7:00 - 9:00 PM, Delta Tau Delta

Chaired by Will Dichtel

RSSC Members present: Jennifer Berk, Eli Hopson, Abby Pelcyger, Eric Liu, Bill Hecht, Steve Stuntz, Anne McCants, and Erin Hester. Kirk Kolenbrander was also present.

Approximately 60 MIT community members were present.

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

Why do you propose a declining level of support for the FSILG system in the transition years?

We felt that the abrupt termination of support ("falling off a cliff") was unduly harsh. So we went with something that declined over time (but still has a clear (even abrupt) end).

Isn't there enough incentive in the housing market alone to justify the transition, why add to it with the declining support?

Given the Objectives, Outcomes, and Characteristics of an Excellent Residence System, specifically which elements will be improved over our present position through the implementation of President Vest's decision to house all freshmen on campus in the fall of 2001?

We did not consider any system other than one where freshmen will be on campus in the fall of 2001

Would you acknowledge that the freshman housing decision was a constraint on your deliberations?

Sure. It was a constraint that we accepted throughout out discussions.

The data clearly says that we have a great system now. What quantifiable data do you have that says your system will be better?

We offer no quantifiable data to support the recommendations we make.

How can this be? No quantifiable data to support such a major change! How can this be?

The data is limited. There are no guarantees. Nobody knows what will happen. If you are looking for guarantees, we cannot provide them.

But you do have data for the present system that says the satisfaction level is extremely high. Why change?

The system can be made better.

Why spread out rush? It is a highly competitive time. Spreading it out spreads out animosity. Also, pledge programs will have to be modified.

Rush has not necessarily been spread out. A large window for possible bid issuance and acceptance is all that has been prescribed.

I have mixed feelings about a rush-free Orientation, but I can accept the idea that rush wouldn't start until Orientation is officially over. Why can't bids be given out much closer to the end of Orientation?

How does membership in a residence-affiliated group differ from membership in a student activity (in which freshmen can join from the outset)?

Where one lives and the activities one joins are two very different things. We believe a 2-month introductory period where students can reflect on their residential options is a wise recommendation.

Aren't you forcing students out? Why have an extended rush? You are heightening the competitive environment.

We have not prescribed rush rules, beyond the timing of bids. The extended rush will require an entirely different approach. The rush you presently think of cannot possibly be sustained for months.

Dragging rush into the academic year will place a great academic strain on freshmen and upperclasspersons alike. This will destroy the Greek system, rather than enhance it.

I am a freshman. I was stressed during rush. If the same process would be held during the year, it will totally stress everyone out.

It won't be the same process. It must be a more relaxed rush.

What makes you think that freshmen are not presently making an informed choice during rush?

What does a more laid-back rush look like? Please tell us. Do you want us all to burn out?

Freshmen can't make an informed decision in three days. But an informed decision is not necessarily good. Won't it cut into diversity among the houses? Limited information leads to less self-segregation.

Even though freshmen can't make informed choice in three days, upperclasspersons can (when evaluating prospective members.)

What will happen to the sophomore who depledges?

We have not yet tried to answer that question.

Don't you have any conscience about the students who are caught in the transition?

Your report set out some great goals. We need a closer MIT community. But how do we get there? We need some suggestions on how to make rush work.

Dorm people are not happy. How can MIT presume to control rush? This is done by consent of the house. To have MIT interfere is paternalistic.

What parameters has the RSSC set on rush that you find paternalistic? (Answer: Timing of bids)

You need to do research to support your changes. You cannot make all these changes at once. We need reasons for your changes, supported by data.

Your goal is to create a better environment for incoming freshmen. Freshmen in FSILG's gives great mentoring. Rush will detract from academics. You are dismantling MIT.

How much input do we have in all this?

The minutes of these meetings go the Chancellor. We consider everything we hear, and will amend our final report as necessary.

We should not be butting heads, we should be shaking hands. I would like to encourage cooperation.

Each of us has learned from the feedback sessions.

I want to offer an alternative way of thinking. You will be requiring a non-stop rush. Why not allow students to make decisions quickly.

Nothing precludes mentoring or association of freshmen with upperclasspersons in the early months.

You offer some excellent suggestions, with broad guidelines. Why not then get rid of the rush dates that you have prescribed.

We felt dates were necessary to achieve the new rush that we believe is needed.

I have real concerns about animosity between FSILG's during rush.

Rush will need to change.

What number of people are dissatisfied with the current system? What are your numbers?

I think that there will be every year a huge fear that I will be kicked out of the system and put on the street. My sorority is non-residential . We have to scream from the mountaintops that we think our house is fabulous, for anyone to hear us.

Many students are concerned about the future. We have no guarantees. We offer our best solution. The freshman to sophomore transition we propose is tense, but it is the best solution we have.

We again note that the current guarantee that all of you find so comforting is ultimately not real.

I came to MIT to be a part of the current system. You are changing it, and denying me the opportunity to have the experience I signed up for. I wish that MIT was looking to add to my experience, not subtract from it.

President Vest has said that the landscape will change. You need to accept that.

Why don't you recommend a reversal of President Vest's decision? Do you really think the Greek system at other schools is stronger? Where? There is no good solution within the constraint of President Vest's decision.

We disagree.

You say an informed choice cannot be made in three days, but I made it in two. I choose my classes quickly too. You should draw a comparison between classes and residence selection.

In the freshman year, your class schedule is largely prescribed by MIT.

There are two issues. One is the need to make a good choice. The second is that there is a tremendous value in learning that you can live with all sorts of different people. I see the first year as an opportunity to discover this.

The sophomore shuffle is supposed to help FSILG's. But current system forces you to see houses, without all the badmouthing that will take place in an extended rush.

Why 100 empty beds in your cost analysis. Where did that number come from?

We don't know what the number will be.

It seems that the objective of rush is to make a well informed choice. But the current rush gives you that opportunity. We can assess "Is this someone who would be comfortable living here?" During the semester, when the academic load is heavy, our ability to make that judgement will be less.

IFC seems to accept a separation of Orientation and Rush. Is there any way to relax the November 1 bid date? Why not October, or right after rush? What is your justification?

There is no constraint on when houses can build relationships, only on when bids are issued.

Why is this your committee's decision as to when bids are issued? That is IFC's decision.

We have no authority. The Chancellor does, and will decide.

Nobody thinks that the system is perfect. But devastating change is not the right path -- we need fine-tuning. Why not put rush right after Orientation. Get rid of sophomore shuffle.

Rush should be determined by the people who live in the houses, not by older adults who don't even live there.

Those older adults have much to say about the MIT experience, and should and will have a voice.

The meeting adjourned at 9:05 PM.