Introduction

The committee was appointed by the Dean for Student Affairs in April of 1986 (see charge, Appendix I) to review the Housemaster-Tutor Program in the residence system of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. We have tried to be responsive to the Deanís charge; however, we have not studied in detail issues concerning intellectual activities and personalities/styles of the houses, freshmen residence orientation, and the experiences of specific groups within the houses. Many of these aspects of student life are under study by others. The committee has worked to understand the present system and to assess its strengths and weaknesses. We have looked critically at the issue of the need for a housemaster system and at its costs and benefits to the Institute. We have also examined several alternative modes of supervising the resident system. Based on our review, we address issues related to the "sense of community" at the Institute as shared by the students and the faculty. To this end, we recommend ways to foster continuing interactions between students and faculty through the resident system. In addition, we make recommendations herein to improve and strengthen the management of the present program.

In our effort to understand the present system, the committee solicited the opinions of some 121 individuals who have an interest in or knowledge of the Program, including administrators, house managers, residents, tutors and house presidents. We received 21 written responses. The committee met on separate occasions with a group of current house presidents, a group of randomly selected students now residing in the dormitory system, as well as with current housemasters, junior faculty residents and with tutors (graduate residents). The committee met with the Chief of Campus Police, the Director of Housing and Food Service, the Associate Provost of Educational Policies and Programs, the Dean for Student Affairs and others. In addition, the chairman of the community met with a group of house managers and other individuals who preferred not to meet with the committee as a whole. In the discussions that follow we make little or no distinction between housemasters and junior faculty residents and will refer to them under the generic term "housemasters." In making specific recommendations we distinguish between the two positions where appropriate.

The committee has concentrated on two sets of issues. The first are issues which are difficult to specify and implement. These concern the desire for a more active sense of community on the part of both students and faculty. Such a spirit is often absent from the experience of many of our students, which prevents them from profiting from all that has to offer. In plain terms, students would like to know faculty better: to have someone to talk to, to learn about faculty life, professional life and "life" from adults with a wide range of experiences and perspectives. There is no doubt that some students enjoy unstructured academic relationships with faculty, usually as the result of a UROP, thesis or laboratory project. In such cases the relationship usually develops in a less formal academic setting, as these examples suggest. Graduate students in general are more inclined to explore contacts with faculty than undergraduates.

A strong feeling prevails at MIT that the academic, social and intellectual development of our undergraduates would be enhanced if the community could find other means to foster relationships between students and faculty. Bringing students and faculty together outside the classroom is difficult. The potential participants are busy people with other commitments that necessarily receive higher priority. The committee believes that the Housemaster-Tutor Program could facilitate such relationships in a variety of seemingly small ways that might synergistically work to have a large positive effect. In the course of these discussions, and with these goals in mind, the committee has considered a variety of alternatives to the Housemaster-Tutor Program. Later in this report recommendations are offered which might help to promote a stronger community spirit among students and faculty. We do not envision a radically different Housemaster-Tutor System, but instead recommend initiatives designed to increase and strengthen student-faculty connections.

The committee has considered a second set of issues which focus on the details of the operation and implementation of the current Housemaster-Tutor program as summarized briefly below.

Considerable diversity is expressed by housemasters concerning their understanding of their roles, the appointment/removal process, the appointment period and the reporting line for these positions. Similarly, a lack of consistency is evident among tutors regarding the nature and tenure of their jobs. Moreover, a significant degree of misunderstanding about the Housemaster-Tutor system is apparent among people peripheral to it. Clarification of roles and responsibilities would be of benefit to housemasters and tutors as well as to the Institute community.

In many quarters the committee heard high praise for housemasters and their spouses. The campus patrolís interface with housemasters in most cases has been positive and supportive of the needs of students. Many of the students we interviewed were particularly appreciative of the presence of tutors in the dormitory system. The position of housemaster or graduate resident can be very demanding of the time, judgment and patience of the dedicated individual who assumes such responsibility. Those who participate in the system deserve recognition and support.

We also heard from individuals who were critical of the system as it presently functions. Some dissatisfaction in any environment as diverse as MIT is to be expected. However, we have in the course of our review been made aware of situation and incidents that indicate the need to strengthen the management of the program and to define where responsibility for the program rests within the MIT administration.

It is the view of the committee that the housemasters arid graduate residents could play more central roles for many of our students than is now the case. For a relatively small group, housemasters are demonstrably important. These students rely on individuals in the system for adult guidance advice, friendship and practical help, especially during a social or family crisis. The personal nature of these incidents precludes quantifying the benefit to the student universe as a whole.

The Housemaster-Tutor Program is an essential component of the MIT experience in its capacity to create a friendly, supportive, intellectually challenging atmosphere for students As one letter to the committee stated, the program reflects "the Institute ethos" by providing visible evidence of MITís interest in and commitment to the quality of student life. We believe that there are steps which, if followed, could lead to the programís taking on more vigor and bringing more tangible benefits to a greater number of students in the residence system.

Toward a Sense of Community; Building Faculty/Student Relationships Through the Residence System

In considering the role of the faculty in association with the MIT residence system, the 1963 committee on Student Environment noted that "if student housing is to support MITís educational objectives, then it is imperative that the faculty be strongly involved in the program. .We feel that this responsibility rests with the entire faculty, not merely a few assigned to the task."

In 1956, the Ryer Committee had recommended the informal development of faculty associates. Expanding upon this idea, the 1963 committee recommended the establishment of a plan of non-resident "faculty fellows of the house" in support of the Housemaster-Tutor plan. 1963 committee envisioned that faculty fellows would devote regular time for meals and/or discussions with house residents, in order to become involved in the problems, challenges, and social activities associated with the living group and to provide constructive criticism and guidance in its development While the committee encouraged the informal discussions and involvement in order to provide a valuable "indirect" education for students, it is worth noting that they strongly recommended against "developing any portions of the required academic programs on a residential base."

A decade later, the 1973 Committee on Student Environment reaffirmed the principle of the 1963 report that "such programs as the Housemaster-Tutor system should be more concerned with complementing rather than reinforcing, the values of the formal curriculum." The 1973 committee gave "very strong support to any efforts to increase the number and effectiveness of non-resident faculty associates for the living groups" and noted that "these programs have periodically been tried, but never seem to get off the ground.

In contrast to the 1963 committee, they recommended that educational experiments such as seminars and freshman faculty advising be tried in the residences while stating:

"that the potential of the residential system for playing a significant role in the overall education of MIT undergraduates is hampered by the overall character of both the formal and the hidden curriculum, and such features as the emphasis on competitiveness grades, and the accumulation of credits."

In the fall of 1986, some of these concepts were formalized under the umbrella of the Special Opportunities for Freshmen (also known as "Freshmen Initiatives"). Coordinated through the Undergraduate Academic Support Office of the Office of the Dean for Student Affairs, these programs were intended "to foster intellectual and social interaction among freshmen and faculty members" and "to enhance the regular freshman advising program as well as your experiences in the classroom and in your living group." The Baker House but new to 500 Memorial Drive, and the Faculty Fellows Program have been reasonably successful, while the other program, Residence-Based Freshman Theme Seminars has only been marginally successful. For the Faculty Fellows program in particular, a November 1986 status report to the Visiting Committee on Student Affairs noted that "acceptability is highly dependent on the widely varying and peculiar character of each living group."

In examining the set of issues we have raised about fostering a more active sense of community as shared by students and faculty, the present faculty has spoken with students, presidents of the Institute houses graduate residents and housemasters.

It seems clear that a variety of opinions and expectations exist throughout the campus. Some students state that more interaction would be useful and would overcome the isolation of the residence system, while others wish to separate as much as possible their academic classroom experience from their residence life. One student said that he thought it would be nice to know faculty well but he isnít sure it is important to do so, since he has not met many. Others feel that faculty in general do not interact enough in all aspects of MIT life and question whether faculty want more involvement. Some faculty question whether they are even welcome in the students' home environment and feel that students need to take the initiative to tell faculty they are welcome. Informal programs in the houses run by students and/or housemasters have met with varied degrees of success but usually with less-than-hoped for attendance. The current level and type of housemaster involvement also varies from house to house. One house-master couple in a small house cook and host dinner once a month for fifteen students and invite three faculty members and spouses to attend, but this scale cannot be achieved in all houses, and the housemasters should not be solely responsible for getting faculty into the houses.

The committee recognizes that there are some serious obstacles to the fostering of faculty/student interaction which others have noted. Especially critical are the academic and professional demands, both in the formal and hidden curriculum, which exist for our students and faculty and the very real physical and cultural differences in the houses.

However, it is the sense of the committee that this issue is of prime importance. While the first goal of the Housemaster Graduate Resident Program is to provide close and continuing contact between individual housemasters and the students in their respective residences, a parallel goal should be to provide greater interaction between students in dormitories and other faculty members through a variety of informal non-academic activities. We feel that this aspect of the program, which is articulated in the educational responsibilities of the 1979 MIT Housemaster Charter of Responsibilities and in the leadership statement in this report's recommendations for housemaster role and responsibilities, must be given the highest priority if the housemaster system is to contribute more positively to the well-being of students in the residences.

To these ends, we recommend an educational experiment to provide additional support and structure to the faculty fellows program. Each house should have five to seven faculty (and/or a few alumni), chosen by the housemaster and the residents, who engage in sustained regular contact with the house (perhaps every two or three weeks). This program should have as director an experienced senior or emeritus faculty member who would report to the Associate Provost for Educational Policies and Programs. The director will be responsible to administer, support and coordinate the program on a system-wide level, though each house will be expected to manage its own specific program and work cut the variety of formats (informal, intellectual, interest-based, etc.) that the students, faculty and housemasters collectively desire. In order to accomplish these tasks, the director should be provided with a support staff member who could also support the housemasters in other facets of their role.

Support and incentive for this program, on the order of $2,500 per faculty fellow per year, should be provided. This amount would be divided between Industrial Liaison Programs (UP) points awarded to the faculty fellow, plus a stipend for entertainment expenses which could be administered by the faculty fellow or the housemaster of the house. While we acknowledge that these kinds of interactions should be a normal aspect of faculty participation in Institute life, we believe that the expected level of involvement of individual faculty members in this program is such that a stipend, as in the case of housemasters themselves, is appropriate. We believe this program should be seen as experimental for at least three years before it is evaluated, in order for it to fully meet the hopes and goals we have set out.

We have also briefly discussed and made recommendations regarding some other mechanisms to promote a sense of community and greater interaction. However, before making them, we would like to address some issues outside the scope of this report which we feel to be of concern.

The ability of faculty and students to get together on formal occasions or to meet informally is limited by the architecture of the houses. Some, like Burton House and New House, do not have functioning dining rooms; others, like Baker House, do not have adequate meeting rooms or lounges. Such spatial restrictions stand in the way of creating a program in which dormitory students can benefit fully from the presence of faculty. It may be that relatively minor changes to the buildings could go a long way to improve this situation and a study of how these might be achieved in the various houses, and what their costs would be, should be undertaken by the Institute.

It is not only the Institute houses that lack places for students and faculty to meet informally. The Institute's academic buildings have few attractive eating and resting places; food machines and food trucks are poor substitutes for places where people can linger, talk and be joined by others. Dining halls such as Lobdell or the Faculty Club require special trips and are not conducive to much informal contact between faculty and students. Places strategically located off the MIT corridor system would serve the goal of student/faculty contact better; the 4th floor lounge and coffee bar in the Department of architecture is an example. How facilities might be created elsewhereóalong the main MIT east-west ground floor corridor, for instanceóshould be studied carefully and given serious consideration by the Institute.

Recommendations

Faculty Fellows Program The Faculty Fellows program should be administered by a director who is a senior or emeritus faculty member appointed by and responsible to the Associate Provost. A support staff person should be provided for this program to assist the director and the housemasters. ILP accounts and entertainment stipends should be provided for participating faculty, who will be chosen by the housemaster and house residents. Each house should aim for five to seven faculty fellows who engage in regular sustained contact with the house in ways which foster interaction and a sense of community at MIT. This program should be viewed as experimental for no less than three years and then should be evaluated regarding its value and continuation.

Faculty/Student Pair Programs The Institute should encourage interesting and enjoyable programs for both students and faculty which will be free to both provided that they attend as a student/faculty pair. One such program could be a once- or twice-yearly outdoor Institute picnic held in Killian Court with box lunches for the participants. Other possible entertaining Institute-wide events should be explored and Institute groups such as living groups, student organizations and academic departments should be encouraged to occasionally provide free admission to events based on this practice. Athletic competitions/games requiring student/faculty pairs or mixed team might also be considered.

Enhancing Space for Faculty/Student Interaction The Institute should review the layout and use of space in some dormitories and in MIT corridors, with the goal of identifying and estimating the costs of limited space changes that could improve space constraints in support of faculty/student interaction. It may be that relatively minor changes could improve the situation in several dormitories.

Housemasters

Overview of the Present Program

Role and Responsibilities

In 1979 a Charter of Responsibilities for MIT Housemasters (Appendix II) was drawn by Vice-President Constantine Simonides in consultation with several incumbent housemasters in order to provide a framework for understanding the nature of the Housemaster-Tutor Program. While this document outlines the range of responsibilities housemasters undertake when accepting appointments, it deliberately avoids spelling out specific tasks. Emphasis is, rather, is on the collegiality of the system and its reliance on the discretionary judgement of individuals selected for the job.

Currently no other formal statements exist which define in detail the purpose of the Housemaster-Tutor Program or describe the roles involved. Ideally, the housemaster and spouse are a creative, mature, wise couple with good judgment and good taste, who have a strong interest in interacting with students in ways which benefit it their intellectual and social development. The committee feels that a precise formulation of roles and responsibilities would more than likely stifle creativity and innovation and would be detrimental to the collegial nature of the system.

However, as in many enterprises, not all individuals meet the ideal. A minimum established set of performance guidelines might help the entire spectrum of participants in the system--students, house managers, dining service staff, campus patrol members, housemasters, tutors and the Office of the Dean for Student Affairs ó acquire a more informed perspective about MITís expectations regarding its operation. At present the wide variation in perceptions of the housemasterís role leads to confusion in m quarters and unrealistic assumptions in others. It is the committeeís opinion that clarification of the role of housemasters would enable all related personnel to function more cooperatively.

The committee did not attempt to carefully investigate the genesis of the program. However, it was useful to refer to some past records for orientation. In a report of the Committee on Student Environment dated March 1973 (UNDERGRADUATE HOUSING IN THE 1970ís: A Second Interim Report of the Committee on Student Environment), the early form of the program is described:

"This program had begun in a tentative and somewhat haphazard way during the 1950ís, with individual faculty members and their wives taking up residence in the various dormitories for relatively brief periods."

In his "Memorandum on House Master System" dated January 1953, Frederick Fassett, Jr., after completing a one-and-one-half-year stint as Faculty resident in Baker House writes:

"I am convinced that we need for each group of roughly 300 students a stronger focal point of mature responsibility and guidance and that all but the inevitable fanatic fringe among undergraduates realize this fact. The present system is a practical step in the right direction, but only a partial step. I think we need no longer be worried over the connotations of the term ëMasterí; the time has to proceed from the appendage status of the Faculty Resident to the leadership status of the Master of the House."

Dean Fassettís specific qualifications for the Housemaster, his wife and children, as well as his vision for the need of graduate residents, offer additional and somewhat wry insights into the initial intent of the program:

"The post of Master should, I believe, be held by a mature married man without young children, in good physical trim, armed with a wife who is sympathetic toward youth, vigorous in health and optimistic in disposition. Th terms of teaching load and other responsibilities, it should be regarded as from one-third to one-half of a full undertaking. Consideration should be given in years to come to the possibility of accommodating in each unit two or three carefully chosen graduate teaching assistants to carry part of the task of general counseling and guidanceónot to serve as proctors."

As noted in the 1973 CSE report, a specific model influenced the establishment of the MIT program:

"The 1973 CSE was impressed with the success of the system developed at Harvard and Yale, and previously as part of the ëresidential collegeí aspect of Oxford and Cambridge, in making significant contributions to non-formal education and providing a richer and more mature social experience within the residential system."

The 1973 CSE report is an informative document. That committee examined many of the issues that we have discussed. Generally, they saw both the housemasterís and the tutorsí duties as falling into four areas, academic, social, educational and advisory:

"In comparing the role of Housemaster with that of tutor, ó note that the Housemaster can and often does fulfill each of the fair roles above. In all likelihood, he will do less academic tutoring. In his advisory role, he is likely to be called on for a different class of problems. On the personal side, these may be severe or complex, where his greater maturity will be an advantage. On the professional side, he may be called upon to give career guidance on the basis of his own success. He should certainly try to play the educational role, than perhaps in a more formal or structured way. In the social role he has considerably greater responsibilities, because his relationship must be to the house as a whole, rather than to one of the living units within it. This means a great deal of entertaining for a wide variety of student groups within the house, and such entertaining will be on a more elaborate scale than a tutor could provide. He is expected to be the primary exponent of "gracious living" within the house. In order to do this in his own quarters, rather than the public rooms of the house, he must have very substantial living room and kitchen facilities."

The committee also found it useful to look briefly at residence systems in other institutions, for purposes of comparison.

Committee staff support member Jim Tewhey provided the committee with a summary of a study he conducted for Smith College in 1984. A total of thirteen schools were contacted and asked to outline how their residence systems are organized and how the residence units are staffed. The thirteen schools were Boston University, Northeastern University, The University of Massachusetts, Amherst College, Berkeley College, Carnegie-Mellon University, Brown University, Stanford University, Cornell University, The Rochester Institute of Technology, Harvard University, Yale University, and Princeton University.

In summary, the committee learned that the MIT system is very different from those of our counterparts. Ten of the thirteen institutions have housing offices which report to the Dean of Students or a Vice president for Student Affairs and the other three, Harvard, Yale and Princeton, are organized around a college system in which the residence halls are part of the college and the housemasters report to the dean of the college. The group of ten staff their residence units with professional residence directors or a combination of graduate and undergraduate students. A number of the institutions have what was described as specialty houses (language, international relations, etc.) that are small (25 to 75 students) and often are staffed by a faculty member drawn from the department most closely associated with that house.

Harvard, Yale, and Princeton are organized around colleges which are based in the residence units. The term "college" denotes not only a field of study but also a physical location. In each of these institutions, the residence halls making up the college are in physical proximity. The residence halls are staffed by faculty and residence tutors (almost always PhD candidates) with supportive administrative staff reporting to the Master of the House. All academic advising occurs within the college and a substantial number of classes are taken there also. The Senior Tutors (Assistant Deans) and Housemasters have broad powers, both academic and disciplinary, within the residence units. (The full report on other residence systems appears as Appendix III to this report.)

In considering the role of housemasters at MIT, the committee debated the question: Why have an adult presence in the dormitory at all? In many ways the dormitory can be considered an apartment building, providing shelter at a cost to its occupants and expecting on the part of the tenant reasonable care of the facility and responsible behavior toward other tenants.

There are several flaws in this model as it relates to MIT. First, our students are not in the dormitory system at their discretion. Students are encouraged, and in the case of freshmen, required to live in an MIT approved residence.

Second, it is recognized that the dormitories contain an unusual concentration of individuals from a narrow age group who have their own set of characteristics. They are all in the process of transition to adult life and many, as a result of the intensity of their scholarly endeavors before arriving at MIT, have had a limited range of social experience. The majority are living away from their families for the first time, which tends to make the college years a stressful period. Thus, the Housemaster-Tutor Program is meant to be a support base for our students. It should foster their transition to responsible young adulthood. It should do so with compassion and understanding, but in a framework where improper behavior to others or toward property is not tolerated. As a senior representative of MITís faculty in the residence system, the housemaster has a multiple set of responsibilities to ensure that appropriate standards are maintained in a climate that favors their acceptance.

While some of the characteristics described above are the same for graduate students as for undergraduates, others differ. Graduate students are obviously older and must have made a successful transition from high school to college/university and from living at home to living with their peers. In addition, they are by virtue of their studies forming ties with their laboratory or study groups, both of which can be valuable support systems. On the other hand, they are about to enter the "threatening" world of professional life. Many need the continuing help of those who are and have been for sate time in that world. The value of ongoing social contact with seasoned professionals and with peer "budding" professionals is very great, particularly for the high proportion of graduate students who are from abroad or from other cultures. Experience shows that these recent arrivals need considerable assistance to integrate into American professional society and to learn the ways of managing life in this country. Faculty members serving as housemasters in the residence system (in both graduate and undergraduate dormitories) provide an extremely useful support for graduate students.

The direct costs of the Housemaster-Tutor Program, currently involving 29 Housemasters and spouses and 66 tutors, are on the order of one million dollars per year which includes the displaced revenue from 210 lost student dormitory spaces. The program serves 3300 students. How well does the present system work? In the course of our deliberations, we have discovered that the response of the community is rather mixed.

It is clear to the committee that the housemaster plays a significant role during a crisis. Here the presence of an adult to counsel, advise and befriend, in an almost parental manner, is crucial to a student who is experiencing a personal tragedy. The committee has received innumerable reports of the actions of faculty and graduate residents who have effectively and compassionately supported students during difficult times. There are many other supportive individuals at the Institute in the Deanís office, medical department, campus police and other areas who are prepared to aid in such situations. Housemasters and graduate residents are key in making students aware of individuals who can help and in encouraging contact. We recognize that this benefit, though it thankfully accrues to only a few students, is greatly appreciated by those have experienced it.

Beyond these rather dramatic needs for an adult presence, the faculty resident promotes meaningful social, academic and educational interaction between faculty and students. Here the committee shares the desire with others at MIT to see much more accomplished than is the present case. We are attracted in many ways to the ideal of the Oxford/Cambridge system where faculty/student interactions are more strongly centered on commonly held educational, social and intellectual interests. How can MIT develop a similar environment for its students, given the separation that currently exists between academic life, focused in the departments, and social and community life, focused in the dormitories? We believe that there are some initial steps that can be taken to bridge this condition, ac) 1ekjixr that these steps require changes beyond the Housemaster-Tutor Program. We have made recommendations earlier in this report to address this issue.

The committee is well aware that many MIT students do not interact with faculty residents beyond attending an open house or social event arranged by the housemaster. Scam students feel the housemaster is ordinarily rather invisible. In meeting with the committee chairmen, house managers and others have mentioned that on isolated occasion, during big parties where there is a great deal of drinking and noise, the housemaster concerned has been conspicuously absent, appearing to ignore the situation. It is reported from several sources that individual students have been harassed rather brutally for racial and other reasons and that the resulting response from the system has been too tolerant of such behavior. An illegal event referred to as "shower night" still occurs in some undergraduate dormitories, at which several students have been either verbally insulted or physically harmed. Individuals report that the student government system has failed to deal with such incidents consistently; dorm favorites are given token penalties; others are treated more severely. In some cases it is felt that housemasters have not dealt with inappropriate behavior in an even-handed yet firm and consistent manner.

It is evident that there are wide variances in the nature and culture of dormitories in the system. These place a variance as wall on the desired role of the housemaster. In some dormitories it is felt that professional counselors are needed, not housemasters. Obviously, expecting a faculty resident and spouse to become acquainted in more than a perfunctory manner with as many as 400 students -- and to handle their problems -- an impossible task. The report of the 1973 CSE describes the same difficulty. The presence of graduate residents was meant to address this dilemma, but it has clearly riot succeeded to the extent anticipated. Moreover, the committee recognizes that housemasters must play a role that straddles two positions: that of a friend to students and an advocate of their views to the institution, and that of a friend of the institution and advocate of a minimum code of standards and behavior on the part of students housed in its residences.

The current housemasters, it should be noted, have established a Housemastersí Coordinating Committee which meets regularly to discuss issues of common concern and to plan the agenda of the monthly evening meetings which include members of the Office of the Dean for Student Affairs. The committee believes the Housemastersí Coordinating Committee performs a valuable function and should continue.

Overall, we see the Housemaster-Tutor Program as one that partially works and has not yet realized its full potential. There is a strong need to identify and define the housemasterís role and correspondingly to strengthen the oversight and review process on the part of both the Dean for Student Affairs and the Associate Provost to whom the Dean reports. The committee believes that actions taken to achieve these objectives will make the system more effective.

Recommendations

The committee recommends that all housemasters and their spouses be provided with a more explicit statement of their role and responsibilities in the residence system and that this statement be circulated to the community.

Leadership As responsible, mature adults the housemaster and spouse share a leadership role and should provide a presence in the dormitory which contributes to the intellectual and social environment of the students. The housemaster and the various sections of the Office of the Dean for Student Affairs should work closely together as a team. In addition, housemasters should consult and work collaboratively with house managers and other appropriate Institute officials to protect and maintain the living environment of the house. Housemasters should take an active role in fostering strong relationships between students and other faculty. They should take actions which instill a sense of community and provide stronger links between the living environment and the academic environment at MIT. They should provide leadership in planning and developing intellectually stimulating activities in the house in concert with student government leaders and other faculty. As resource persons with access to information and channels of communication within MIT, housemasters should draw upon their institutional expertise to implement such activities.

Advice and Counseling Housemasters provide advice and counsel to students on both academic and social matters. Housemasters should draw on their personal perspectives aid sensitivities as well as on special resources of age, authority, professional and social experience to assist students.

Crisis Management Medical, social and personal emergencies must be dealt with effectively. Housemasters should take the initiative to provide guidance, support, compassion and common sense to students, who, for a variety of reasons, need assistance of this nature. There is an on-campus support network for such crises, aid housemasters should be knowledgeable about and quick to call upon these resources when needed.

Entertainment and Social Events Housemasters should foster entertainment and events that bring sti4ents together socially awl reduce the effects of insularity that result from physical, intellectual aid geographical inhibitors.

Governance Housemasters should interact in an advisory capacity with the student house government, including the student judiciary process. As faculty members familiar with the operation of the Institute and as experienced adults, housemasters can and should be an important guide in the decision taken by the student government, while understanding and respecting the student government process.

Residence Management Housemasters should play an effective role in the formal and informal management of the house. They should cooperate closely with the house manager and house staff in maintaining the physical quality of the house and dealing with many issues that require the joint judgement of the housemaster and house manager.

Discipline Housemasters exert a steadying hand in the affairs of the house and are concerned with the general behavior of students within it. As faculty members, housemasters are officers of the Institute whose presence is both a stimulating and stabilizing influence on matters of community well-being and development. In any given situation, housemasters are expected to weigh the interests and the welfare of students both as individuals and as members of the MIT community. Housemasters must also represent the Institute when dealing with situations pertaining to community standards. They are expected to play an important role in settling disputes that arise within the residence. They should interact with the respective judicial authorities, such as the house Judicial Committee, the Office of the Dean for Student Affairs aid the Institute Committee on Discipline, who are responsible for the hearing and judgement of cases brought before them.

Supervising Graduate Residents Housemasters are responsible for the supervision and guidance of the graduate residents in the house. In addition, each housemaster has the responsibility to take part in the selection and annual review of graduate residents.

Selection, Appointment and Termination of Housemasters

The present process for selecting housemasters is a rather informal one. The Deanís Office coordinates the process for reviewing candidates. This procedure involves the Dean for Student Affairs and the Associate Dean for Residence and Campus Activities, the Associate Provost and residents of the house to which the candidates seek appointment. The appropriate Department Head or Academic Dean is consulted prior to the candidateís appointment. In general, the process works fairly well, although candidates are often difficult to find.

The committee believes that the selection process would benefit from the perspectives of other individuals who are knowledgeable about the characteristics of the particular house. Later in this report we make recommendations to foster stronger relationships between individual faculty and the students in the dormitory system. We believe that such faculty, who have established a working relationship with the house, should participate in the selection process as well.

The committee has examined issues relating to the rank and position of candidates for housemaster posts. In reviewing the role of housemasters, we agree that many of the desired qualifications for the position are frequently, but not exclusively, found among faculty members, particularly tenured faculty members. In the committeeís opinion, housemasters who have tenured faculty status are in a more advantageous position with respect to providing leadership and facilitating contacts between students and the MIT administration and departments at appropriate levels.

The committee has also considered the option of non-faculty as housemasters. Many non-faculty individuals at the Institute have the maturity, wisdom, creativity and sense of responsibility needed to fulfill the role of housemaster. The preference for faculty in this role is based on a) the strong need for an opportunity for students to know at least one faculty member well and b) the academic counseling and advising that housemasters are often called upon to provide. Both of these considerations reflect the perception that it is not easy for students, especially undergraduates, to develop close relationships with individual faculty members in the course of their academic pursuits. This lends added weight to the argument that the housemaster be a faculty member. Given the present circumstances, the committee believes that the current preference for faculty members in this position should continue. However, we also believe that there should not be a rule that the housemaster must be a faculty member, anticipating that individuals may be identified who possess all the requisites for the position but do not have faculty status.

A second issue arises regarding the importance of the academic tenure of the housemaster. Here the problem is not one of capability. Many junior faculty could be successful housemasters if they could give the position the time and commitment required. The process obtaining academic tenure involves an intense effort on the part of the candidate. The stringent performance requirements for tenure at MIT are, in many ways, the basis for the excellent reputation that this institution enjoys. It is very unlikely, in the opinion of the committee, that outstanding service as a housemaster, would carry great weight in the tenure decision. The demands of the housemaster position wild be likely to reduce the time available for teaching or research and thereby jeopardize the candidateí s tenure prospects. For these reasons we recommend that untenured faculty not be approved as housemasters. Here we do distinguish between housemaster and junior faculty resident position, and make our recommendations with respect to the latter in the appropriate section of this report.

The committee recognizes the important role of the spouse in the housemaster position. In many respects the housemaster and spouse are a team who bring a dual set of qualities to the job. While one contributes an academic perspective, the other often supplies complementary views which provide an important balance in the advising, counseling and social roles that housemasters fill. We believe that consideration of individuals for the housemaster position must include assessments of the qualifications of both the candidate and the spouse during the selection process. ~u Institute recognizes that the position of housemaster often calls for substantial accommodation in lifestyle and professional activities on the part of the spouse.

Recommendations

Selection Process The Dean for Student Affairs should appoint a selection committee that reviews candidates suggested by the Office of the Dean for Student Affairs. The committee should include the house president or other representative of the house student government, the house manager, two faculty members who have established a relationship with the house, or who have knowledge of the house in more than a peripheral sense, and a housemaster presently in the system. The committee will be chaired by the Associate Dean for Residence and Campus Activities. The committee should evaluate candidates and provide a prioritized list of recommendations to the Dean for Student Affairs who will make the final selection.

It is important that students in the house support the choice of housemaster. The house should form a student committee to review the recommendations of the search committee as well as to assist the committee in seeking candidates. The student on the search committee will chair the student committee. The search committee should carefully consider the views and responses of students in making its recommendations to the Dean. However, the student Committee does not have veto power over the recommendations of the search committee.

In order to provide opportunities for students to become better acquainted with individual faculty and to give students access to academic and career advice in the residential setting, the selection process will normally concentrate on housemaster candidates who are tenured faculty members. However, there are non-faculty individuals in the MIT community who might bring outstanding qualities and other professional skills to the housemaster role. The appointment of non-faculty as housemasters should not be automatically precluded.

The Dean will make the appointment decision only after consulting the candidateís academic Department Head or Dean or supervisor, in the case of a prospective non-faculty appointee. Department Heads should be made aware of the contributions housemasters make to the life of the Institute.

Appointment The housemaster is appointed by and, in this capacity, is responsible to the Dean for Student Affairs. In order to recognize that the housemasterí a role involves the deve1~nt of relationships between the dormitory system and the Institute, and to acknowledge the contribution that the housemaster makes beyond normal professional responsibilities, the initial letter of appointment will be issued by the President on recommendation of the Dean for Student Affairs.

Joint Appointments In cases where a couple has been selected, the appointment shall be considered a joint appointment. In cases where one member is a non-Institute employee, the appointment material should contain a written statement of privileges, compensation and title associated with the position.

Term of Appointment In order to gain the benefit of established relationships and continuity of purpose, it is the intention of the Institute that a housemaster should serve for, and not be limited to, a period of five to seven years. The initial appointment is expected to be for two years. Notice of the appointment for the third year will be given at the end of the first year, normally in April. This pattern of a one-year appointment and one yearís notice will continue throughout the duration of the housemasterís term. Housemasters who own homes should be advised not to sell their homes or make leasing arrangements that preclude returning to their original residence with one yearís notice.

Appointment Renewal The Dean for Student Affairs will review the performance of all housemasters on a yearly basis. This review will be used for feedback to individual housemasters and their spouses in order to ensure the continuing effectiveness of the system. The main spirit of the review process is to communicate the strengths and weaknesses of the program in each house to the key individuals who make the system work on a daily basis: the housemaster and the Dean.

The committee believes that this process will enable the program to be more responsive to the changing needs of and opportunities for each house. It is expected that reappointment will follow naturally each year, unless there is serious reason to question the effectiveness of the housemaster couple. The review must be timely and consistent with the requirement that the housemaster be informed of reappointment one year in advance of the beginning of the new appointment period. The Dean for Student Affairs will transmit to the housemasterís Department Head a report of the housemasterís performance based on this review. In this way, the faculty memberís contribution as housemaster can be brought more naturally to the attention of the Department Head.

Termination of Appointment In all but the most unusual circumstances, a housemaster should be informed of the non-continuance of his or her appointment at the normal review period and with one yearís advance notice. This process is the responsibility of the Dean for Student Affairs. Non-reappointment should be the culmination of several points of review with the housemaster, after opportunities have been provided to both the housemaster and the Dean for corrective action. The committee recognizes that the responsibilities of the housemaster are wide ranging and demanding. Frequent and effective communication between the Dean, the Associate Dean for Residence and Campus Activities and the housemaster can identify and forestall difficulties.

If it becomes necessary to consider asking a housemaster to resign with less than one yearís notice, the Associate Provost would convene a peer review committee consisting of five tenured faculty members, two of whom are current housemasters. The committee would review all the facts and make a recommendation to the Associate Provost.

In cases where the housemaster leaves the position with less than one yearís notice and the result is a situation in which the housemasterís dormitory residence is the spouseís only available residence, the Institute will allow the spouse to remain in the dormitory up to six months to permit appropriate relocation.

Associate Housemasters (Junior Faculty Residents)

It has been the recent practice to have an additional faculty member and spouse residing in some of the larger dormitories. These junior faculty residents work with the housemaster in carrying out those responsibilities referred to earlier and their presence provides additional opportunities for student-faculty interaction.

Since the junior faculty resident does not bear the primary responsibility for the house, it is possible to select an untenured faculty member for the position without jeopardizing the individualís professional future. Thus the position of junior faculty resident provides an opportunity for younger faculty to participate in the residence system.

The committee believes that the benefits to the residence system to having additional and younger faculty living in the houses are substantial. We strongly favor continuing this practice and expanding it to other large dormitories. Many aspects of the position are the same as described earlier for housemasters. The recommendations which follow are intended to make the distinctions explicit.

Recommendations

Title and Scope The junior faculty resident position should be retitled associate housemaster and the position should be extended to other large dormitories.

Role and Responsibilities The associate housemaster works closely with the housemaster in performing the functions associated with the role of housemaster. Therefore the personal qualities required of an associate housemaster are similar to those sought in a housemaster.

The housemaster has the primary responsibility for the dormitory. It is part of the housemasterís role to assist the associate housemaster in achieving a proper balance between professional career obligations and the requirements of the house.

Selection The selection process for associate housemaster should parallel that recommended above for housemasters. The housemaster on the selection committee should be from the house seeking an associate housemaster.

Appointment The associate housemaster is appointed by and in this capacity, is responsible to the Dean for Student Affairs. The letter of appointment shall be signed by the President, as in the case of housemasters.

Term of Appointment The formal tent of appointment is for one year with one-year notice of renewal as described above for housemasters. The expectation of the Institute and the associate Housemaster should be for a total length of service of five years from the initial appointment.

Appointment Renewal The same process of review and notification as described for housemasters should be followed for associate housemasters. However, the review should be carried out jointly by the housemaster and the Dean for Student Affairs.

Termination of Appointment The process for termination of the service of an associate housemaster should be the same as for a housemaster with the same rights of residence for the spouse.

Graduate Residents

Brief Overview of the Present Program

In 1963, the Committee on Student Environment made as one of its strongest recommendations the expansion and strengthening of the then so-called tutor program. Impressed by the system developed at Harvard and Yale, this committee recommended that "several tutors (approximately one per 30 students) drawn from the MIT graduate student body, be implemented in all houses, both new and old." This same recommendation was reconfirmed in the 1973 "Second Interim Report of the Committee on Student Environment." This latter committee, however, pointed out the lack of clearly stated and precise definition of roles that tutors were to play and recommended that this deficiency be rectified. It is interesting to note that both the 1963 committee and the 1973 committee recommended that the title "Tutor" be abolished and replaced by some other title. The one most often recommended was "Graduate Resident," a recommendation that we strongly endorse.

The 1973 committee found, as have we, that the graduate residentsí main function in the houses was not academic, as the name would imply, but social. Tutors are more accurately described as peer counselors. This change in roles is recognized by tutors, students and the other constituencies that are involved with dormitory life.

The committee has been impressed by the strong words of praise graduate residents have received from undergraduates and housemasters. We have been equally impressed by the thoughtful assistance graduate residents have given to individual students, particularly in crisis situations. The personalities, special interests, talents and enthusiasm of graduate residents have been mentioned as positive attributes of the current system.

Several issues have been brought to our attention that should be addressed. Uncertainty about the overall goals of the Tutor Program has led students, house managers, and some MIT officials to criticize the system and has caused some graduate residents to question their own effectiveness. A clearer definition of roles, limitations, and what the Institute expects is needed. There has often been a lack of communication and mutual understanding between the Deanís Office and tutors, between housemasters and tutors, and among graduate residents themselves about roles and responsibilities. Lacking clear guidelines, each constituency within the dormitories (students, housemasters, house managers, graduate residents, and Deanís Office) has drawn its own conclusions about the role and responsibilities of graduate residents. At times, this has led to inflated or inappropriate expectations. Further, the Committee believes that a description of the responsibilities of the tutor position should allow an applicant to appreciate the possible dimensions of the job so that candidates can decide whether to make the requisite commitments of time and energy.

The Committee understands that the present role of the graduate resident can be divided into four areas: advisory, social, educational and academic.

Advisory Role This may be the most important role currently played by the graduate resident. It is clear that students utilize tutors as advisors for information and advice on such issues as career plans, academic programs, personal and social problems and a variety of other questions. It is our belief that such a function is both necessary and welcome. We believe, consistent with this role, that it is important that graduate residents be aware of the many resources available at MIT. The Office of the Dean for Student Affairs is responsible for supporting graduate residents in ways that can maximize their effectiveness as advisors.

Social Role This role includes leadership, organization of living group activities and acting as host. We have found, as did the 1973 committee, that students seem to agree that tutors were more effective in this role than in their academic role. The importance of the social role and the way in which it can best be nurtured depends on the geography of the unit, the traditions and other factors which help to unify it, and the personal style of the graduate resident.

Educational Role The 1963 CSE report refers to the educational role of tutors: "in contrast to the academic, the educational role is concerned with precisely those broadening aspects of education which are not embodied in the formal curriculum. Here the emphasis is on a tutorís ability to be a catalyst for the stimulating good ëbull sessionsí among the st~z1ents, aid for bringing a fresh and thoughtful perspective to bear on social, political, educational, artistic or cultural questions." The committee realizes that this may be the most difficult role for a graduate resident to fulfill. Success in this role depends upon an ability to create informal opportunities for dialogue in the residential environment. Graduate residents should be selected who have the interest, motivation and drive to initiate such opportunities.

Academic Role The academic role involves assisting students with problem sets, homework, quiz reviews, etc. It is the belief of the committee that this aspect of the position is unrealistic, impractical and should not be part of a graduate residentí s responsibilities. The findings of the 1973 CSE are as true today as they were then. "Most students have found that it is better to get such help (academic) from upperclassmen rather than tutors."

Recommendations

Title The title "Tutor" should be abolished and replaced by Graduate Resident."

Role A detailed position description for graduate residents should be developed by the Office of the Dean for Student Affairs which carefully specifies the graduate residentís responsibilities and authority. The description should make it clear that graduate residents are responsible to the housemaster of the house. This information must be widely disseminated within the housing system.

Selection The Office of the Dean for Student Affairs is responsible for recruiting graduate residents. The Office should supply names and qualifications of candidates to the appropriate housemaster, who is responsible for final selection. Students should have a substantial advisory role as part of the selection process; however, they do not carry veto power.

Appointment We recommend continuing the present practice in which graduate residents are appointed by the Dean for Student Affairs, on the recommendation of the housemaster, for one year, renewable on an annual basis.

Currently there is no clear statement as to the expected term of service for graduate residents. The committee believes that there are sound reasons relating to the effectiveness of the program and the educational benefit of the student to limit the term to a maximum of four years.

It has also been unclear as to whether graduate residents are expected to serve during the summer. The committee recommends that a graduate resident should have house responsibilities for the period September 1 through the end of May and should be allowed to remain in the dormitory during the summer months.

Review A graduate residentís performance should be reviewed annually by the housemaster to whom he or she is responsible and the Associate Dean for Residence and Campus Activities.

Orientation 1~ Office of the Dean for Student Affairs will provide an orientation program for all graduate residents. The Deanís Office should ensure that all graduate residents participate in this program at the start of each academic year aid at timely intervals throughout the year as circumstances dictate. Attendance at such orientation sessions shall be required of all graduate residents.

Relations of the Housemaster Program to the Office of the Dean for Student Affairs

The Office of the Dean for Student Affairs should be the responsible agent for coordinating and managing the Housemaster-Graduate Resident Program. This office is responsible for the selection, appointment, orientation and review of housemasters, associate housemasters and graduate residents. The office should encourage and support individuals in the system in efforts to develop effective programs for the benefit of the housing system. The management of this system is one of the major responsibilities of the Dean for Student Affairs. The Dean serves as the key link between the activities of the housing system and the other administrative, support aid academic branches of the Institute.

The committee believes that the selection, appointment, orientation and review of the housemasters aid graduate residents needs greater attention aid stranger leadership on the part of the Office. We have made recommendations in this report to that end. However, our recommendations, if adopted, will have little effect without the care and attention of the Dean. We sense that housemasters aid graduate residents are ready and eager to further improve the Housemaster-Graduate Resident Program. We believe that the Deanís Office can greatly strengthen the process by implementing our recommendations in a firm, understanding, cooperative and consistent manner. Greater and more effective communication on the part of the Deaní s Office would be appreciated by faculty, students and staff alike. We believe this is a necessary and needed first step to increase the feelings of trust and confidence on the part of many in the system.

With sound management of the program in place, additional actions can be taken to develop and build further informal and supportive relationships between faculty aid students. We recognize that many students are wary of increased faculty involvement in dormitory life. But we believe that this skepticism concerning faculty encroachment can aid will be eroded with increased efforts by the Dean to foster greater involvement of faculty and staff in recreational and intellectual activities which are attractive, relaxing aid enjoyable for all concerned. It is our expectation that the community at large would rally behind such activities and that many of the faculty would respond in favorable and supportive ways to such initiatives. During the past year, the Deanís Office has embarked on and fostered such efforts. We strongly encourage the Office to make these initiatives its very highest priority.

A major role of the housemasters and associate housemasters involves entertaining groups of students in the house. An allocation of $20.50 per student is currently provided for the purpose, an amount that has not kept pace with increases in the cost of food from the Dining Service. It is the sense of the committee that this allocation is inadequate. We have found that housemasters and spouses spend a great deal of effort in preparing and cleaning up after meals. This is done voluntarily in order to yield greater benefits for the students. Although such dedication is admirable, we believe such activities are not a useful way to use housemaster/spouse time and that they add greatly to the burden of the position.

Recommendations

The Office of the Dean for Student Affairs is responsible for the management of the Housemaster-Graduate Resident Program. The Dean should ensure that the selection, appointment, orientation and review of the program be carried out more effectively and directly. Responsibilities and authority of housemasters and graduate residents should be clearly stated. The Dean for Student Affairs should place increased effort in managing the program and should consult with the Housemastersí Coordinating Committee on issues of substance that affect the program. The fostering of greater faculty-student interaction in informal recreational and intellectual activities -ó a prime goal of the program -- should be the highest priority of the Office of the Dean.

The allocation of funds to housemasters for entertaining students should be increased in order to decrease the time and effort of housemasters and spouses devoted to serving food. The question of oversight of Institute residents during summer should be examined.

Appendices

Appendix I: Charge to the Committee to Review the Housemaster-Tutor (HM-T) Program withing MIT's Residential System

General

Many people at the Institute have expressed in different ways the view that there is little or no sense of community across the Institute that is shared by faculty and students. Assuming this is a valid view and that the Institute desires and is willing to address this issue in a serious way, it may be necessary for the Institute to reconsider its priorities and to redirect some of it resources toward solutions to this problem. It may, for example, be necessary to develop a different vision for the residential system and for the HM-T Program. Developing a better sense of community may also require a willingness to devote the necessary land and other resources to construct faculty housing near the campus.

Purpose and Goals What should be the purpose and goals of MITís residential system and of its HM-T Program within the context of MITís larger educational enterprise? How effective are our current efforts, particularly the HM-T Program, in helping to carry out this purpose and to reach these goals? Are there alternatives to our current approach that are more promising? Are there desirable modifications to the current HM-T Program that would make it more effective? How successful are we (the Institute, the ODSA, the housemasters and tutors) in conveying the goals of the residential system to students, faculty, and the community at large? Do housemasters and tutors themselves understand/accept/agree with what is expected of them?
Selection of Housemaster Potential housemaster candidates are primarily identified by/through residents of houses with vacancies, colleagues, Deanís Office staff, and expressions of interest by individual faculty. Selection is a shared process involving house residents, Deans McBay and Sherwood, and Associate Provost Keyser (previously Vice President Simonides). Thus far, this group has been able to reach consensus on selections. The appropriate department chairman and/or dean is consulted before an actual offer is made and the selection is made formal through a letter written by Dean McBay on behalf of the President.

Question Is this process adequate? Should faculty or others be involved in the selection process in a more definitive way?

Selection Criteria Currently, criteria for Housemasters include having (a) tenure, (b) the endorsement of the department chairman and dean, (c) the clear approval of the House Selection Committee, (d) a genuine interest in working with students outside of the formal classroom, (e) a reputation for being an outstanding teacher, and (f) a willingness to develop programs/activities on behalf of students.

Question Are these criteria sufficient?

Role of Spouses Spouses of housemasters (and of tutors) play major roles in the current system. Concern has been expressed on several occasions that the contributions of spouses are not being adequately recognized.

Question How can/should we address this apparent weakness in the current system?

Role of Junior Faculty There are several advantages to having junior (non-tenured, tenure track) faculty involved in the HM-T system. However, there is constant concern about whether it is in a junior faculty memberís best interest to encourage his/her acceptance of a time-consuming position in the HM-T system, given the lack of significant recognition of such participation in the tenure process.

Question Should we reconsider these positions?

Evaluation The evaluation process for tutors appears to be working satisfactorily; however, there is no well-defined or agreed upon procedure for housemasters to receive feedback.

Question What are appropriate mechanisms for individual housemasters to get feedback? How do we avoid making feedback and evaluation a popularity contest or a haranguing? How can/should the effectiveness of the overall system be evaluated? How frequently should this occur? Who should be involved? How do we assess the quality of the experiences of specific groups within the houses such as minority, women, gay, international, and disabled students?

Visibility, Reward, and Recognition In general, recognition given to housemasters by colleagues in their respective departments, by students in the houses, and by the community at large leaves a lot to be desired. A modest stipend and a partially furnished, rent-free apartment represent the only tangible ways in which housemasters are rewarded beyond, of course, the satisfaction they receive through working year after year with residents in their respective houses.

Question Are these rewards adequate? Should other steps be explored such as released time from departmental/teaching responsibilities or providing support staff assistance, especially if there is an increased academic role expected of housemasters? Should we recommend the creation of an endowed chair that might rotate through the system? How can we improve the communityís appreciation (especially faculty colleagues and students in the individual houses) of the roles of housemasters and tutors? Should we continue to encourage housemaster representation on or input to certain faculty committees such as CUAFA, CAP, CUP, and CSA where the experiences of housemasters would be invaluable to the deliberations of these committees? Would such participation add unduly to an already heavy load for the housemasters?

Intellectual Activities in the Houses Except for occasional initiatives in the past (and more recently the Institute Colloquium discussions), there do not appear to be very many intellectual events taking place within the houses, either at the initiative of the housemasters/tutors or of the Deanís Office. The recently proposed freshman advising initiative for increased faculty-student contact in the living groups. Students would be provided with additional opportunities to know faculty on a more informal basis.

Question Should we try to address this latter need through the living groups? How much intellectual activity is desirable in the houses? What are the roles of housemasters and tutors in such initiatives? Should housemasters, for example, be asked to consider leading seminars within their houses? Should tutors be expected to provide academic support, in addition to their current responsibilities? Should we try to honor requests to have visiting professors reside in houses for short periods of time? Now that we have a ceiling of 1000 and a floor of 975 on the size of the freshman class, can we afford, financially or through the loss of bed space, to provide the appropriate facilities (seminar rooms, guest apartments, etc.) in those houses where they do not currently exist? How much consideration should we give to the reported feeling of some students that they do not want formal intellectual activities in the houses?

Personalities/Styles of the Houses One of the strengths of the current system is the uniqueness and individuality of each of the houses. Over time, each assumes a style and personality that is determined by its residents, including the housemasters.

Question Should there be a set of minimal expectations with respect to how each house connects with/relates to the goals of the overall residential system? How much diversity can/should be allowed? How much public emphasis should there be on such diversity? What role can housemasters and tutors reasonably be expected to assume in efforts to change/influence the reputations of their houses? Are there responsibilities that housemasters/tutors have that are over and beyond those of other members of the faculty and administration on matters involving possible violations of Institute regulations or of state laws?

Freshman Residence/Orientation Currently, the Institute depends each year upon the independent living groups (and they upon the expectation) to provide housing for approximately one-third of the freshman class. Each year, however, we receive numerous complaints about the way freshmen are introduced to the residential system, especially to the independent living groups. Repeatedly, the costly suggestion is made to delay fraternity rush until the sophomore year. (Costs for the initial one-year delay include the loss of income to the fraternities from more than 350 freshmen, no freshman brothers in residence, and the need to rent hotel or find other space for approximately 350 freshmen)

Question Is it desirable/can we afford to change our current practice? Should we consider pre-assigning freshmen to dormitories or having all freshman houses as some have suggested? What are the pros and cons of these alternatives?

Appendix II: MIT Housemasters' Charter of Responsibilities

The Institute Houses provide a valuable opportunity for enriching student experience and broadening the goal of MITís educational program. Each House is a distinct community in which people, feelings, and events converge to produce an environment that is both familial and representative of the outside world. As in any setting devoted to work, play and rest, pleasures as well as strains are inherent in House residence.

Housemasters are distinguished members of the MIT Faculty who lead active professional lives. They and their families make their home in one of the campus Houses and share in the life and spirit of their living group. In making the choice to live with students, they commit themselves to a time-consuming but rewarding role which contributes in a significant way to the quality of education at MIT. Housemasters work with students to help set the tone of each House; consequently, the various Houses have different identities and styles. This diversity is one of the strengths of the MIT residence program.

It is difficult to convey the full range of activities and responsibilities of the Faculty in Residence, but it is possible to give some sense of the nature of the job:

Counseling individuals and working with groups of students are important responsibilities to which Housemasters bring their personal perspectives and sensitivities as well as special resources of age, authority, professional and social experience.

Their educational responsibilities include intellectual, cultural and social activities that complement the values of the formal curriculum. In this capacity Housemasters may help to strengthen ties between students and their academic advisors, encourage more active association of their Faculty colleagues with the House, and in other ways foster the development of studentsí intellectual interests and social skills.

As Faculty members, Housemasters are officers of the Institute whose presence in the House is both a stimulating and a stabilizing influence on matters of community well-being and development. This institutional responsibility calls for independent judgement in defining and exercising the specific functions of the Housemaster. In any given situation, Housemasters are expected to weight the interests and the welfare of students both as individuals and as members of the MIT community. Their allegiance to students is seen as part of their responsibility to the Institute.

An important aspect of the Housemasterís function is the management and guidance of the Graduate Residents Program in the House, including the selection and annual review process.

Housemasters and their spouses are appointed by the President of MIT upon recommendation by the Dean for Student Affairs. The Office of the Dean for Student Affairs administers the campus residence program and provides support to the Faculty and Graduate Students in Residence.

May 1979

Appendix III: Residence Hall Staffing at Other Institutions

GROUP I: Boston University, Northeastern University, and the University of Massachusetts

All three of these schools have residence systems organized under a Housing Office. At each of these institutions, the Housing Office reports to the Dean of Students and is charged with the types of responsibilities associated with the RCA section. Their Housing Office should not be equated with the MIT organization. The residence halls are staffed by professional residence directors or head residents who are hired for a full year and live in the residence units. The search and hiring process are administered by the institutions with little or no student participation. (This is true for RAs also.) These directors are graduate students, either in a part-time masterís or a doctoral program and are expected to work a 35 to 40 hour week split between morning, afternoon and evening hours. Each of the directors has a staff of undergraduate or graduate students who are in charge of the floors (55 to 65 students per RA) and report directly to the head resident. The head residents, in turn, report to an area coordinator, usually a graduate student who is in charge of several dorms. The area coordinators report to an assistant or associate director of housing.

The residence directors/head residents have total responsibility for the operation of their buildings. They coordinate all repairs and, in conjunction with the area coordinators, have broad disciplinary powers. For example, they can move students within their units or within the area of which they are a part. They are, along with their staff, responsible for both academic and non-academic programming in the residence halls. In each of the institutions, there is a dean responsible for assisting the directors in their programming functions. This dean provides resources and support staff for this service.

The residence directors/head residents are hired on average for three to four years. They are paid between $8,000 and $12,000 per year in addition to room and board. Most receive full institution benefits including medical coverage and liberal tuition allowances.

GROUP II: Amherst College, Berkeley, Carnegie-Mellon, and Brown University

Each of these institutions uses a combination of professional directors, student assistants and faculty in their residence halls. Professional directors run the majority of their residence units. These directors are hired for 10 month periods and are treated as part-time employees. At each institution these directors are hired through the Dean of Students Office or the Housing Office. The procedure usually involves students, though not always, but the preponderance of power is with the administration and the assignment to dorms is determined by the administrative offices and not students. The directors are graduate students working on masterís degrees either at the institution or one nearby. They receive pro-rated benefits but included in the packages are very liberal tuition allowances. It is assumed that the directors will put in about 35 hours per week fulfilling their responsibilities. They are accepted to be available to students and to provide personal and academic counseling. These two areas are the major components of their responsibilities. Disciplinary power is limited to an advisory role and is exercised through the Dean of Students or Housing offices. The directors are assisted by undergraduate student assistants who are hired by committees consisting of students and representatives of the Deanís or Housing Offices. Placement of assistants within the houses/dormitories is the responsibility of the administrative office in charge of the units. The directors and their assistants are not expected to initiate programming either academic or nonóacademic. What programming does occur is organized through the Dean of Students Office or the Housing Office.

In the case of Amherst and Berkeley, faculty are associated with the residence halls. As such they are expected to eat several dinners there each month and to provide lectures, bring in outside resources, etc. depending upon the interest of the students and the faculty member.

At Brown and Carnegie-Mellon, faculty live in dormitories but take no responsibility for running the units. In these latter institutions, the faculty in the residence halls are there only because of the convenience of the housing arrangement.

GROUP III: Stanford and Cornell Universities, Rochester Institute of Technology

Each of these institutions has an organization very similar to that found in Group I. The majority of their residence units are staffed by professional directors with undergraduates serving as residence assistants and the operation falling under a Housing Office. The hiring process is controlled by the administration with little or no input from students.

These three institutions also have faculty instead of professional directors living in and running several of their small units (50 students or less). These tend to be specialty houses (language, international relations, etc.) and faculty are drawn from the department sponsoring the house. They take a very active role in student lives. The main attraction for both faculty and students to live in these houses seems to be the opportunity to be involved in an enriched academic program focused on students with like interest or majors. Faculty compensation includes a small stipend, free room and board, and, in some cases, a reduced teaching load.

GROUP IV: Harvard, Yale and Princeton

Each of these institutions is organized around "colleges"⁽¹⁾ and the "colleges" are based in the residence units. These residence units are staffed by faculty and resident tutors (almost always PhD candidates) with supporting administrative staff reporting to the master of the house. Each housemaster has at least one senior tutor (assistant dean), and in most cases three or four who assists him/her in the administration of the college. All academic advising occurs within the college and a substantial number of classes are taken there also. Senior tutors are in charge of up to 500 students and may have up to 25 resident tutors reporting to him/her. The housemaster along with several of the senior tutors, faculty and administrative deans sit on an administrative board which oversees all disciplinary matters of the college, both personal and academic. The senior tutors and housemasters have broad powers, both academic and disciplinary within their colleges. In this system, the residence life of the students and their academic life are so intertwined as to be indistinguishable.

(1) The term college denotes not only a field of study but also a physical location. In the case of each of these institutions, the residence halls making up the college are in physical proximity.

Report of the Housemaster-Tutor Program Review Committee:

Toward a Sense of Community