The Unified Proposal for an MIT Residence System is a comprehensive and systemic design. We believe it 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.
The Strategic Advisory Committee to the Chancellor and the united student governments of MIT: the Undergraduate Association, the Dormitory Council, the Interfraternity Council, and the Graduate Student Council composed and submit this proposal to Lawrence Bacow, the Chancellor of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. We recommend that the Chancellor adopt this proposal as the blueprint for the future of MIT's residence system. Moreover, we believe this proposal demonstrates that students can be involved in all levels of planning related to student life issues, and can reconcile diverse interests through integrative design and negotiation.
The Strategic Advisory Committee to the Chancellor (SAC) was created by the Chancellor in Fall 1998 as a continuation of the Student Advisory Group to the Task Force on Student Life and Learning. The purpose of the SAC is to provide student views and proposals to the Chancellor on an Institute-wide scope. The residence system is a natural area of concern for the committee, both because of its importance to the students of MIT and because the Chancellor will be making important decisions regarding its future.
The student governments have paid close attention to the future of the residence system since the announcement by President Charles M. Vest in Fall 1998 that all freshmen would be required to live in residence halls in Fall 2001. The Residence System Steering Committee (RSSC) was charged by the Chancellor to design and submit a proposal for the residence system and will do so in October 1999. The membership of the RSSC was drawn from the undergraduates, faculty, alumni, and staff of MIT. We applaud the Chancellor's commitment to community based decision making and the countless hours of work the members of the RSSC devoted to creating their final proposal.
When the RSSC released a first draft of their proposal in April 1999, the student governments produced the Unified Student Response to the Phase II Status Report (USR). The USR included a section on the key values for the MIT residence system and responded to a number of the recommendations of the RSSC, but was not a comprehensive proposal for the residence system. The Final Report of the Residence System Steering Committee, released in September 1999, was significantly different from the Phase II Status Report, and some of the changes made to the Final Report were recommended by the USR.
Following the release of the RSSC's Final
Report, the Student Advisory Committee to the Chancellor and the
student governments (especially those students who had worked on the
USR) jointly met, and decided to sponsor a community-based process to
develop a substitute proposal for a residence system. Our motivations
for doing so are as follows:
We believe that our experience, expertise, and perspective, enhanced by the work of the Clay Committee, the Task Force on Student Life and Learning, the Lewis Commission, the office of Residence Life and Student Life Programming, and the Residence System Steering Committee could produce an excellent system and we believe we have done so.
The Unified Proposal for an MIT Residence System was announced to the public on September 14, 1999. The committee actively advertised its efforts to the community at large through both paper and electronic publicity campaigns, and was featured prominently in campus media.
Unique among similar efforts to date, the
process used by the committee has been completely open and public -
notes from all meetings were posted on the web for public perusal and
comment. We have received invaluable contributions to the content of
the report as a result of the process's transparency.
The text of the report was written primarily by student members of
the committee. However, we solicited and received comments from
faculty, staff, and alumni, and these comments have been signficant
recommendations to this report.
In developing the report, we used as our basis those documents
identififed by the Institute as providing overall guidelines for the
residence system. These reports include, but were not limited to, the
report of the Task Force on Student Life and Learning, the
Institute Dining Review, Principles for an MIT
Residential System ("Clay Committee"), the Phase II Status
Report and the Final Report of the RSSC, and the various
proposals submitted to the RSSC as part of the January 1999 Residence
System Design Contest.
The committee would have preferred to begin designing the
residence system by a community-based needs analysis, followed by
several iterations of community feedback, proposals, and amendments.
Unfortunately, we were unable to do so due to time restrictions.
Nonetheless, we are confident that the proposal is based upon the
needs of the community. In addition to using the reports listed
above, many project members attended RSSC community sessions, and had
detailed notes of those sessions. Consequently, we have been able to
use the RSSC's community input as a facsimile or our own input. The
project group has been open to the community, and involves many who
have been most involved with residence system issues, including
several student government presidents. Further, the transparency of
the process has allowed the committee to receive vital input as
the proposal has been developed.
Through this process, we now sense a growing consensus among the
MIT community of what the new residence system should be. Perhaps
because of this common direction, we found it relatively easy to
integrate the several separate sections drafted by internal task
forces. We are encouraged that, to date, community members have
responded to our calls for review and feedback by providing positive
comments on our effort, and providing recommendations that have helped
us build a better system. As a result, this document represents the
consensus of all members of the Strategic Advisory Committee to the
Chancellor.
The committee hoped to have the ability to design what would
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 reisdence 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.
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 Section 4
apply to graduate students just as they do to undergraduate students.
Further, in Section 3, Capital Expenditures, we call for the construction
of two new graduate residence halls.
Nonetheless, it is clear that graduate housing must be explored in
depth. We recommend that a separate commmunity-based process expand
this proposal to truly include the needs of graduate students. This
process must include a detailed needs assessment; to date such an
assessment has not been done. In general, information on graduate
student housing needs is much sparser than information on
undergraduate needs.
Despite this recommendation, we are adamant that the estimated $100
million for graduate student housing called for in Section 3 be done
on schedule. As discussed in Section 3, the need for new graduate
student housing is clear and pressing.
1.3 Limitations and Recommendations for Future Study
Requiring Freshmen to Live in Residence Halls
Graduate Student Housing