Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 17:41:30 EDT To: beland@MIT.EDU, madmatt@MIT.EDU, abbeyrd@MIT.EDU, skkelly@MIT.EDU, fyfer@MIT.EDU From: Liana Lareau Subject: draft programming So, here's the little I've done... I tried to add some intro and conclusion sentences when useful. It's still really really rough. I left a lot out; there are notes where a whole paragraph needs to go. I think the overall format isn't so bad, but sections II and III might be switched. I'm sorry it's so far from done; my brain isn't working and I have to go play with the Boston Pops in a few minutes (yeah, I'm milking that excuse as much as I can ;) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. An ideal residence system -- house, home, and community -- ensures student happiness, and thus supports academic success. To this end, the system must contain both formal and informal advising and mentoring. It is also 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 within and between communities, but to break down the barriers that may prevent these interactions and increase the total number of possibilities. I. Faculty-student Interaction Many documents have established the need for a stronger commitment to faculty-student interaction. [quote from task force?]. MIT students are surrounded by some of the world's most prestigious and enthusiastic professors, yet many students have never even spoken personally with a member of the faculty. In turn, the faculty wonder why they are so distant from the students whom they see each day in class, but who rarely approach them with questions. Currently, MIT has implemented a few programs to improve the situation, but more and better support is needed. The House Fellows program has brought a handful [insert numbers? 10? Matt will ask] of faculty in contact with undergraduate residential life; the housemasters of dormitories provide another handful of involved faculty. However, both of these programs are woefully undersupported by the administration. A.House Fellows The House Fellow program needs to provide an incentive and a means for faculty to get involved. The program coordinator for residence life should work hand in hand with students to seek appropriate house fellows for the individual cultures of each residence. Faculty who volunteer for this program should be compensated in a manner similar to freshman advisors; that is, they should receive on the order of $1000 in research grants. Ideally, the number of house fellows should be approximately the same as the number of GRTs in the dorms and FSILGs. The administration must provide more financial support for programs and events sponsored by the house fellows, both because of the increased participation, and to allow more significant programming. The programming should range from practical to cultural, from social to intellectual. Faculty could arrange trips to Red Sox games, the Boston Pops, hiking, service days, or even just study breaks or house activities like installing a hammock. B.House Masters To facilitate residential programming, the administration should provide staff support for housemasters. This support should be in the form of one half-time assistant for each housemaster; seven full-time or fourteen half-time staff members would be required for the current system, at a cost of approximately $250,000 per year. These support staff could assist faculty in the day-to-day dealings of the residence, and in planning student events for the residence, leaving the faculty with more time to interact with students. The current event funding level for housemasters is adequate, and should be maintained. C.General faculty interaction Faculty and staff must recognize the value of participating in the residence system, and ensure that students have enough time to do so. Consequently, existing academic regulations must be rigorously enforced, and departments should carefully consider the content and instruction quality of their subjects to ensure that students are not doing "busywork." Also, it is important to provide incentive for faculty to become involved in residence-based programs; faculty should not be penalized for spending time on student interaction. Indeed, contributions to student life should be considered in the tenure process for junior faculty; participants in programs should be able to submit recommendations testifying to their commitment to this goal. Subcommittee ***FOO*** of the Student Life Committee will be responsible for events and programs to encourage student-faculty interaction. By sponsoring events and by facilitating student-run events, the subcommittee can generate interaction between students and faculty, both inside and outside of the residences. Promising events include student-faculty gatherings in the Bush Room, faculty invited to dinners or study breaks at living groups, and family-friendly events such as carnivals or picnics. The Subcommittee should have a budget of $100,000 per year for such events, and they should also provide grants to residences for community-building and intellectual events. II. Student Support and Development [intro paragraph] A.GRTs (add something about "Graduate Residents should receive substantial peer counse ling and conflict resolution training.") In addition to their current student support role within the living groups, the GRTs and FSILG resident advisors should plan and implement residence-wide and campus-wide events. Each tutor should be responsible for one dorm-wide social or educational event per term. In addition, the tutors of each dorm should collectively be responsible for one campus-wide event, held outside of the residence hall. The ORLSLP will provide appropriate funds for GRT events. B.Peer Advising and Support Currently, the residence system provides informal mentoring and support by upperclass students in living groups. While this is one of the successes of the current residence system, the system could benefit from a more established support framework. MIT is a stressful and difficult place to live, and the emotional wellbeing of students is crucial to their academic success. However, setting students in positions of authority over other students raises a number of issues. -liability -social interaction -responsibilities -reporting/policing (then outline how this will work: database of *trained* medlinks, judcomm, physics gods, counselors like nightline people, etc) C.Professional Development III. Community Events (intro??) A. Campus-wide events Regular campus-wide events maintain and foster campus-wide community. To this end, living groups shall be responsible for one event per year which is open to the community and held outside of the living group. These events need not be large enough to accomodate the entire community, but should be of interest to a variety of students, faculty, staff, and alumni. Various events of this sort exist currently; the new "Tuesday Nights at Baker" program is an excellent example. Occasional larger events may be co-sponsored by several living groups. To facilitate planning of these events, MIT needs to reorganize its administrative structure to engender cooperation amongst the various program coordinators. e.g. CAC, athletics, departments, living groups, ORLSLP. B.Dining [insert IDR segment] C.Rewards and Recognition (MIT should privide a variety of rewards and recognition for people participating in the residence system, including publicity in Technology Review)