7:00 - 9:00 PM, East Campus, Talbot Lounge

Chaired by Tina Lin and Matt Lahaie (Co-chairs of UA Committee on Housing and Orientation)

RSSC Members present: Jennifer Berk, Eli Hopson, Abby Pelcyger, Eric Liu, and Erin Hester. Kirk Kolenbrander was also present.

Approximately 40 MIT community members were present.

The UA-CHO co-chairs began the meeting by briefly reviewing the copies of the unofficial FAQ sheet on the Final Report (as prepared and updated by Jeremy Brown) and the UA-CHO "Cheat Sheet on the Final Report" that were available at the door.

RSSC members added these comments/clarifications about the two publications:

1. The committee appreciates the involvement of many different students in the creation of the two items.
2. The housing lottery for rising sophomores will look very much like the current housing lottery for freshmen that takes place during Orientation.
3. Upperclass persons will have input in how freshman select their floors and rooms within a given residence hall. They will not, however, have the final decision of who lives where. This is similar to the current practices of a number of MIT residence halls.
4. The RSSC reaffirms its call for now crowding, but is clear that MIT can and should decide that it is preferable to denying students access to the residence system

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

Given that sophomores will denied housing within the system, what steps will be taken to offer security to the students who will now live off campus. Also, IAP is supposed to be a relaxed time. Will your proposed FSILG recruitment procedures require that FSILG residents always come back to MIT for all of IAP?

We want all students to be accommodated in the residence system, and for no students to be denied access. This is why we have placed a strong emphasis on maintaining the critical balance between the residence halls and FSILG's. We believe that balance can be maintained, and we believe students will not be required to leave the system. However, we appreciate the need for safety, and have, in fact, highlighted activities such as SafeRide as important components of the residence system.

As for IAP, we heard a lot of negative reaction about an FSILG rush during IAP (as we had proposed back in our Phase II document in April 1999). Many reasons were given, including team training, employment, time to relax, …. This persuaded us to not limit rush during IAP, but to leave it to the FSILG's and MIT to determine a timing that is consistent with the schedules of the FSILG community and of the individual FSILG's. That is, we have added significant flexibility to allow one or all FSILG's to decide that IAP will not be a time of recruitment focus.

Where is anything about where the resources are going to come from to make any of this happen? Why aren't you spelling this all out?

Almost all issues of dollars are really the next step, and are the responsibility of the Chancellor.

The residence material that is presently sent out by MIT is heavily censored. Specifically, we were not permitted to include our slogan for our residence hall. What provisions are there to open the information flow to provide uncensored material?

Honest and accuracy are good things. Everyone benefits if truly accurate and complete descriptions of each residence hall are provided. All of us should work together to make sure that these accurate and complete descriptions are made available.

The timing of the summer mailings has to be reconsidered. There has to be a means available to keep parents out of the decision-making process. This cannot be done during the summer.

It is not clear what can be done about this problem, as you perceive it.

How do summer mailings possibly replace first-hand, in-person experience? It can't be done with mailings!

Decisions will not be as informed as they presently are, this is clear. But students don't really get to pick now, they only get to preference. There are many disappointed students now for whom the system is somewhat unsatisfying.

Just giving up on the freshman year is not OK. These first year students should not be made to live a hellish life so that the system works.

I do not agree that anyone is giving up on the freshman year, or that their lives will be made hellish. And the changes we are recommending must be viewed in the context of the FSILG/residence hall balance. It is not sufficient to simply do what is best for the residence halls or for the FSILG's. They must be looked at together.

It is good to choose where we live as freshmen. We can handle the stress of rush. The stress is more than made up by the happiness. You claim to be solving a problem, but what you are really doing is simply justifying the administration's decision to put freshman on campus. Without that decision, there is no problem.

Your opinion is not universally shared. Students, including freshmen, are all over the map on this. You may be able to handle the rush, but others do not.

Why change the system further? Why not just put freshmen on campus in 2001 and call it done?

The residence system of MIT will collapse without strong FSILG presence. That is it in a nutshell. The balance of the FSILG's and the residence halls must be maintained, or the system will be destroyed.

People can choose to opt out of the stressful experience of rush by squatting. Phase II had the right balance by providing for a "correction lottery". Why did you remove this squatting/correction lottery concept?

We are trying to create a more integrated orientation experience, one that does not reinforce the idea that a few days of rush activity is what is responsible for making lasting friendships. And we note that students will have just as much "choice" in their freshman residence as they do now, it is just that the timeline of that choice and the information that is available has been shifted/changed.

But the correction lottery doesn't cost anything. Why not do it?

As an implementation question, balance between the FSILG's and the residence halls is important. But what balances what? How confident is the RSSC in the robustness of the system, particularly since you don't have control over the implementation.

There is a great deal that is unknown. We cannot control the implementation, in part because we do not control the resources.

What happens as a result of these meetings? Will the report be changed to reflect our comments and concerns?

After the last of these community feedback meetings, the RSSC will meet to discuss the feedback and consider amendments to the final report. On October 1, the final report plus any amendments that are needed, either to clarify/more fully explain or to change a position of the committee from that in the final report, plus the minutes of all of these meetings will be given to the Chancellor.

We also note that the Chancellor is reading these minutes off the web as they become available, as well as reading much of the housing-talk@mit.edu archive.

There is very little rationale in the report for any of the changes made. Why did you make these changes? This clearly needs to be laid out.

The report, taken in its entirety, does provide some rationale in the context of educational objectives and outcomes.

Why did you remove all upperclass choice in freshman housing assignments?

It is difficult to condense this answer to a few words, as there are many pieces to this. In a nutshell, we want to move away from a situation where a brand-new freshman is subject to rather harsh evaluation (No, you cannot live with us) after only a few days on this campus. We also again note that many, if not most, MIT residence halls already fully comply with our proposed position.

We hacked together a secondary housing lottery. Without our hacking, it would not have happened. This is the kind of activity that should be supported, rather than relying on us to do it ourselves. Plus, MIT's housing algorithm is terrible, and does not work. Finally, flushing is not so stressful as is living with people whom you have not selected to support you.

The future of language houses and CC requires the opportunity to reject freshmen. Many tasks have to be performed by residents, and these will only be performed by people who want to live there. We need to be able to assess than.

A "want" to live someplace is most definitely something that the language houses and CC should be able to expect from their freshmen residents. But the expectations of the house can be clearly articulated up front, and the freshman can choose to take them on. Flushing does not have to enter in.

The correction lottery makes so much sense to me. Why not let someone correct a mistake? Without such a lottery, the dorm's identity will be ripped away.

The need for the "want" to live someplace is true for residence halls as well as language houses. Community will be lost. Mailings cannot replace face-to-face interaction. Do you really feel that this system will not have significant negative effects?

Why can't upperclass students even choose their roommates or suitemate's?

Upperclass persons who need to have that choice can choose to live with upperclass persons.

Freshmen benefit from the opportunity to live with upperclasspersons. You are taking this away from them.

The stress of rush is more than offset by the chance to meet people.

Language houses need to have all residents working together. German house offers singles. Freshmen will choose to live there if only to get the single. Where are your numbers to support your many changes?

The numbers you call for do not exist.

You are adding 350 beds, but talking about making people leave the system. How can this be?

As we have explained many times, we are simply shifting a burden that has always been (if not hidden) from freshmen to sophomores.

Why so much change? Why not one thing at a time?

The combination of President Vest's decision, the new residence hall, and the Task Force report gives us the opportunity to make significant changes to improve the system.

There are so very few residence choices for women. What are you doing about this?

The demographics for MIT have changed a great deal over the last 30 years. We would guess that the FSILG will adapt to reflect those changes.

What is the physical distribution of freshmen and their RA?

The freshman and their RA simply need to be in reasonable proximity.

Your committee really does not understand the importance of specific recommendations. Whatever you say is important will be important. You need much more rationale for your recommendations. Our assessment is that the residence system is great on the human level (satisfaction), but poor on the physical level (facilities). So get better facilities.

Why were MIT theme houses originally created?

Unclear.

The report talks and talks about more academic influence in the residence system. But if you are going to increase the academic presence in the residence halls, you need more supportive communities to handle the new stress. And you need rush to get those more supportive communities.

The report does not make any recommendations for more academic influence in the residence halls. It describes an integrated environment of living and learning.

Why won't squatters rights be honored for rising sophomores?

All rising sophomores need to have the same opportunity. Hence, all sophomores need to enter the lottery.

Imagine a freshman. He preferences over the summer, moves in (sight unseen), and freaks out. Now what?

Just like in the current system, that student will visit the Dean's office and asked to be moved. It happens now just as it will happen then.

You cannot build strong communities without choice.

Taking away upperclass choice is a specific violation of rights, and you should expect students to fight it. How will you enforce your new policies?

There will be reasonable enforcement mechanisms.

It is alarming that there is no explanation for your policies. You need to state why you want what you want.

Sophomores are no longer on Pass/Fail. Trying to bond with new students as a sophomore at the same time you are going on grades is insane. You must give squatting rights to rising sophomores.

You are running a huge experiment. What are the assessment mechanisms? How will you know if it fails?

Assessment is critical, and modifications along the way will be needed.

Assessment is the most important part. You must devote a large amount of text to assessment.

You should have a stated assessment plan at 1 years, 2 years, 4 years, and 8 years.

The meeting adjourned at 9:05 PM.