7:00 - 9:00 PM, 10-250

 RSSC Members present: Bill Hecht, Jennifer Berk, Eli Hopson, Abby Pelcyger, Eric Liu, Anne McCants, Stephen Stuntz, Paul Gray, and Andy Eisenmann.

 The session began with 15-minute introduction by Bill Hecht in which he outlined briefly the ten-month, three-phase process that was initially set into motion by the Task Force Report and by President Vest's decision to house all freshmen on campus in the fall of 2001. Bill highlighted a few of the characteristics of an excellent residence system that the committee had reported, and also several of the key recommendations of the committee to achieve those characteristics. Bill then opened the floor for questions.

 Summarized and paraphrased below are the questions/statements made by attendees, and the response(s) (if any) from the member(s) of the RSSC.

 Question/Statement

Why ask incoming freshmen to choose residences based only on descriptions of the halls in a catalog or CD-ROM, rather than take advantage of the excellent dorm-rush that presently exists?

The current dorm-rush environment promotes the idea that:

1. there is exactly one place where a freshman will be happy;
2. that the determination of that place can realistically take place in three days (and, particularly, nearly the first three days of the student's arrival to MIT); and
3. a student will have the opportunity to choose that place.

Each of these ideas is, to some significant extent, false. There are many places where freshmen, and adults in general, will be happy, the friends we make have far more to do with serendipity than with three days of traveling from dorm to dorm, and students often do not get their first choices in the hall lottery. In addition, the current model does not allow student to know where they are going to live. This is a source of significant stress, and can be eliminated.

As a freshman, I have found it almost impossible to balance the difficult interpersonal challenges of affiliating with a sorority and selecting a residence hall, all in the space of three days.

As a freshman, I'm thrilled with where I ended up. Rush was grueling, but that is how decisions in life truly are.

Currently, rush rules get broken regularly. Extended rush will only see rules being broken for extended times. Also, it is already hard to pledge and balance academics. Sophomore pledging, at which time the academic load is greatly increased, will be effectively impossible to balance.

Every fraternity party will become a rush party, if there is an extended rush

An extended rush will not simply be an extension in time of today's rush. There will be fraternity parties, but there will also be many other new activities that serve to join the MIT and FSILG communities.

Why does the report say nothing about graduate students. Even the few recommendations (in particular, a new graduate residence hall) that appeared in the Phase II report are now gone. Does the committee no longer endorse these ideas?

The graduate residence system deserves a fair and honest assessment, and the RSSC was not able to provide that assessment. The RSSC does not back away from its previous recommendations, but does call for MIT to carefully assess this important element of the community.

Aren't you concerned about pushing students into the Cambridge housing market by denying rising sophomores rooms in the residence halls?

There is a critical balance between residence halls and the FSILG's. As long as that balance is maintained, students will not be pushed into Cambridge. We have set as a highest priority that the balance be maintained, as we do not wants students leaving the system.

Isn't it fundamentally irrational to ask students to make decisions about joining an FSILG based on their ability (or inability) to get into a residence hall?

No. It is no more irrational to ask sophomores to do it then it has been to ask freshmen to do it for the past decades. The current proximity in the time between when bids are announced and the housing lottery is run reveals that freshmen use the results of the lottery to determine if they will accept a bid from an FSILG.

Your goal of eliminating crowding is good. But kicking students into the street is worse. MIT students have lived on the streets before, and it is not acceptable.

There are constraints in the system, and particularly there are a finite number of beds. We have no desire to throw students into the street, and we are therefore committed to maintaining a strong balance between the residence halls and the FSILG's. We stand at the beginning of a new era for our residence system. We can plot a reasonable initial course. But we know that the course will have to be continually updated as we move forward from the fall of 2001.

The report says that students will be thrown out. If they are not going to be thrown out, then you should say so in the report.

What was the compelling information that you heard that helped you decide to reverse your recommendations about a primarily first year residence hall and about the Ashdown/MacGregor swap?

We talked with housemasters (just prior to the April release of Phase II) and they did not like at all the idea of a first year residence hall. These ideas were supported in May by the students. We also heard powerful, articulate stories from the Ashdown residents about the quality and importance of their graduate community.

Your report underestimates the instability of the FSILG/residence hall balance, particularly in light of the likely reduced number of FSILG's that will exist post-transition.

Everything I have heard says your report hinges on President Vest's decision. That decision was the wrong one, and it should be reversed. Freshmen on campus is not an A+ solution.

You are forcing freshmen to be miserable for a year. Their survivability (literally) within the freshman year depends on close, supportive residential communities. Without rush, those communities cannot exist. I'll take three days of discomfort in Rush over an entire year of misery in the system.

Students arrive at MIT already fully predisposed to live in a residence hall or an FSILG. You can try to add pressure to students to move to FSILG's, but many would rather live on the street.

The balance has worked, and will continue to work. Students will continue to move to FSILG's.

You really should just go to President Vest and tell him that the current situation is ideal.

The RSSC made a mistake. It needs to figure out how to keep displaced students in hotels.

The FSILG's are a critical piece of the MIT residence system. Let's figure out how to make them even healthier than they are today.

MIT community members continue to practice some level of denial. We note the following facts: 1) All freshmen will be on campus in the fall of 2001. 2) The total housing in residence halls in the fall of 2001 will be 350 greater than it is today. We also note the following premises: 1) 300 to 350 sophomores will be attracted to FSILG's, just as 300 to 350 freshmen are presently attracted to FSILG's. 2) 1050 sophomores will not suffer irreparable damage by living in institute houses for their freshman year.

Is President Vest's decision a good decision or isn't it?

If we implement the proposed plan, we will have a better system. President Vest's decision was correct.

President Vest's decision is fact, and we have made the best of it (even if we may personally disagree with it).

I would have made a seriously wrong decision in where to live if I had relied on reading material, rather than on rush. The only thing that kept me at MIT were my friendships at Baker. I received comfort from people with whom I had chosen to live. This is what made it possible to survive.

I needed the time of rush to adapt. It is not fair to eliminate this time.

Real "choice" is not available for many freshmen under the current system (they live somewhere other than where they had hoped to live), but they generally adapt well.

Why is dorm rush wrong?

Friendships ultimately spring from serendipity, not from dorm rush. By chance, we meet great friends. This is life.

We were given facts and premises. But what about impossibilities? Why not reduce freshman class size by 10%?

There are obviously strong budget constraints to consider. Also, it should be noted that the current class size is approximately 5% smaller than it was some 10 years ago, precisely to reduce crowding in the system.

Will the booklets describing the residence halls be censored?

The RSSC makes no recommendation.

Perhaps some current students find the concurrent timing of sorority rush and dorm rush to be unnecessarily problematic. This could be shifted.

MIT should return to the practice of renting Huntington Hall. Rush cannot be replaced by a CD-ROM. Misery will result from breaking up family networks of students after the first year. Upperclasspersons in suites and doubles should have some control over who their freshman roommates will be.

Floor rush deserves opportunity to have some upperclass choice.

The final report may need to be amended to precisely reflect the commitment that upperclass students will not have impact on freshman room selection.

Does the RSSC dissolve after October 1?

Yes!

Campus Preview Weekend will degrade into one huge rush, where attracting students to accept their admission to MIT is completely lost.

What is your anticipated frequency and duration of freshman programming? How will this affect office space needs in the residence halls?

First year programming is clearly under development, and open to much input. For example, some houses might choose to offer a wide array of programming, others might choose to offer a minimum (with that being a defining characteristic for preferencing by incoming freshmen.)

If you think assigned housing means you have no friends, you are sorely mistaken.

Why doesn't the proposal define more of a role for students in creating their system?

This may need further definition by the committee. We note, however, that there are already many references to the role of students in creating new experiences.

Your proposal will result in a diminution of dorm culture. We need to attract the right sort of person. Many people will not be comfortable in our home.

What are your plans for Ashdown spaces for freshman programming and offices?

These plans are very much to be defined.

I experienced the "sophomore shuffle", in moving from EC to Senior House. It was my decision, but it still was extremely difficult. The shuffle will destroy the dorm culture. I'm so afraid of the system that will be created. We need to let students live together. I am afraid. You have given me no confidence that I should not be afraid.

Have you considered a situation where sophomores could staple, and thereby keep their friends together?

I encourage everyone to maintain a respectful relationship.

The meeting adjourned at 9:00 PM.