton and Stewart Awards. They should also include publicity, preferably through write-ups in MIT's widely read alumni magazine, Technology Review. Finally, we recommend a special form of recognition for junior faculty. As part of the tenure review process, junior faculty should be able to submit recommendations from students and others testifying to their contributions to student life at MIT. III. CAPITAL EXPENDITURES We recommend completion of the following capital projects beyond those currently given in MIT's Capital Plan. These projects are staggered in three stages. 1. To be completed (or have funding earmarked) by the summer of 2001. A. Renovations to dormitories to reopen dining halls and create new programming space $15 million B. Funds to buy / rent FSILG space from houses that would otherwise fold, thus keeping the spaces in the housing system. The spaces could be used for new FSILG's, theme houses, or, depending on student distribution, as graduate houusing. (Assumptions: max ~10 houses may fold * ~$2M per house) $20 MM C. Funds to renovate FSILG's (from the Vanderwiel facility audit sponsored by the AIFC) $9 MM D. Near-term renovations to Walker Memorial and $5.5 MM Stratton Center E. Athletics: renewal, phase I $8 MM Total, Phase I: $57.5 million 2. To be completed by the summer of 2004. A. New graduate dormitory (500 beds @ ~$100K/bed) $50 MM B. New undergraduate dormitory. Purposes: -- Eliminate overcrowding. -- Add additional flexibility into system; allow for FSILG's to move to the dorm, for instance. -- Buffer MIT's dependence on ILG's. (Assumes 400 beds * $100K per bed) $40 MM C. Housing Renovation and Renewal Plan, Phase 2 $ 6 MM D. Renovations to East Campus $25.5 MM E. Renovations to Stratton Center $ 2 MM F. Athletics: renewal, phase II $ 8.5 MM Total, Phase II: $119 million 3. To be completed by the summer of 2009. A. Second graduate dormitory (500 beds @ ~100K/bd) $50 MM B. Housing Renovation and Renewal Plan, Phase 3 $18.5 MM C. Renovations to Walker Memorial, Phases I and II $31 MM Total, Phase III: $99.5 million Grand Total, New Capital Recommendations: $276 million The Committee recognizes that MIT has already committed to projects that reach MIT's debt ceiling. Nonetheless, the fact is that the projects above range from critical to very important if MIT is to have the residential system that is the goal of senior management as well as the rest of the MIT community. We believe funding the above program will be feasible through measures including allocation of Capital Campaign funds and off-budget construction. IV. GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Successful management and governance of the residential system is vital if the new system is to fulfill its objectives. In this section, we propose several new programs and policies that, we believe, will bring about successful oversight of the residential system. 1. Division of Responsibilities The MIT senior administration, administrators of ODSUE, student governments, and appropriate faculty committees and housemasters should convene a conference in the Spring of 1999. This conference shall create a general agreement that: (1) assigns the responsibilities for oversight and management of the residential system to the conference parties, and (2) defines how the parties shall communicate with each other on pending issues and resolve disputes. 2. The Student Life Council We recommend the creation of a Student Life Council that would be responsible for strategic planning for the student life system, monitoring student quality of life issues, and supervising community-wide programming. To fulfill these duties, the Council shall: -- Serve as a forum for student life-related, cross-cutting issues, and advise senior Institute officials and the Corporation on any and all matters pertaining to student life. -- Consider capital projects, including proposals for new construction and proposals for renovations. The Council shall identify the scope and goals of these projects. -- Develop a unified strategic plan for the student life system, focusing on those areas under the jurisidiction of ODSUE. This plan shall be updated annually. It shall include a statement of needs and priorities that shall be the basis of ODSUE's budgeting process. -- Monitor the state of student life at MIT, and make (or advocate for) any changes implied by the results of the monitoring process. -- Coordinate community-wide programs. The Committee shall comprise 12 members, 4 students, 4 faculty, and 4 staff members, including the Dean for Student Life and Undergraduate Education, who shall be the President of the Council. To ensure transparency and accountability, the Council shall post edited versions of its minutes and reports to the community, and members shall regularly attend the meetings of student life organizations. 3. System Assessment In evaluating the residential system, the Monitoring Committee shall use the principles established by "Principles for the MIT Residential System", as supplemented by the principles and objectives established in this report. Further, the Committee shall use the following measures: -- Progress in carrying out the programming recommendations listed in Section 5, and in carrying out the capital projects listed in Section 6. -- Progress towards meeting the "Characterisics of an Excellent Residential System" as described in Section 5 of the RSSC's Final Report. -- General approval measures, as received from students, faculty, staff, and alumni. The Committee shall use the following techniques to measure system performance: -- Surveys. At least one major survey shall be sponsored by the Committee per year. The survey shall include general approval questions along with specific questions related to the indicators listed below. -- Focus groups. The Committee shall sponsor at least one round of focus groups about various student life issues per year. The focus groups shall include sessions with all members of the community, including students, faculty, staff, and alumni. -- Facilities inspections. -- Deliberative evaluations, which shall include input from other student life organizations, such as Institute Committees and student governments. 4. Performance Management All senior administrators responsible for the welfare of the student life system, and in identifying and providing resources to the student life system, should be eligible to receive a bonus based on the status of the student life system. The bonus regularly achievable would be 10-15% of the administrator's base salary, with greater bonuses being awarded for exceptional performance. Bonuses would be decided by committees established by the MIT Corporation (such as the Visiting Committee on Student Life). 5. Process Management Student life decision-making and implementation should be done in accordance in modern project and process management principles. V. ORIENTATION AND RESIDENCE SELECTION The Committee makes the following recommendations pertaining to orientation and residence selection. We believe that these recommendations would best foster the goals of providing a supportive home for freshmen as well as providing for community interaction. 1. Residence Hall Selection A. Freshmen would receive information about residence halls over the summer, and would pre-select a residence hall or theme house. They would receive a preliminary assignment over the summer. B. During orientation, time will be set aside for freshmen to tour the residence halls (one day, plus free time in the evenings). They will then actively confirm their summer choice of residence, or enter a lottery with a new ranking of residence halls. In this new lottery, two freshmen may staple their choices together, so that they may be guaranteed of rooming with each other. C. Following this second lottery, dormitories will do internal rooming assignments by a mechanism determined by the dormitory governments and approved by the Student Life Council. During rooming assignments, entries and suites may request that particular freshmen to live with them, but may not prevent a freshman from living with them. Information about which freshmen have received positive requests shall be absolutely confidential. ORLSLP shall establish procedures that shall allow suites or entries to make requests that a freshman not live with them due to extreme circumstances (for example, if the freshman is sexually harassing a resident). 2. Orientation A. Freshmen should not be required to pay additional fees to participate in Pre-Orientation programs. B. We recommend a variety of new activities during Orientation (see report for details). Primary among these are a Carnival for incoming freshmen (NOTE: I thought this was for everybody, including incoming grad students), explorations of Boston, a joint picnic with other colleges, and sessions that will discuss student resources that every incoming student should know about. 3. Theme Houses A. The Committee believes that a limited number of theme houses would be a valuable addition to the MIT community. However, we also believe that new houses must contribute to the diversity of the system, and must show need to be a theme house rather than a non-residential student activity. Further, theme houses should reinforce MIT's educational mission. B. The Committee recognizes that theme houses must maintain committment to their theme through a selection process. We recommend that houses be given a choice of two options: -- Houses may recruit rising sophomores, much as independent living groups do. -- Houses may require incoming freshmen to meet with a house leader and sign a form commiting them to the house duties required for active membership. 4. Recruitment and Selection for Independent Living Groups A. The Interfraternity Council, in consultation with the Residential Life Office and the Student Life Coucnil, should set guidelines for the new member recruitment and selection process. B. The Institute should make every effort to encourage freshmen to consider their upperclass housing options and to facilitate and support that process. 5. Fall and Spring Residence Lotteries A. In general, the Committee encourages the idea of students living in different residences while at MIT, and that MIT should discourage the current cultural norm that students must stay in their residences except in emergency cases. However, the Committee strongly believes that all such moves be voluntary. We also believe that there is no reason to restrict moves solely to rising sophomores. Any undergraduate should be able to request a move quickly and easily. B. A dormitory lottery will be held in November of the fall term and March of the spring term. These lotteries should be mandatory for all dormitory residents, but residents should be able to choose to remain in their current house. 6. Housing Guarantee Housing must be guaranteed for four years to all undergraduates. In the event of short-term population distortions due to the evolution of the FSILG system and dormitory lotteries, we recommend the following measures be taken (in order of preference): A. Provide incentives for students to move to residences that are underutilized. B. Crowd existing dormitory space and spread such crowding as evenly as possible between residence halls. C. Rent non-residence hall space for undergraduates. D. Utilize graduate student housing for undergraduates and provide subsidies for out-of-system graduate student housing for those students denied housing in those dormitories. E. Change the dormitory lottery so that it will not guarantee that students remain in their current dormitory. Note that D and E should only be used in case of extreme situation. A desire by the MIT administration to save money will not count as an extreme situation. 6. Support for Independent Living Groups A. Starting in June 2001, MIT should transfer funds to each FSILG equal to 25% of total house capacity times the standard hosuebill. This subsidy shall decline to zero over six years. B. Independent houses that are in particular financial trouble may apply for special funding. C. MIT should support any single-sex fraternity which wishes to become coeducational. This support may include the purchase of the current chapter house from the fraternity's national organization. D. FSILG's may choose to be listed as graduate housing options in MIT's publications for graduate students. E. MIT should provide logistical support to FSILG's that wish to move closer to campus. VI. SPECIAL NOTES 1. About Requiring Freshmen to Live in Residence Halls The Committee hoped to have the ability to design what would be be a globally-optimal residence system. Unfortunately, we are limited from doing so by the non-relaxable constraint that freshmen not be allowed to live in independent living groups. It may well be that the optimal residence does feature freshmen living only in residence halls. However, we cannot make that statement for certain since we did not consider any options that had freshmen living in ILG's. 2. About the Residence System for Graduate Students The Committee recognizes that this report is heavily dominated by undergraduate housing issues. As much as possible, we have tried to include graduate housing issues as referenced in existing material. Many of the community involvement programs discussed in Part II apply to graduate students just as much as they do to undergraduate students. Further, in Part III we call for the construction of two new graduate dormitories. Nonetheless, it is clear that graduate housing must be explored in depth. We therefore concur with recommendations to have a separate community-based committee redesign the graduate housing system. Despite this recommendation, we are adamant that the $100 million- plus in capital construction for graduate student housing be done on schedule. The exact form may vary based on the results of this new committee. However, providing housing for graduate students is critical to satisfy the first objective of the residential system -- providing safe, clean and affordable housing. It is time for MIT to keep its promises regarding graduate student housing.