This proposal was created by Paul-Gabriel Wiener, based on ideas from the Dorm-Design-Team, with input from members of ESG, ILTFP, Housing-talk, and the MIT community at large. It is a response to the RSSC's final proposal, with the purpose of providing a viable alternative to those parts of the proposal which are seen as having a negative impact, being inappropriate to MIT, or otherwise having room for improvement. The reader is strongly encouraged to consider each point and idea in this proposal on its own merits. Anything not appearing here can be reasonably assumed to be considered (at least by those most involved with this proposal) satisfactory as it stands, with no additional comment needed. Goals The goals of this proposal are to provide a residence system which (in order of priority): 1. Works well for the students. The only people directly affected by the residence system are the ones living in it. This group is composed of students and residential support (GRT's and Housemasters). As such, the actual residents, especially the students, deserve to be the first priority. 2. Seems attractive to prospective students and their families. Prospective students may at some point become students. Their families will play a crucial role in helping to determine whether or not they will actually attend. After residents, these are the people who have the most potential to be affected by the residence system. Any reasonable proposal must therefore give serious consideration to their viewpoint. 3. Is an integral part of a student's education. This seems to be the primary goal of the RSSC's proposal. It is a worthwhile pursuit, and a good residence system should take this into account. A student's primary purpose for attending MIT is to learn, and most students spend a significant amount of their time in their respective houses. Still, it is important to remember that the actual needs of the students themselves must be placed above the desire to further integrate the residence system into the educational experience of MIT. The RSSC has expressed a concern with the idea that the houses are seen as a "refuge" from academic life. While the word "refuge" does not invoke a positive view of the phenomenon, it is still a valid point. Consider, as an analogous situation, someone in weight training. It seems a reasonable comparison to what has often been called "mental muscles." When exercising, one lifts weights to flex the muscles, and then puts them back down to allow the muscles to relax. If the weights are not put down fairly frequently, the muscle becomes strained. It hurts more to hold a weight in a slightly elevated position for an extended period than it does to pull it up further, putting it down periodically. In this sense, putting the weight down and relaxing the muscle is just as (if not more) important as picking it up. Putting the weight down is still an integral part of the exercise, even if it is to relax the muscle, rather than actively building it. In the same way, academic learning causes students to flex their "mental muscles." This has positive effects, and allows for the mental growth so crucial to an education. At the same time, students need a place and a time to relax those "muscles." Clubs and activities do this to some extent. Taking a variety of courses (such as taking HASSes to balance out technical subjects) allows one "muscle group" to relax while another is stretched. This, however, is still not enough. The residence system must be maintained as a place where students can relax their "mental muscles" so that they can flex them again in class later. This is not an escape, or a refuge. This is a vital part of the educational process. This is not to say that studying, writing, and other work does not, can not, or should not take place in dorms. Students may still need academic support within the housing system. In doing so, however, it is vital to acknowledge the need for down time, and a place where one can relax without having to remember everything that needs to get done. This must take priority over any efforts to further integrate the residences into the educational experience of MIT. Goals of the RSSC not on this list (in order of appearance): 1. "Takes advantage of the expertise that exists within the faculty, staff, alumni/ae, and student body." While this is an admirable goal for the institute at large, encouraging improved relations between students and staff, alumni, and faculty is not of primary concern to the residence system. Faculty, staff, and alumni do not live with students (with the exception of those who are there in another capacity, such as housemasters). Faculty, staff, and students all leave their homes and go to campus in order to do their part in maintaining MIT, including teaching, learning, researching, and other forms of interaction. It is no more appropriate for this to be deliberately and forcefully extended to student residences than it is for MIT to require faculty to invite students to their homes. 2. "Responsibilities for designing and implementing the community dimension of the educational experience are clearly defined for both faculty and staff, and individual performance is evaluated with respect to those responsibilities." Again, this is a good goal for the institute, but it is not part of the residence system. Additionally, these "responsibilities" must be made more clear before their existence is declared. While it is entirely conceivable that such responsibilities would be reasonable and would have positive effects, it is all to easy for them to become duties inappropriate to the defined roles of faculty and staff. In addition, it is not hard to imagine such responsibilities becoming an object of resentment, resulting in worse relations. 3. Spaces for quiet study, informal student and faculty/student interaction, group study, programs, dining, and recreation are available. Such spaces (mostly lounges and conference rooms) already exist in most, if not all, houses. While it is good to make sure they are maintained, it should be up to each house to decide how to use these spaces. Mandating that each house needs room for each of these purposes is inappropriate. Elements of the System First-Year Housing Selection Dorm and FSILG Rush The RSSC proposal calls for dorm rush to be held over the summer via mail. While this may be an effective way to narrow choices, it is not an adequate method for selecting a long-term residence. A key part of housing selection is finding a place where one fits in. This is not something that can be quantified in any manner. Personal, face-to- face contact with a significant portion of the house is a necessary part of an informed choice. The fact that MIT has one of the top-rated residential systems in the country, as well as the multiple heartfelt testimonials provided by various students demonstrate the importance of such an informed choice. Finding a place where one can fit in is an essential and integral part of the MIT experience. It is especially important to MIT freshman, many of whom have felt out of place anywhere else in the world. There is a concern, however, that rush, as it stands, is an extremely stressful period. While the dominant opinion among those who have gone through the system seems to be that this stress is worth the benefits, that does not mean that the stress cannot be reduced. In particular, the lack of a sense of permanence, as well as the difficulty of communicating with friends and family while in temporary housing can be significantly reduced. Keep the summer lottery in place, and give incoming freshman the results as soon as possible. These results would include the address, room number, and phone number of the student's temporary room (to be assigned out of the set of available freshman rooms). Dorm rush would occur during orientation week, scheduled so as not to conflict with orientation activities (which are beyond the scope of a residence system). A possibility would be to have evening open houses in each of the available residences. Towards the end of orientation week, there would be a mandatory lottery, but with the option of "squatter's rights." Dorms may decide for themselves how to work internal lotteries. This system has the advantage of maintaining a fully informed housing choice (actually, it improves that choice, by increasing available summer information), while at the same time significantly reducing the stress of rush. With FSILG rush later in the year, there are fewer pulls on freshmen. The change in the temp room situation allows for a greater sense of permanence ("I can just move in here, if I want to"), as well as allowing freshmen to remain in touch with their friends and families. In order for summer housing selection to work well, however, the information sent to pre-frosh must be more extensive, standardized, and represent as many viewpoints as possible. A good way to do this would be to send out a single, large book. Each available housing option would get a few pages, which would include a set of pure statistics (such as house facilities, cost, number of beds, number of residents, number of residents who moved out the last year, etc), a house blurb, and a compilation of candid views from non-residents (in the same format as Zagat's Guide to restaurants). While that last item may be controversial, it is a good way to find out important information that one may not otherwise hear, as well as providing a better understanding of the character of the house. A well-informed housing decision is crucial to making the system work. During orientation week, those FSILG's which are willing to accept non-residential members would have a "rush" of their own. This would be included with other non-residential activities, such as clubs. Upperclass Involvement The RSSC has expressed a concern with upperclass involvement in the placement of freshmen. The reason they have given for this is that they wish to avoid situations in which freshmen are emotionally hurt by rejection. This is understandable, and in an ideal world, the situation would not arise. The problem is that when such rejection occurs, it is usually for a reason. Whatever that reason is, it means that those upperclassmen do not get along well with the specific freshman in question. It is arguably much better for a freshman to be gently told that he or she would probably be happier elsewhere than for that freshman to be forced to live with upperclassmen who do not get along with him or her. As was carefully explained at the beginning of rush in previous years, odds are that the upperclassmen have a better idea of how well freshmen will fit in with the house than the freshman does. In the current system, most of the upperclass involvement in dorm placement takes place during the internal lottery. Depending on how an individual dorm has that lottery, upperclassmen have varying degrees of control over where freshmen are placed within the dorm. Usually, the freshmen are shown their options, and asked for their preferences, and perhaps some information about themselves. Then, based on whatever system a particular dorm uses, that information is used to place freshmen within the dorm. The freshman have already been accepted into the dorm. The question is merely which of the dorm's subcultures is best fits the particular freshman. Given that they will be accepted at least as much if they are assigned as they will if they are lotteried, and given that they are more likely to find a place suited to them if selection is guided (taking preferences heavily into account), this system is arguably the best for all concerned. The current system also allows for some upperclass selection in dorm placement. This occurs in the theme houses. Since theme houses are specialized, placement of a student in an individual house is a result of a mutual selection process. The concern about freshmen being rejected has already been addressed, but another concern has been raised regarding the homogeneous population that is, in a way, the essence of what it is to be a theme house. The issue is diversity. Freshmen, it has been claimed, should learn to appreciate diversity by basically being forced to live with a cross-section of the population. Leaving aside, for the moment, the fact that forced diversity tends to breed more resentment than appreciation, there is a problem of priorities. The actual needs of the students must come before any idealistic desires. Appreciating diversity is good, but that can be (and generally has been) achieved through clubs, activities, study groups, etc. On the other hand, for many students it is extremely important to find a place to anchor themselves. MIT is often the first place where a given student can truly fit in, and finding a good niche in the residence system is a large part of that. This is especially true of the first year, when the need for the stability that finding that niche can provide is greatest. A theme house, which, by its very nature, has a stronger than usual character, can provide more of that stability, comfort, and support than just about any other residence. This is not to say that all students who choose theme houses are in some way needy, but rather that theme houses can better provide for some of those students who are in need. A somewhat extreme case would be an ESL student in a language house. Such a student would very likely be considerably better off adjusting to life at MIT if he or she was living among others speaking his or her native language. This should in no way be denied to the students who need it most, when they need it most, just to foster diversity. If, instead, students are allowed to find the place where they are happiest and most comfortable, they can then feel safer to meet new people and explore new options outside of their homes. The RSSC proposal, as it has been explained (rather than the current wording), would offer theme houses a choice- act like ordinary dorms, or be considered ILG's, and therefore not house freshmen. The main reasons for allowing freshmen into theme houses are included above, but there is another consideration. Opening up theme houses (especially if some of the current FSILG's are allowed to become theme houses) to freshmen will reduce crowding by increasing the number of available freshmen beds. Second-Year Housing Selection One of the major issues with the proposed sophomore shuffle lottery is its social effects. Requiring freshmen to enter the lottery means that they are less likely to become part of the dorm culture. Since they can't be sure that they will be able to remain in the same house, they won't feel as much of a drive to participate in house events, to get to know fellow residents, etc. Likewise, upperclassmen won't feel as much of a need to integrate the freshmen into activities, take the time to get to know them, etc. Housing selection for sophomore year will take place during IAP and the first half of spring term. This will be an informal rush, during which open houses, parties, dinners, etc may be held, as deemed appropriate by the houses and those parts of the administration which currently control rush rules. Bids may be given out from the beginning of IAP through the third week of March. Bids may be accepted through March 31. At the third week of March, a mandatory lottery (for those freshmen who choose to remain within the dormitory system) will be held. Once again, students may choose to claim "squatter's rights," but they must actively make this choice. This allows for the preservation of 4-year dorm culture, while also reducing inertia (there is a significant psychological difference between actively claiming squatter's rights and simply not entering a lottery). Note that while rush seems similar to the RSSC's proposal, there is a significant difference in the timing. Here, rush begins during IAP, not at the end of fall term. This is to reduce the stress on both the freshmen and upperclassmen. End of term is a chaotic time, with many loose ends (academic and otherwise) to tie up. Adding the additional chaos of the beginning of rush will cause a lot of unnecessary stress. IAP is a good time for rush, since the is usually less that absolutely needs to be taken care of. The problem arises, however, that not everyone wants to be on campus for IAP. This is solved by extending rush into second term. Crowding Vs. Guaranteed Housing While reducing or even eliminating crowding is an admirable goal, it is not worth the price of losing guaranteed housing. Living in a crowded room for a year is much better than being kicked out of the system entirely. Even so, in some cases (especially during the transition time), it may not be possible to house everyone who wants to live in a dorm. These cases should be kept to a minimum, and will likely be rare. In these cases, however, the institute should take responsibility. The best way to do that would be to help locate a nearby apartment for the displaced student, to subsidize the cost of that student's rent, and to take reasonable measures to facilitate transportation to and from campus. Any students who are lotteried out in this manner will be given the same opportunity to re-enter the lottery as those in dorms. Admittedly, this is not an ideal solution, and may potentially become moderately expensive. The situation is still better than having people pledge for the extremely poor reason that they might not or cannot find space in the dormitory system. As to the expense, the RSSC seems to feel confident that the number of students who would be lotteried out of the system will be relatively small. This number can also be reasonably expected to decrease after a new balance is reached. This means that such support, as compared with the proposed FSILG support, will be small and will last for approximately the same length of time. This expense is the price that must be paid for housing all freshmen on campus. Up until now, MIT has accepted the responsibility of housing its undergraduate population. This is an exceptional bonus to the institute's housing system, and, after housing choice, may well be the most positive aspect of the system. The guarantee of four-year housing should not by any means be given up lightly. RA's RA's have the potential to become a valuable resource for freshmen, and we applaud the RSSC's suggestion in this respect. We propose that the program be implemented on a two or three year trial basis, and be reevaluated. In particular, we worry that the large number of RA's that must be recruited may exceed the pool of qualified applicants, resulting in RA's that are not properly suited to the role. We further urge that the RA be a resource available to all members of a community, with particular responsibility for a set of freshmen. Residential Offices The RSSC proposal suggests that various offices and freshman advising seminars be moved into dorm space. This would have no significant positive effect, would harm the dorms, and is an inappropriate use of dormitory space. The idea behind placing offices in dormitories seems to be that forcing people to go into the various houses to get whatever they need done will build community by encouraging people to visit houses they might not otherwise enter. This is extremely unlikely to work. First, people generally do not take the time to look around and talk to the people that they meet when they are heading to an office. This means that interaction is not likely to improve. Secondly, placing offices inside dorms would require those dorms to open themselves to the general public. This presents a security risk, which many of the houses will be reluctant to accept. In addition, just as a faculty member would not be happy with an office being placed in his living room, residents will most likely resent this intrusion upon their homes. While there is the technical difference that MIT owns the dormitories, the fact remains that a dorm is a home. Such resentment will do more to break down any existing sense of community than it will to somehow encourage community spirit. Furthermore, these offices will take up the very lounges, study areas, conference rooms, etc that the RSSC has (correctly) decided are vital to dorm life and community. In the past, space has always been found for these offices elsewhere on campus, and the situation should remain that way. The Transition to the New System The RSSC has obviously put a good deal of thought and research into the matters of subsidizing graduate students, and subsidizing FSILG's for empty beds. The objection has been raised that FSILG's should not be viewed as graduate housing. The idea of housing graduate students (if only temporarily) in FSILGs does, however, seem sound. FSILG's will most likely have a large number of empty beds during the transition, and there is not nearly enough room to house graduate students. On the other hand, a major benefit of an FSILG is that it is a small community unto itself, usually with a strong character. Graduate students should not simply be placed in FSILGs whether they fit in or not. This is why it is essential for the selection process to be mutual. So long as each FSILG chooses for itself whether or not to accept graduate students and if so, which ones, and so long as each graduate student decides for him- or herself whether to accept life in an FSILG and if so, which one, there should be no problem with the situation. In addition, there is nothing wrong with encouraging graduate students to give the idea serious consideration by offering a financial incentive. Another objection which has been raised is that the proposed transitional support may not be enough for struggling FSILGs. With no reliable way to predict exactly how FSILGs will be affected by the new system, there is no good way to determine how much will be needed. MIT's finances must also be considered. There is always a need for more money somewhere, and the institute only has so much. Still, it would be extremely unfortunate if this change in policy resulted in the "deaths" of any houses. The degree of financial support that FSILGs should be given is something which is probably best left to those with the best understanding of the situation. MIT should, however, be prepared to offer additional support above and beyond the proposed numbers to any houses which find themselves in severe need. FSILG Move To Cambridge There have been a few objections to this particular aspect of the proposal, but the RSSC has wisely decided to leave the final choice up to the individual houses. Certainly, there are advantages to the move, but, just as with the theme house idea, the situation should ultimately be left up to those it most concerns. Grad Housing There is no real need for a committee on graduate housing. There is only one problem- the lack of grad dorms. This single problem gives rise to multiple difficulties. Graduate students forced to live off-campus can have difficulties getting to and from labs, a lot of pressure is put on first year grads (who are often new to Boston, or even the United States) who end up having to find an apartment while trying to settle in to a new school, housing in the area is rare and expensive, etc. There is a single obvious solution to the problem- build a new graduate dorm. The only things that need to be done are to find the earliest feasible date at which a new graduate dorm can be built, resolve to build it by that, and then do it. Conclusion The RSSC has put in an amazing amount of time and effort into developing the proposals, listening to feedback in many forms, and trying to change their proposed system to accommodate everyone's concerns. While the final proposal can use some improvement, their work has made it possible to incorporate suggestions and objections. Considering that most of the administration seems to be turning a deaf ear to the student body, that willingness to actually listen provides some hope and reason to combat the apathy taking over campus. This counter-proposal is not intended as a criticism of the RSSC, but rather as something to consider when it is time for the final choice. Hopefully, it will provoke some thought, and perhaps even result in a change for the better. That is all that can be asked or expected.