Chair of the Faculty
Faculty Policy Committee
In 2002-03 the Faculty Policy Committee (FPC) oversaw those aspects of educational and academic policy that are the specific responsibilities of the Faculty and provided faculty input toward policy development at the Institute. The committee met twice with the president and twice with the provost. The FPC used these opportunities to convey faculty opinions on a variety of topics, including campus security, MIT's budget, faculty quality-of-life, MITE2S and Project Interphase, faculty diversity, and the implications of the Supreme Court's ruling on affirmative action.
The FPC heard from and reviewed the work of several faculty committees and task forces. The FPCheard twice from the committee charged with reviewing the status of the department of Ocean Engineering: the first time to review and discuss the charge for the committee, and the second time to hear and discuss its findings and recommendations for the department. Members of the Council on Family and Work came to the FPCtwicein the fall. In October they presented the findings of the Faculty Quality-of-Life Report and in December presented recommendations for next steps.
The FPC also held sessions for the review and discussion of several other committees, activities, and initiatives, including the Mental Health Task Force, the Committee on Community, OpenCourseWare, Industrial Partnerships, travel related issues, and phase two of the Singapore-MIT Alliance. The FPC met with Chancellor Clay and Professor Gast regarding the follow up to the recommendations for the Task Force on Intellectual Property and Conflict of Commitment. The FPC assisted with the wording in Policies and Proceduresfor two sections (4.1.1 and 13.1.8) and new text was brought to the May Faculty Meeting.
In the fall of 2002 the FPC reviewed the proposal for new graduate degrees (PhD and SM) in the Engineering Systems Division. After receiving approval from the FPC, the proposal was approved in November.
The FPC discussed extensively a proposal to document and clarify the process by which the Faculty review and approve new undergraduate degree programs. Members of the Committee on Curricula (COC) and the Committee on the Undergraduate Program (CUP) developed this proposal, and after several revisions, the Faculty approved it in May. This process codified what was already written in Rules and Regulations of the Faculty as the duties of the COC, the CUP and the FPC.
Professor Graves concluded his tenure as the chair of the Faculty, thus ending his role as chair of the FPC.
Committee on the Undergraduate Program
Much of the agenda of the Committee on the Undergraduate Program (CUP) during the 2002–2003 academic year was devoted to two pressing issues. The first was the development of a formal structure by which new undergraduate degree proposals would be vetted by the Faculty and its representative committees. The CUP worked with the Committee on Curricula to develop this proposal. This structure, formally sanctioned by the Faculty at its May meeting, provides guidance to academic units so they meet the changing needs of their students through innovative and new degree programs.
The CUP's second focus this year was the development, in collaboration with the Committee on Student Life (CSL), of a new set of guidelines for the advising and mentoring of upperclass students. During the last meetings of the spring semester, the CUP and the CSL received final reports from joint subcommittees working on different aspects of the problem. These reports will inform a set of guidelines to be determined by the CUP in fall 2003.
Subcommittee on the Communication Requirement
During 2002–2003, the CUP's Subcommittee on the Communication Requirement (SOCR) continued work on issues associated with the implementation of the Communication Requirement, and planned for its assessment. SOCR members collaborated with MIT's academic departments to develop and implement Communication Intensive Subjects in the Major (CI-M) for each undergraduate program. The SOCR worked closely with the HASS Overview Committee on matters pertaining to the Communication Intensive Subjects in the Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences (CI-H). With the Committee on Academic Performance, the SOCR reviewed the guidelines for monitoring student progress in the requirement and articulated policies for its enforcement.
The SOCR drafted policies for transfer students that included the approval of transfer credit for CI subjects. The SOCR also reevaluated and reaffirmed its existing policy for CI-M subjects in double degree programs and reviewed its procedures for approving substitutions to CI-M subjects. The subcommittee considered a number of student petitions seeking exception to some aspect of the Communication Requirement—most frequently, the relaxation of the minimum pace of completion. Petitions that demonstrated extenuating circumstances were approved.
Committee on Academic Performance
The Committee on Academic Performance (CAP) launched a new web site to help facilitate better communication with students and faculty. The web site's new database enables the accurate and efficient analysis of petitions, end-of-term actions, and student performance by various cohorts. The CAP worked extensively with the SOCR to enforce the Institute's Communication Requirement.
In addition, the CAP reviewed 391 student petitions this academic year, a decrease of 23 percent from 2001–2002. This significant decrease in the number of petitions reviewed is attributed in part to the implementation of a new database that allows for closer tracking of petitions that contain multiple requests. There was a decline in both the number of petitions approved (25 percent) and the number denied (9 percent) by the CAP this year.
CAP End-of-Term Action Summary 2002-2003
| Fall 2002 | ||
| Year | Warnings | RWs |
| Freshmen | 51 | 1 |
| Sophomores | 58 | 2 |
| Juniors | 36 | 5 |
| Seniors | 45 | 3 |
| Totals | 190 | 11 |
| Spring 2003 | ||||
| Year | Warnings | RWs | ||
| Freshmen | 42 | 5 | ||
| Sophomores | 81 | 2 | ||
| Juniors | 22 | 6 | ||
| Seniors | 21 | 3 | ||
| Totals | 166 | 16 | ||
The CAP placed 356 students on warning in 2002–2003, compared to 329 in 2001–2002. The sophomore class continued to dominate the number of warnings with a significant increase in the spring semester. Students required to withdraw totaled 37. This shows an increase of 14 percent compared to 2001–2002. No discernible factors support a conclusive explanation of these changes.
Committee on Curricula
The Committee on Curricula (COC) approved a new SB degree in Course 10 (Chemical-Biological Engineering) (10B)—that will go to the full Faculty for consideration in fall 2003. The COC, in conjunction with the Committee on the Undergraduate Program (CUP), approved a new SBdegree in Comparative Media Studies, with the stipulation that the program initially run as an experiment and be reviewed in five years to determine if permanent status is appropriate. The COC also approved a new concentration, Environmental Science, in Course 12; approved major curriculum changes for Course 3 and Course 16; and formalized the degree chart for the SB in Course 2A.
The COC worked with the Committee on the Undergraduate Program to develop a set of guidelines to formalize procedures for establishing new SB degree programs. The COC also discussed the protocols involved in approving second SB requests from students with the goal of enforcing standards that, while established, have not been strictly adhered to in the past.
The COC approved approximately 500 substantial changes to subject offerings, encompassing over 100 new offerings. This included the approval of two new Institute Lab subjects, BE.109 Laboratory Fundamentals in Biological Engineering and 9.12 Experimental Molecular Neurobiology, as well as the review and approval of SOCR approved CI-Msubjects.
Committee on Discipline
The Committee on Discipline (COD) held 13 hearings involving 22 students. This year's number of students charged with misconduct represented a 240 percent increase from the number of students seen last year (and this percentage holds true when compared to 1999–2000 and 2000–2001). The committee heard charges related to plagiarism, cheating on exams, disorderly conduct, property damage, theft, and unauthorized access to MIT property. The demographic breakdown of respondents includes 16 men and six women, 10 graduate students (no graduate students were seen in the previous year), and 12 undergraduate students. Where sanctions were imposed they ranged from formal probation through graduation to suspension for up to seven years from the Institute. In addition, faculty members sent warning letters to the Office of Student Conflict Resolution advising that it take disciplinary action against 21 students (compared to 25 letters from the previous year).
Due to changes in the federal governments oversight of student visas, the CODis currently looking at how to impose effectively the sanctions rendered under these new federal requirements.
This year, the CODalso began work on how to integrate various disciplinarily systems under the committee. A joint meeting was held with Dean for Student Life Office panelists to begin this review process.
Harold E. Edgerton Award Selection Committee
The Harold E. Edgerton Award Selection Committee reviewed more than a dozen nominations, all of them outstanding, for the Edgerton Award. After extensive deliberation, the Committee selected Professor Hari Balakrishnan of the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science as the recipient of the Edgerton Award. Dr. Balakrishnan has played a key role in developing innovative designs for the organization of computer networks and the testing of these designs in order to create networks that are robust and, at the same time, ensure the privacy of individual users. He has, moreover, been an outstanding teacher in the department's undergraduate program and in the mentoring of doctoral students.
Committee on Faculty-Administration
The Committee on Faculty-Administration (CFA) focused its efforts on the concept of a faculty/community club. Executive vice president John Curry presented a summary of the feasibility study carried out by a hospitality-planning firm. The summary concluded that a center, similar to the type envisioned, would be financially viable and desirable for the MIT community and alumni of the greater Boston area. However, a number of issues are still outstanding, not the least among them being selecting a site and financing the project.
The CFA also considered the planned faculty lunchroom at the Stata Center. It was felt that this project would benefit from a subcommittee to review many of the issues related with the operation of the lunchroom. These issues include the cost and quality of food served, the layout of the facility, and the hours of operation.
Killian Award Committee
The 2003–2004 Killian Award Committee announced that Professor Peter Diamond, Institute Professor and professor of economics, received this year's highest faculty achievement award.
Professor Diamond's academic work singled him out as one of the most distinguished economists of his time. He stood out among current active researchers, having made important contributions in both macroeconomics and microeconomics, and in having done both theoretical and data-oriented research. Professor Diamond has played a vital role in the advance of applied economic theory in the last four decades. His most important contributions have been in the economic analysis of taxation, in the study of search equilibrium in economic markets, in the analysis of the design of security markets, and in the analysis of the Social Security policy. Professor Diamond is a central contributor to the intellectual life of the MIT Economics Department, to the scholarly community at MIT, and to the national community of insightful policy analysts.
Committee on the Library System
The Committee on the Library System (CLS) focused its discussions and efforts on the continued study of a new Science and Engineering Library for MIT, and copyright and publishing issues as they relate to scholarly communication.
For several years, the committee has been aware of the problems created by the rising costs of journal subscriptions. The continual price increases (imposed by the large commercial publishers that monopolize the purchasing arena) combined with restrictive licenses that limit purchasing flexibility, result in reduced opportunities to buy books or to add new print journals, or new databases.
Challenges have also arisen around the ownership of intellectual property. Standard license agreements required by journal publishers often require faculty members to sign away all rights to their own materials. Faculty run into problems securing enough rights to publish and provide data to other researchers or even to use material on course web sites. Because these issues cause significant pressure on the CLS communication system and hinder the goals of research and teaching, the CLS looked at ways to raise consciousness about the issue.
The CLS published an open letter of appeal to the faculty in the December/January issue of The Faculty Newsletter. Together, with a more detailed article written by Carol Fleishauer, associate director for collection services, the issues were defined and recommendations were made about what the community can do. Recommendations included contributing to journals that have reasonable pricing practices, resisting assigning unlimited rights to publishers, and seeking alternatives to commercial publishing (such as university and professional society presses or digital repositories).
The CLS had discussions with digital resources acquisitions librarian Ellen Duranceau, who spoke about the licensing of electronic journals and databases, and senior counsel for intellectual property Ann Hammersla, who generated a discussion about copyright issues as they impact faculty and students and their scholarly activities.
Members of the CLS will work in consort with the IP counsel office during the summer to develop a document that will make copyright and publishing recommendations to the Faculty. The document will also include model license language. The committee hopes to have a broad and positive impact in these areas.
Committee on Nominations
This year's Committee on Nominations comprised a new chair, three other new members, three returning members, and included representation from all five Schools. The committee's first concern was to endorse the choice of Professor Kenneth Manning as secretary of the Faculty, to fill the vacancy occasioned by Professor Evelynn Hammond's departure to Harvard. The committee, in consultation with the chair-elect of the Faculty, subsequently recommended reappointment of Professor Manning until June 2005, and his name was added to the slate of nominees approved by the Faculty in May 2003.
Attempts were made to balance gender, discipline, and school in selecting committee nominees. Particular concern arose over the notable absence of women and minority faculty members in two committees dealing directly with individual students on their issues (academic performance, discipline, undergraduate admissions and financial aid). The absence was judged particularly critical for the Committee on Discipline, which meets with the students face-to-face. The Committee on Nominations predictably encountered the chronic difficulty that the proportions of women and minority faculty members at the Institute trail significantly behind the proportions represented in our student body. The consequence is that women and minority faculty members are asked with disproportionate frequency to serve on Institute committees. The committee presented the slate to the Faculty at the April meeting and it was approved without dissent at the May meeting.
Committee on Outside Professional Activities
The Committee on Outside Professional Activities reassessed its role this year, and considered possible changes in its charter. The committee chair met with all school deans and several other key individuals to learn the current state of affairs concerning outside professional activities at MIT. The committee discussed how it could inform new faculty on what the expectations of behavior are regarding outside professional activities. The committee hopes to become more active in monitoring the increasing number of initiatives that involve faculty with outside concerns and provide a forum of faculty commentary on those initiatives. The committee discussed faculty culture regarding MIT commitments and outside professional activities, and will issue a document for new faculty next year.
Committee on Student Life
During 2002–2003, the Committee on Student Life (CSL) focused on its role as defined by its new charter in the spring of 2002. Also, the committee increased its coordination with the Office of the Dean for Student Life (ODSL) and Dean Larry Benedict. The CSL is briefed regularly on key issues, and members of the ODSL staff attend its meetings.
The CSL took action in response to reports that numerous faculty members violate the intent (if not the letter) of the rule concerning having no required academic exercises during the 5–7 p.m. time period. The CSL worked together with the Committee on the Undergraduate Program (CUP) and the chair of the Faculty to compose a letter to the faculty addressing the reasons for the 5–7 p.m. rule and related issues.
The CSL continued its work on the issue of community through the completion of its white paper. The paper was shared with Institute leaders, and then brought to the attention of the MIT community. Professor Lagace wrote an article for the April/May issue of The Faculty Newsletter that referred readers to the Faculty Resources web page for the full report (http://web.mit.edu/faculty/reports/csl.pdf).
In addition, a group with representatives from ODSL, the CSL, the UA, and the GSC was formed to focus on community. The group met over the summer and will continue its work in the fall. The work focuses on a definition of "community" and those activities that increase its presence on campus, as well as how to reach students with information on Institute messages and issues.
Lastly, the issue of undergraduate advising/mentoring was addressed jointly by the CUP and CSL. The initialmeetingled to the formation of four joint CUP-CSL subgroups, each of which was assigned a topic within the larger issue. The CSL and CUP reconvened at the end of the term for reports from the subgroups. The two committees plan to write a report this fall on the topic of undergraduate advising/mentoring.
Yield and self-help dominated the agenda of the Committee on Undergraduate Admissions and Financial Aid (CUAFA) this year. The two are linked insofar as the committee members believe that financial concerns have a major impact on yield. In this regard the committee has continued to advocate that the self-help level be lowered. The committee favored differentiation of the financial burden in a way that demands the least of freshmen and the most of seniors. After detailed consideration of several rather different approaches it was decided that the best plan was a mix of uniform self-help and terraced summer earnings expectations. The CUAFA reasoned that freshmen would make a better transition to MIT from high school if their financial burden were reduced. At the same time, the committee recognized the greater earning capacity of upperclassmen through a combination of higher wage rates and longer summer work periods as compared to those of students graduating from high school.
As members of the Enrollment Management Group, CUAFA representatives expressed their support for raising the size of the freshman class while not resorting to crowding. At the same time the CUAFA hopes that housing for transfer students continues to be offered.
On the admissions front, the CUAFA discussed the question of recruiting students who are becoming harder to attract, including hands-on engineering types, first generation to attend college, and children of middle-income families. This admissions cycle saw the yield rise to 59 percent, up from 57 percent last year.