Team Members
Organization of Report
Values
It is time for MIT to take bold steps to improve and strengthen its residence system. The Task Force on Student Life and Learning has presented us with the vision of "an integrated triad of academics, research, and community." "To provide a uniquely excellent education, MIT must bring students and faculty together to learn from one another through academics, research, and community," states the Task Force (p. 13). Later in its report, (p. 39) it describes the challenge before us:
Bringing the community side of the triad to the same standard of excellence as research and academics requires a new commitment to community by MIT. Just as MIT's high-quality teaching and research enterprises are sustained, the successful contributions of community life to education requires MIT to marshal three types of resources--physical, human, and programmatic. For it to stand alongside teaching and research as part of the educational triad, the Institute must ensure that the resources devoted to community involvement are first-rate and suited to the task of educating MIT students.
Of the many difficult design problems MIT faces, promoting student and faculty participation in community activities is probably the most difficult. Nevertheless, given the goal of developing in its students the attributes of educated individuals, the Task Force finds that the responsibilities of the faculty include participation in community, balanced properly with research and teaching. Student and faculty participation in community activities should be recognized along with the achievements in academics and research. It is the responsibility of the Institute as a whole to ensure that the residence system (both graduate and undergraduate), dining arrangements, orientation program, and the physical layout of the campus encourage faculty-student interaction.
"Reinventing the Residence System at MIT" is the beginning of a difficult design project. In the past two weeks our team of students, faculty, staff, and alumni has learned first-hand the enormity of the task we face: preserve the strengths of the current residential system while embracing the changes needed to make community an equal part of an MIT education. Our ideas are not new ones, nor are the problems before us. The Principles for the MIT Residential System: Report of a Working Committee, September, 1998 (commonly known as the Clay Report) stated
Members of the Working Committee were impressed by the reoccurrence of familiar themes in many of these recent and historical documents; for instance, the importance of faculty/student interactions in the residential system: the social and intellectual benefits of common dining; and the opportunities generated by living in a residential community to promote responsible self-governance. Striking too was the fact that so little has changed in our residential system: shortcomings identified a generation ago, including overcrowding and the perceived dichotomy between the academic and out-of-classroom experience (the residence as "refuge"), still persist. In some ways, conditions have worsened in recent decades, witnessed by the elimination of common dining in many of the residence halls in the 80s, the effects of deferred maintenance, and our difficulty in establishing and enforcing a uniform code of conduct in all living groups.
A review of the documents in the on-line library developed for this contest records this history. One of the many reports our team consulted was the Report of the Freshman Housing Committee (commonly known as the Potter Report) of October, 1989.
The Institute Dining Review of 1997 and the plan for Residence2001 set new directions for MIT. It is our hope that our plan will be seen as another of the steps the Institute must make if it is to achieve the vision of an equal triad of academics, research, and community.
Attributes
The Residence System Steering Committee highlighted a group of key attributes and values for reinventing the residence system:
To these we have added two more:
Goals of Our Model
Our model for the residence system would
Prior to Arrival: Residence Selection Options
Once a prospective student has been accepted to MIT they should have the opportunity to visit the campus during a number of occasions. Campus Preview Weekend allows the incoming class to participate in campus lectures while Open House weekends allow the flexibility for a student to visit any weekend during the month of April.
In the A-60 packet mailed May 1 by Admissions, freshmen will receive a packet that describes the 4 First-Year residences and gives the address for a cyber tour, emails of current student residents and a complete outline of the physical layout for each residence. They then return a selection card where they rank their preference. It is important that the cost of each residence hall is the same so that choice is not based on financial constraints.
The description of each residence will at a minimum include the list of faculty and staff that will be advising within that residence along with some basic descriptions of the house. The deadline to submit preferences will be July 1.
The Office of First Year Programs (reference Personnel) will mail their room assignments on July 15. Since the advising system will be residence based, the incoming class will have an opportunity to rank their Freshmen Exploration. This will connect specific faculty with the upper-class mentors living in each residence. The Task Force on Student Life and Learning points out issues surrounding academics at MIT:
The current system of advising is not seen as a strength currently by our students but rather as a weakness. Faculty-student interaction - and advising in particular - will have to move away from the classroom and office, and into the physical spaces in which research, community activities, and studying take place if the informal connection among academics, research, and community is to be strengthened. (pg. 27)
Each student will have an opportunity to rank their preference of the Explorations connected with their residence. The deadline for this selection will be August 1.
During Orientation, the students are able to move directly into their room.
Freshmen would be preassigned to a specific dormitory, room, and (where applicable) roommate. 1989 Report of the Freshman Housing Committee, Potter Committee. Executive Summary, pg. 1
Programmed events will be provided during Parents Orientation enabling parents to meet the complete team associated with their children. This includes the Housemaster, Assistant Housemaster, Community Coordinators, Associate Advisors, and the Academic Advisor. (see Appendix 1)
Spring Semester
FSILG Rush is held the first two weeks of February and it is governed by the IFC. Residence Hall Selection is held over a two week time period in April. Both processes allow respective groups to hold Open Houses and programs targeting freshmen. The result for the freshmen is a choice of 5 upper-class housing options:
Rush for Independent Living Groups (ILGs) and sororities would be deferred from the residence selection and orientation period (R/O) now at the beginning of the freshmen year to the spring term, with students who join ILGs moving into them at the beginning of the sophomore year. 1989 Report of the Freshman Housing Committee, Potter Committee Executive Summary, pg.1
Once the Lottery is run and results are announced, individual Residence Halls could begin the process of assigning individual room assignments. Upperclassmen could have the option of staying in their room or enter the lottery for a change. Each residence hall could govern its own lottery under certain parameters. Once finished with exams, freshmen would be able to move items to their new residence to be stored for the summer.
Note: There will be policies in place to allow for Transfer students.
In-House Personnel
(see Appendix 1 for descriptions)
First-Year Houses
Approximately 75% of the residents of each First-Year House will be freshmen. To support these students, a variety of resident and non-resident staff will be connected to the House. Each House will have a resident faculty Housemaster who is the intellectual head of the House and is responsible for the development of the House community. Each House will also have a resident professional staff Assistant Housemaster who supports the Housemaster in his/her role and provides the additional support necessary for the unique nature of the community of the First-Year House. There will be one resident Community Coordinator per 35 first-year students. There will be one resident Associate Advisor per 6 first-year students. In addition, each House will still have a non-resident House Manager (though, with the addition of the Assistant Housemaster, it is possible that there could be two House Managers to oversee the four First-Year Houses.) In addition, the faculty and staff who serve as advisors through Freshmen Exploration will have a strong affiliation with the House and its residents.
Note: the remainder of the beds in each First- Year House would be filled with other upper-class students who are interested in living in First- Year Houses. These additional upper-class students, who could be called First-Year Mentors, will have no particular responsibilities within the House, but will be provided access to accurate and up-to-date information regarding the First-Year Program.
Upper-class Housing
Each House will have a resident faculty Housemaster and one resident Community Coordinator per 50 students. In addition, each pair of Houses will share two non-resident House Managers (one coordinating day operations and one coordinating evening/weekend operations). Opportunities to construct spaces for a few tenured or visiting faculty to live-in an upper-class Residence Hall, without having major responsibilities within the resident community, can also be encouraged in order to enhance informal student/faculty interaction. The Housemaster will also be responsible for encouraging non-resident fellow participation their resident community.
Graduate Housing
Same as Upper-class Housing except that the Graduate Housing environment may also be conducive to encouraging junior faculty and visiting researchers to live-in and/or be affiliated with the House.
Other Personnel
Each Residence Hall would also have connections to academic staff in departments that are involved with the first year curriculum. Each hall would also be connected to staff from various student service departments that would be responsible for holding panel discussions throughout the year to help freshmen better understand the resources available on campus.
Two offices would exist to support the Residence system:
The Office of the First Year Program
This office would be responsible for all components of the
First-Year Program, including Orientation, placement of the freshmen
in the First-Year Houses, Associate Advisors, the First-Year Writing
Requirement, and the Freshmen Exploration program (Residence Based
Advising). This office would work with the Housemasters, the
Residential Life Office and all staff associated with freshmen and the
First-Year Program.
The Residential Life Office
The overall Residential Life system, including maintenance of all
Houses, FSILG rush, off- campus housing, upper-class residence
selection, training of Community Coordinators, support of
Housemasters, and overall program development would be coordinated by
and through a Residential Life Office which would have a close working
relationship with the Office of the First-Year Program.
First-Year Programs
In its report, the Task Force recommends that orientation create for students "the feeling of joining a single, campus-wide community," and it should become a year-long program that is "filled with experiences that establish a connection between incoming students and experiences in academics, research, and community." (pg. 43) The First-Year Houses, with the dedicated support of the Office of the First-Year Program, the House staff, and the Freshmen House Governments, will make this program a reality.
The First-Year Houses will create a "hub" from which community development and individual support can be provided to the freshmen class through focused programming and dedicated staff. To begin, a dining facility will be present in each of the freshmen buildings (providing 3 meals a day, flexible hours to accommodate exams and athletics with better weekend hours.) Central dining facilities would adjust their hours to encourage the use of the residential dining halls.
Freshmen advising will shift to create Freshmen Explorations, a Residence Based Advising system. Each Exploration would be lead by a Faculty Advisor that acts as the primary academic advisor. The advisor not only coordinates the Exploration, but also acts as a referral to academic support services, assists in course selection and is directly connected to the Curriculum for the First-Year. They are trained and recruited through the Office of the First-Year Programs and supported by Associate Advisors. Explorations are freshmen year requirements, however, they do not carry academic credit. Explorations merge the presentation of research, personal, and academic interests of the Faculty Advisor with individual and residence community development.
Community Coordinators and Assistant Housemasters, with the guidance of Housemasters, would be responsible for developing and implementing a broad range of programming that would encourage the development of the whole student. This programming would be centered around the Wellness model: health, culture, academics, social, athletics, and co-curricular.
The Freshmen House Government, elected by the House residents each September, would also work to develop programming and community. First, through the elections themselves, members of the House would be engaging and interacting with their fellow residents. Each Government would have the standard set of officers, plus additional positions such as Community Service Chairs (connected with the Public Service Center), Social Chairs, Faculty Interaction Chairs, etc. Governments would also develop and encourage inter-House programs with upper-class Houses, Graduate Houses, FSILGs, and the other First-Year Houses.
In addition, the Office of the First-Year Program could also create, develop, and implement a broad range of programs with the support of the Houses that would encourage faculty participation and raise freshmen awareness of the MIT community. For example, the new How To Series could be expanded to include sections on approaching your roommate, over coming shyness, financial budgeting and other Charm School type categories.
Finally, First-Year Houses would be supported by the MedLinks peer
network and existing programs such as GenderWorks could be utilized to
support programming efforts. For example, a program could be offered
that would include advice on surviving relationships, proper use of
birth control, etc.
| Residence | Freshmen Beds | Per student | Total FundsAllocated |
| 2001 House | |||
| 500 | |||
| Baker | |||
| Ashdown |
The above table represents a rough estimate of anticipated residence funds that would be available for programming in the First-Year Houses.
Programming for Upper-class Residences and FSILGs
The core to programming within the FSILGs and Upper-class Residences are the residents themselves. Support for their efforts should be created through more effective advising and programmatic support that takes into consideration the unique culture of each House community. In addition, Community Coordinators will provide programming centered around the Wellness model. MedLinks should continue to be present within the Houses, however, a more formal relationship should be explored that recognizes the unique potential role of MedLinks within the upper-class house system. A MedStop should be placed within each house.
With the houses being dedicated to upper-class students, new opportunities are created to provide focused programming. Career Services and Preprofessional Advising could assign a career counselor to each House (and several FSILGs) to provide workshops, maintain an information board, and be a resource to Community Coordinators and Housemasters within that House to students in their search for post-graduate study or work.
Dining options include kitchens in the residence, eating at one of the freshmen dining facilities and Walker. Walker would become an area where programming for upper-class students would be held. Create a list of faculty that are interested in holding informal topical sessions over dinner. They could be hold the second Tuesday of every month and the students would be able to select the from current news or whatever is exciting in science, engineering and humanities.
Programming for Family and Graduate Houses
With the shift of Ashdown from Graduate to Undergraduate Housing, the graduate student population will loose the Thirsty Ear. To offset this programmatic loss, we propose a Graduate Student Commuter Lounge. Housed in either a lower floor of Eastgate (which has been renovated to create a large enough space) or in a renovated Walker Memorial, this Lounge would meet a series of Graduate student needs. First, it provides an additional programming space. Second, the Lounge would be open all night and have "crash" space beds for Graduate students doing research who cannot get home after 1 PM when the T shuts down. Having graduate students crash at their labs does not support either the individual graduate student or the development of a graduate student community. In addition, the Lounge should offer a "24 Hour coffeehouse-type service" for graduate students that would provide food and beverages for graduate students over night to further support research students. This space will receive additional funds for programming and will receive professional staff support to help develop such programming (similar to the way the Campus Activities Complex currently supports the coffeehouse). An examination of the relationship of this Lounge to the Muddy Charles should also be held.
Current efforts to develop a student government program within Graduate Houses should be continued and reinforced with staff support for the program in the Residential Life Office. Graduate students and students living in family houses should be integrated into the MIT community. Community Coordinators in those Houses must focus on raising awareness within the Houses of MIT policies in procedures, as resources available for these students, and especially for the spouses or partners of students, must be clearly communicated. The addition of a Housemaster in ALL Graduate Houses will enable a more effective support system to efforts to encourage faculty to participate in the development of community within Graduate Houses.
FSILG Transition
As is the case on other campuses, if the MIT FSILG system were to promote non-residential membership the result would be an increase in revenue and in the diversity of the FSILG system. We feel that the institute should encourage such a system by providing limited financial support during the transition. Specifically, the Institute should offer FSILGs funds for one-half of the empty beds created by change for one year. The Institute should also commit to finding common housing, where at all possible, for FSILGs which maintain a strong core membership but cannot afford to remain in off-campus housing. MIT does not need to support FSILGs which cannot maintain membership due to lack of interest. Residence Hall Transition
Currently, 1,400 of the 4,500 undergraduates live off-campus in FSILGs or in apartments. We predict a drop in the number of undergraduates living off-campus and, therefore, an increased need for undergraduate space in the resident halls. We also observe that there are some residence halls which are currently filled with undergraduates which are better suited architecturally to graduate living and vice versa.
This scenario is one possible example of our model. Assuming that all of the first-year residences will be equipped with functioning dining halls, an incredibly important piece of undergraduate education and programming, the make-up of those halls might resemble the following table.
| Residence | Beds | Freshmen | Community Coordinator | Associate Advisor | Other Upper-class |
| 2001 House | 320 | 242 | 7 | 45 | 26 |
| 500 | 378 | 300 | 7 | 60 | 11 |
| Baker | 342 | 264 | 6 | 50 | 22 |
| Ashdown | 372 | 294 | 9 | 45 | 24 |
To achieve this result, it would be necessary to encourage the current sophomores to move into the future first-year residences (500, Baker, and Ashdown in this example) and this should begin as soon as possible. This class will graduate in June of 2001 and open enough spaces to house the freshmen in fall 2001. These dorms should also not accept freshmen in the fall of 1999. They may accept freshmen in the fall of 2000 with the knowledge that they will move out of the dorm at the end of that academic year. The current freshmen (class of 2002) should be encouraged to move into the future "upper-class dorms" (in this example, MacGregor, McCormick, East Campus, Senior House, Burton, and New House) in order to avoid having to move in the future. The graduate students in Ashdown are 40% new graduate students and, according to a source in the housing office, this is usually the last choice of on-campus residence for them. Since all new graduate students must enter a lottery at the end of the first year, the aim should be to fill Ashdown with as many new grads as possible, moving them through each year and opening up more spaces each year until fall 2001 when Ashdown will become a first-year residence. Additional space will gradually open up as the current Ashdown population graduates. In return, graduate students will receive space in Bexley, Random, and the beds in Tang now occupied by undergraduates. This should provide approximately the same number of beds, but in housing which is more conducive to graduate life. This gradual transition plan will also allow upper-class and graduate programming to begin in those dorms which will be home to them in the future.
Should the Institute choose not to restore the dining facility in Ashdown or to keep it as a graduate residence, we recommend Burton-Connor as the next best choice for a first-year house.
Finally, it is crucial that MIT recommit itself to the development and construction of the proposed new House for graduate students and families near Central Square. Given the intense nature of graduate student research at MIT, MIT must continue to strive towards increased housing for graduate students, with a goal of providing housing for 50% of all graduate students.
Our assessment strategy utilizes a goal attainment approach. Measures will be developed to assess how well the goals are being achieved. Each goal generally has multiple indicators which are based on four different types of data: structure (the quality of the physical facility), personnel (the human resources), processes (the programming/activities that are designed to create the desired effect) and outcome (the desired effect). Outcome is generally looked at from the viewpoint of the individual student, but for certain goals, outcome is also examined in relation to the broader system. Different types of research methods will be used based on the indicator under consideration (focus groups, surveys, interviews, use of available statistics). Where possible, behavioral indicators such as migration patterns, occupancy statistics, extent of faculty student interaction, etc. will be used. Key to the assessment plan is a "before/after" strategy so that we can assess the current system and compare that to the newly developed system. Some baseline data is available from two surveys of the senior year and one survey of the freshman year, but other baseline data is not available and should be obtained. The residence system should be monitored with relevant assessment tools every four years to provide feedback to the system to allow for continuous improvement. Statistics regarding occupancy, migration and programming, could be gathered each semester.
Residence Hall Level
Indicators
Outcome (at level of individual)
Outcome (at level of residence hall)
Indicators
Outcome (at level of individual student)
Outcome (at level of residence hall)
Indicators
Outcome
Indicator
Outcome
Process
Outcome
Indicator
Outcome
Indicator
Outcome
Indicator
Outcome at level of individual
Outcome at level of individual FSILG
Outcome at level of FSILG system
Indicators
RESIDENTIAL SYSTEM LEVEL
Indicators
Indicator
Outcome
Housemaster
MIT Faculty who serve as Housemasters will continue to serve in many of their current capacities, however, their role as "intellectual" head of their house will be enhanced and their relationship to the overall residential life system strengthened. Housemasters in First-Year Houses will have a different set of roles and responsibilities. All residence halls, including Graduate Houses, will have a Housemaster.
Housemasters in First-Year Houses will:
All Housemasters will:
House Manager
Will continue to function in much the same role, however, the House Managers could be utilized to more effectively meet the demands of staff support during the evenings and weekends within the Residence Life system. We suggest that two House Managers be assigned to a pair of Residence Halls. One House Manager would work Monday-Friday during the day. The second House Manager would work Wednesday through Sunday in the evening. It is also possible that in the First-Year Houses, with the addition of the Assistant Housemaster to help coordinate administrative functions of the House, that two Houses could share one House Manager.
Assistant Housemaster
(First-Year Houses Only)
Four new professional staff positions will be created, one for each First-Year House. Assistant Housemasters will be live-in positions. Assistant Housemasters will:
In addition to the responsibilities for associated with living within the First-Year House, each Assistant Housemaster will hold a half time position within either the Office of the First-Year Program or the Residential Life Office. The exact nature of this half time position will depend on the overall needs and development of the two offices. Some potential roles would be:
Community Coordinators
Continuing graduate students, graduate students who attended MIT as an undergraduate, upper-class students who previously served as an Associate Advisor, and MIT staff with approval from their supervisors may apply to the Residential Life Office to be a Community Coordinator. Community Coordinators will serve a variety of functions:
Community Coordinators in First-Year Houses will receive a free meal plan. Community Coordinators in Undergraduate Houses (including First-Year Houses) will also receive free housing and a stipend. Community Coordinators in Graduate Houses will receive a stipend and will be guaranteed on-campus housing. MIT staff serving in the role of a Community Coordinator will not receive a stipend. Community Coordinators are supervised by Assistant Housemasters and/or Housemasters.
Note: Community Coordinators who serve in First-Year Houses will receive training through the Office of the First-Year Program, in addition to the required common training program run through the Residential Life Office, which includes basic Health Education (MedLink) training.
Associate Advisors
Continuing undergraduate students can apply to the Office of First-Year Program to be an Associate Advisor and live in a First-Year House. Associate Advisors will serve a variety of functions:
Associate Advisors will be compensated with a free meal plan as participation in the House dining program will be a vital avenue through which they can help build community. All Associate Advisors are required to participate in mandatory training, which includes a basic Health Education (MedLinks) component.