Committee present: Andy Eisenmann, Bill Hecht, Erin Hester

• Questions

1. What is our time scale? Some things we might do/work on now (RA’s), others will take longer
2. Objectives to current theme houses are philosophical not logistical? References ESG as program where some judgements are made. Suggests that some judgements by others may be good.
3. Had great diversity in language house. Were able to make choices and have common trait in language.
4. Why can’t theme houses make selections?
5. What’s metric for thinking we’re at a local maximum?
6. Why do we have to move Rush?
7. A later Rush may bring less diversity into a house.
8. Cross-fertilization with other students is important. Ashdown does this really well. Is no other grad house like Ashdown?
9. Would like MIT to have more off-campus apartments for grad students.
10. What was rationale for choosing Ashdown and MacGregor? Why not phase in as existing UG house like Baker?
11. Some percent of UG’s want a house like MacGregor.
12. Could we make the new UG house the freshman house?
13. Would RSSC be willing to pass some nitty-gritty details on to subcommittees or other groups?
14. Are we considering other transition support in addition to grad student leaders?
15. Do all sophomores have to shuffle?
16. Can we preserve characters of houses in this plan?
17. Could August be time to look at houses but not Rush? Having later Rush means you’ll just draw from the people you see normally.
18. What about timing of IAP Rush – are student athletes able to participate?