|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MIT is known for its invigorating atmosphere. The entrepreneurial spirit thrives here, pervading research activities that spawn new technologies and filtering down to the earliest undergraduate lectures. This spirit drives creativity, spawning interactions among faculty and students from multiple disciplines. Fueling MIT’s unique educational environment has been the largesse of the federal government which, through research grants and contracts, has provided the funding that has allowed individual faculty to create.
There can be no doubt that this situation is changing. Forced by the Office of Management and Budget to alter the way in which it recovers graduate student tuition, MIT recently introduced a formula for collecting revenues to support students that increases the cost of supporting graduate students. Although the magnitude of the increase is not great, our position relative to that of our competitors has weakened. In addition, for NIH-supported research assistants, a cap on the amount of funds that can be recovered from grants has created significant shortfalls for some departments heavily reliant on graduate students to carry out research. Federal and corporate funds that built dormitories and research laboratories 30 years ago no longer exist, and deferred maintenance has created a serious problem in infrastructure that many departments are only now beginning to address. The talent pool for senior faculty in several disciplines, especially in the sciences, has not kept up with the demand of institutions worldwide, and MIT faculty are now being recruited with unparalleled enthusiasm by peer institutions not only in the United States but also in Europe. The Task Force on Student Life and Learning has just released its report, which reflects many of the concerns regularly expressed in the Faculty Newsletter over the past years. Included are the need to strengthen personal contacts between students and faculty, to provide an atmosphere where learning and living are compatible not competing priorities, and to strengthen formal and informal learning and research activities.
How then can we meet the challenge? The answer must, of course, come from administrative leadership, and in that respect it is noteworthy that many top positions at the Institute have recently changed hands. Most important are the posts of Provost and recreated Chancellor, the chief academic officers responsible for the allocation of funds and setting of priorities. The faculty needs to rally behind newly appointed provost Bob Brown and chancellor Larry Bacow, who will require our help in finding the resources required to underwrite the changes and improvements, much of which will have to come from private gifts in a new funding campaign.
Brown and Bacow bring considerable administrative experience to the task, having collectively served as department head, dean of a School, and chair of the faculty. They know how to operate within the culture of MIT, are committed to action, and have the full backing of the president. We look forward to a decade of new buildings and renovations, reduced costs for graduate education, and better housing facilities for our undergraduates, graduates, and (hopefully) even faculty in the nearby area.
With appropriate leadership we can expect more endowed support from the private sector for research programs, for senior and mid-career faculty chairs and initiatives, and for student fellowships. Within such an improved environment, we can ourselves help strengthen the research and educational programs, improve undergraduate and graduate student life and learning, and continue the tradition that we have inherited. This tradition of entrepreneurial adventure can thrive as the atmosphere is restored. We look to the future of a new millennium.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|