|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Student Leaders Report
A Plea for More Student-Faculty Interacion
Are you sick of hearing about the importance of Advising? Of Faculty-Student mentoring? Well, tough. This is my last installment in the Faculty Newsletter as president of the Undergraduate Association before turning over the reins, and I'd like to conclude with an issue that brought me into my position in the first place.
(Incidentally, this piece might appear a bit more polemical than usual, but at times, tact must be sacrificed in order to make a point. But before I continue, please know that many, and perhaps even most, of the faculty at MIT care deeply about undergraduates and their educational and personal needs, and the pedagogical techniques and personal behaviors of these faculty members reflect that. But many have yet to appreciate how strong a role in the lives of undergraduates they do have, or could have. This is what I'd like to address.)
At the beginning of the year in this column, I asked faculty to learn the names of their students, in an effort to interest students in a subject where the professor has demonstrated an interest in them.
Did you? For those who did, did it work?
Do you offer a Freshman Advising Seminar? If not, why not? Do you even know what they are? This year, 93 Freshman Seminars were offered. Most were taught by faculty members.
But aren't there almost 1,000 faculty members?
Yeah, that's right. So where are the other 900 faculty members!?
This column is a plea for more Faculty to interact with Students, and more Students to interact with Faculty.
At this point, at least two different relationships should be distinguished: Advising on one hand and Mentoring and Informal Interaction on the other.
Advising refers to the existing system pairing students within a major with faculty in that department. Currently Advising is administrated by individual departments. This is what the UA Sub-Committee on Advising has focused its research on. The current system has many strengths, and also many weaknesses. Being departmentally organized, the current system allows students access to faculty who should know the department well. But outside of Reg Day, there are few reasons why a faculty Advisor necessarily has to meet with advisees. We have all heard about the students who only see their Advisors on Reg Day, and then for only a few minutes to sign forms (and should the Advisor for some reason object to signing a form, the advisee simply switches Advisors).
Mentoring and Informal Interaction, on the other hand, occur whenever faculty and students interact in some educational or social context. UROP professors often serve in this role, as do course instructors with whom students turn for advice, academic or otherwise. Some students meet faculty when they serve on Institute Committees, though only a small fraction of students participate in this opportunity. Housemasters, too, serve this role for many undergraduates.
In an ideal world, all students and all faculty would participate in both of these activities. But why? As I reported in my first column, I once had a conversation with a professor who questioned why learning the names of students is important. The answer I gave is that it provides incentive for the student to develop an interest in the material. As accomplished researchers and leaders in the MIT and world academic community, faculty here, whether they like it or not, are models for students. The really inspiring ones have the potential to influence not only the University experience, but also the careers and life-paths of their students. This is quite a power, and while many faculty wield it wisely, many others do not.
Today, all forms of faculty-student interaction are being scrutinized throughout the Institute. The Faculty Committee on Student Life (CSL), chaired by Aero-Astro Professor Paul Lagace, has dedicated itself to the informal aspects of this relationship. (Case in point: Professor Lagace, GSC President Soulaymane Kachani, and I met several months ago to discuss the CSL and needs of students. Perhaps 30 minutes into the conversation, we drifted off-topic when I learned Professor Lagace had been involved in both the UA and the GSC when he was a student here. After a couple of questions, I apologized for moving away from the topic of the meeting, when we recognized it was just this sort of student-faculty comfort and conversation we were striving to develop, especially for students who, unlike myself, are not forced into talking with faculty on a regular basis.)
On the UA end, over Registration Day for Spring 2001, we ran a survey for undergraduate upperclass students (another reason not to have Reg Day entirely on-line). The survey represented a first step in understanding the current state of departmental advising. Over 400 students responded. As was emphasized when the results were presented, this data is preliminary, and while many results are instructive, others only point to where more data is needed.
One question asked was whether your advisor (traditional academic departmental advisor) knew you well enough to write a recommendation for you. The results were striking. Course VI (Electrical Engineering and Computer Science) had 162 respondents, and 80% of them believed their advisor did not know them well enough for a recommendation. Eighty percent! (Please note, I am not picking on EECS for any reason other than the high number of responses, which indicates some reliability of the data.)
But what does raw data like this tell us?
It's actually not too easy to interpret. Does it mean that EECS faculty ignore students (I hope not)? Does it mean that EECS students avoid faculty (maybe)? Does it mean many students in EECS are so unhappy with their choice of major (as far as personal satisfaction goes, not intrinsic quality of the department) that they avoid any unnecessary communication with their faculty? Does it mean that the large number of students in the major drives shyer students to the back of the classroom?
Maybe the question itself was phrased wrong, and the 80% of EECS students surveyed could not have their official faculty Advisor write the recommendation, but know others within the department who could.
In response to these concerns, the UA and GSC, working closely with the developing Office of Alumni Engagement, the Alumni Association, and MIT IS, have developed a Microsoft iCampus-funded program to expand the Alumni Association's Infinite Connection database to include current students and faculty as well. We hope this will open channels of access between students and faculty on campus (as well as with alumni off-campus), and serve as a resource in developing student-faculty-alumni interactions in the future.
The point is, we have a four:one undergraduate:faculty ratio, and with the brightest students and faculty on the planet, that not enough of each interact is a tragedy. As we move toward the end of the semester, and into the summer and fall of 2001, I implore the faculty to make interaction with students, both formally and informally, a priority for the future. And for the students reading this, I implore the same – if you've never spoken to a professor of yours, it's time to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|