While housing as an integral part of the university or college has grown mainly from English institutions, American universities have in large measure embraced this concept. The character of a universityís residential system thus conceived is a reflection of its educational objectives. Those objectives which may be furthered by MIT houses therefore require some elaboration in order that the basis for our investment in dormitories may be examined clearly. As Vannevar Bush, reflecting on educational objectives in his essay for the MIT centennial has observed:
"It makes little sense to shift emphasis and methods, revise curricula, start new courses and abolish others, supplement the classroom by extracurricular efforts, unless we first define the results we would like to achieve... Still, if we are to have healthy diversity, we should insist that each effort aim at something, adopted deliberately and pursued in-tensely, instead of merely defending what may have been inherited. The argument should be on objectives at the outset."
We have nevertheless found some agreement among statements of objectives which are importantly related to houses.
Dr. Bush continues with his views toward these goals:
"The training which equipped men for the world of a generation ago will not suffice today. Yet how can we train for the world of tomorrow if we cannot know what sort of world it will be? It will still be inhabited by men, who will struggle with their environment and with their fellows. We cannot go far wrong if we do our best to impart a deep understanding of both...
"There has been no concerted recognition that a primary aim of education... must be the development of leaders who will learn to govern in a democratic political system and by their wisdom prevent it from degenerating into a mere grab bag among pressure groups... Nor have we sufficiently tackled the real job of teaching men to live with other men, to earn their confidence, not by silly schemes for influencing people, but by sheer intellectual pre-eminence and the power to render such attainment deservedly respected..."
To create an environment in which this education may indeed ëgrow and flourishí as Dr. Bush suggests, clearly requires more from the university than providing beds for those who need them. In the years 1946-51 the acute need for additional bed space implicitly transformed MIT to a residential university with the construction of Baker House in 1949 and the acquisition of Burton-Conner in 1951. MITís responsibilities beyond the provision of additional shelter were recognized at that time by Dr. James R. Killian, Jr., who was quoted in the dedication program for Baker House:
"...We want to develop an environment at MIT which performs in the broadest sense an education-al function itself, not in a passive way but in a dynamic way. The whole complex of living condi-tions, activities, and atmosphere must be skillful-ly arranged to provide the kind of environment that contributes to the development of leadership, breadth, and standards of taste and judgment among our students."
And in 1956 when Dr. Killian appointed a committee of faculty, administration, alumni, and students, charged with studying student housing at MIT, they responded in their report (Report of the Committee on Student Housing, MIT, June 1956):
"...A university is justified in undertaking the conduct of a residential system only insofar as it makes that system serve the purpose of education."
"To make it do so, the university must maintain in its residential system opportunities for the assumption of responsibility and its commensurate authority for self-government by students, for the growth among students of the ability to live and let live ... for the development in students of the capacity to understand strange or opposing points of view, customs, and preferences, and for the fostering in students of the kind of simple decorum expected in the manners, dress, and speech of educated men."
As to the aims of university education, the ëRyerí committee, as that 1956 committee came to be known, wrote (Report of the Committee on Student Housing, MIT, June 1956):
"The purpose of education, is three-fold to aid young people toward the attainment of intellectual competence, toward the development of personal and social responsibility, and toward the formation of patterns of behavior, thought, and spirit which will best foster their living happily and generously. Systems of education, ... are expressions of societyís recognition of its duty thus to aid its younger members in the earlier stages of what is in actuality a life-long endeavor...
"At many educational institutions, of which MIT is one, a powerful non-curricular agency can be utilized to facilitate realization of the full purpose of education and particularly of its second and third elements. This agency is the residential system."
It is clear that a living environment thoughtfully conceived, with our unique situation in view, with physical elements to support these objectives, can be a strong instrument with which MIT may pursue the task of educating its students.
In the following sections, those elements of a residential system in which the previously mentioned qualities may flourish are discussed.
A basic facet of MITís residential system is its diversity. The balance among fraternity, independent and Institute-owned housing facilities is encouraged and is consistent with our educational objectives. As the professional interests of the Institute expand far beyond those of the past, the variety of character and interests among the undergraduates also expands. Each type of housing possesses distinct qualities which collectively satisfy the interests of our diverse student body more than could any one program. While many universities have adopted a single housing plan where the element of choice has all but vanished, we approve of a variety of answers to the housing situation, rather than a single solution.
Further, we agree with the Ryer Committee, the Committee on Student Environment for 1961-62, the Corporation Visiting Committee on Student Affairs for 1961-62, and certain administrative officers, all of whom, after a careful study of MIT fraternities, have gone on record in support of these independent living groups.
We recognize that there are young men who wish for various reasons to reside in apartments. We do not believe that compelling them to reside on campus beyond the first year will serve our educational ends. Rather we should concentrate on developing our facilities for those who wish to take advantage of them; in so doing, it is our belief that more students will in the long run choose to live on campus.
Thus a basic element in our residence philosophy is to give our students the opportunity to choose their mode of living. Giving them this choice creates a balanced system to support their diverse interests which could not otherwise exist.
If student housing is to support MITís educational objectives then it is imperative that the faculty be strongly involved in the program. For in what better way may a student gain insight into the professional estate and the values of those who comprise it than through frequent personal associations with members of the faculty. Moreover, a meeting ground outside the classroom imparts a different view of the faculty as ëhuman beings,í with a wide range of interests that is in fact a characteristic of our faculty community. Stimulating discussions can grow over meals or informal gatherings increasing the studentsí intellectual curiosity far more effectively and on a broader scale than in lecture periods. Faculty members also may come to know students, and perhaps understand them and their problems better as a result of contact outside the classroom. We feel that this responsibility rests with the entire faculty, not merely a few assigned to the task.
We have discussed at considerable length among ourselves and with several MIT Housemasters and Faculty Residents, Masters of Yale Colleges, a Master of a Harvard House, and others the advisability of attempting a more precise ëjob descriptioní for the MIT Housemasters. We conclude that such a definition is neither possible nor desirable. Individual expression on the part of each Master is the key to establishing his own successful relationship with his students and of helping to establish a unique ëcharacterí in each of the houses.
In general, however, it can be assumed that the master acts as head of the house and carries the major share of nondirective, cooperative effort in working with student government, the house superintendent, and the dining staff within the house. He represents the house in a similar way in relations now developing with the academic and personal counseling staff. He is called upon to advise administrative officers in planning improvements for his house or others within the system, in planning counseling program developments, and for a large number of similar problems. We note the wisdom of not charging the masters or their supporting staff with specific responsibilities in the areas of academic mechanics or of discipline.
With the cooperation of the Deanís staff and information from his students, the master recruits and selects his resident fellows (senior tutors) and tutors. Depending upon the individual masterís wishes, the resident fellows (senior tutors) generally act as ëexecutive officersí in support of the master and provide leadership for academic and some personal counseling, discussion groups, interest groups, and the like.
The tutors are expected to provide mature guidance in academic, extracurricular, and personal interests of the students. Although they live among the undergraduates, the tutors are not expected figuratively ëto move iní on their students. Rather, their presence permits the development of informal relations. Some graduate students are singularly successful at this difficult-to-define task, others have found it difficult to establish the sometimes very delicate balance in personal relationships required to be effective. Too often at present, the tutors are regarded by the undergraduate students as ësolvers of homework problems,í and it is the talented tutor indeed who can capitalize successfully on the opportunity in this situation to get the students to ësee the forest instead of the trees.í
To identify and attract potentially good tutors and to provide the necessary leadership to these tutors are major problems which will continue to face the masters, resident fellows (senior tutors) and the Instituteís counseling staff.
On the basis of experiences and observations of faculty-residence systems at MIT and other universities, we view the Housemaster-Tutor plan as an excellent approach to the unique MIT problem. We feel that the plan as it is presently emerging from a very critical ëpilotí stage will require the increased support of the MIT faculty in order to reach its full potential. Considerable understanding and support has been achieved on an ad hoc basis through developing relations within the Freshman Advisory Council and the counseling staff in general.
It is important that the Housemasters continue to be selected from the faculty. It is inconsistent with our objectives to hire directors of recreation, or people who are full time housing directors. The whole history of our faculty resident system is bound up with the principle that MIT faculty and students can come to know one another better this way. Furthermore the faculty member should have been immersed in the ways of MIT for some time to be familiar with our views and goals and should continue with his scholarly responsibilities during his tenure. We do not desire to develop any ëMr. Chipsí on this campus it would be to the detriment of the students and the man to isolate him from the academic life. Nor do we think that the faculty desires to relegate this responsibility to a few of its members, thereby absolving itself of this responsibility.
To broaden the base from which senior tutors/faculty residents may be selected, we recommend that married men as well as bachelors be considered, and that quarters be altered to accommodate couples or single men.
A significant and far more widespread demonstration of interest in the residence system and support for faculty in residence is now needed. We recognize the great demands most faculty feel in their teaching, research, administrative and professional responsibilities not to mention family and community responsibilities. We therefore believe the most fruitful approach to the development of more interest in the residential system is one of nonóresident faculty involvement in the problems, the challenges, and also ëthe funí associated with the living groups. Accordingly, we expand upon the Ryer Committee recommendation of an informal development of faculty associates to recommend the establishment of a plan of non-resident ëfaculty fellowsí of the house in support of the HousemasteróTutor plan.
We propose that the fellows of an individual house be appointed for an indefinite period by the President upon the recommendation of the master and students of the particular house. The basis for the appointment need be only that of potential interest in any one of a vast number of interests of the students within the house. The responsibilities of the fellow will be simply to devote some reasonably regular time to luncheon and/or dinner and/or discussion groups with individuals or groups of students to become interested in the house and a friendly critic of its development. We believe that these associations can best be made in the spirit of our discussion in the preceding section. We therefore propose that fellows not be charged with specific academic or other responsibilities.
We would hope that, after a period of time, this plan will provide the necessary widespread informal involvement in the residence system. Indeed, the plan should also provide a basis for the identification of candidates for master, resident fellow, and tutor positions. However, we do not view the proposed nonresident fellows program as a complete solution to the problem of bringing faculty closer to the campus. We would strongly support such developments as the proposed graduate center with permanent and visiting faculty in residence or programs of on campus or near campus faculty housing. In the long run, a number of alternate approaches such as these will be required to make the campus a pleasant and stimulating living environment for faculty as well as for students.
In the longer term, we look forward also to the continuity inherent in housemaster appointments on time scales approximating decades rather than a few years. Necessarily, the tenure of graduate student tutors will probably remain on a one or twoóyear basis. If we can provide more adequate facilities for resident fellows, young married couples with one or two small children as well as bachelors can fill these posts for periods of two to five years.
The undergraduate residential system is an important contributor to the overall educational goals of the Institute, but the system must always play a supporting role to the main academic business of the classroom and laboratory. Since the curricular aspect of an undergraduateís career should (and for almost all undergraduates does) provide an intensive educational experience requiring dedication and self-discipline to a higher degree than most undergraduate programs, we emphasize the necessity of continuing to divorce the classroom and academic ëmechanicsí from the residential system.
To the newly-arrived undergraduates, the Institute presents a frightening challenge -ó a challenge which can be overwhelming to the late adolescent accustomed to smaller and generally slower-paced academic institutions and accustomed for the most part to the stability of returning to a home environment at the close of each day. We do not propose in any sense that MIT attempt to provide a continuation of all aspects of the secondary school education to postpone unwisely the necessary processes of maturation at collegiate and postógraduate levels. We do propose, however, that MIT can through diverse avenues of approach assist young men in making this sometimes difficult transition. We recognize that we are making significant strides in providing appropriate and sensitive guidance through our developing faculty counseling programs, our extraócurricular programs, and within our residential system. We believe none of these avenues forms a ëbest approach,í but that all should continue to develop to play complementary roles.
Studies in depth of the interrelations between MIT and its undergraduate students are presently being carried out by Dr. Benson R. Snyder and Professor John T. Rule. Their findings to date tend to confirm qualitative observations of many additional members of the faculty and administration. For most students, the significant personal contacts within the groups are made initially within the residential unit particularly during the earlier years. From this residential base, students then go on to gain confidence and knowledge of the Institute through professional interests within a department and through professional and extracurricular interests on an Instituteówide basis.
One problem within the residential system is therefore that of fostering early identification with a residential unit to provide a transitional ëhome.í But we must necessarily guard against so close an identification with a living group that parochial attitudes are developed toward professional (departmental), Institute, and large community educational, social and political involvements.
We therefore endorse the present Institute policies of:
The broadening aspects of living with other students of different social, economic, and ethnic backgrounds are important attributes of undergraduate life. Most of our students now experience such contact within their own groups, not with the faculty. We feel that the most fruitful in-residence faculty involvement will be achieved only if the faculty members are not in the position of program directors, classroom teachers or course graders within the house. We strongly support such activities as, the use of seminar rooms in the houses for a program of seminars at which student attendance is not compulsory and for which no form of academic credit is awarded. We would also support using such seminar rooms for occasional formal classroom instruction should certain house members sometimes wish to play host to the instructor and remaining members of the class.
We do not support the concept of the resident ëbaby deaní who handles subject registration, grade disbursement and similar academic mechanics. (Perhaps even of greater importance is our expectation that the faculty residents will continue to assume no formal disciplinary powers, as previously noted.) However, we see some distinct advantages, especially in the large, more cosmopolitan houses, in assigning all freshmen from the same house to one faculty memberís advisory group. This experiment is presently being conducted by the Freshman Advisory Council with six advisors, and we shall be interested in its results.
We recognize that at MIT many faculty and students are usually most comfortable during early conversations following first introductions if they discuss professional areas of mutual interest. We would expect that the establishment of seminar programs and discussion group topics, and the establishment of faculty advisors to various house activities will usually be initiated in areas of professional interest. Based upon past experience, however, we anticipate that the range of conversation and interests will grow rapidly from these rather narrow beginnings, until the faculty members and students find themselves in a mutual teaching-learning situation of the best kind.
To foster this kind of scholarly interplay, social interchange, and upon occasion ëjust plain funí among the undergraduates and between them and their faculty associates is a difficult task at best. It requires careful nondirective guidance on the part of the faculty and tutors in residence and the faculty and other mature persons who visit the house. To develop an inóresidence academic program on a typical required - graded ësystemí basis would place in the residences many of the same difficult stumbling blocks to this ëindirectí education which we presently experience in classroom situations.
A most important educational strength in our undergraduate residential system and one which is almost unique to MIT is our strong and responsible student government. Although student government has exhibited many shortcomings in the past, we now find ourselves with fraternity and dormitory governmental systems which, on balance, exhibit exceptional imagination, insight and mature responsibility.
We recognize as did the Ryer Committee that many problems plague student self-government. Substantial progress has been made since the Ryer Report in improving the relations between student government and the faculty and administration on the other. One important factor in achieving more constructive attitudes has been the mutual self-examination by students and administration called for by the Ryer Committee. We now have achieved a clearer understanding of the areas of responsibility which are properly within the province of student government and those which are necessarily the province of Institute administrative offices. Notable among these understandings is that reached among the studentsí judicial committees, the Faculty Committee on Discipline and the Deanís office.
Many problems still remain. Small groups of irresponsible persons still continue to plague the more crowded dormitories; and the ëwhatís in it for me?í attitude continues to make the task of responsible student leaders at times most difficult. Frustrating as many of these actions and the attitudes may be, we can neither turn our backs upon the educational responsibility implied nor can legislate the problems out of existence. Our undergraduates deserve our strong, non-directive support as they learn and as they teach each other.
One of the most effective ways for men to learn the practice of leadership among their peers is via a self-governing system. The seeds of citizenship may be implanted in students by one another, if given the opportunity and the latitude by an institution to act. It matters little that the problems may be petty, that the government acts imperfectly, or that the students are beset by apathy and indifference from some of their colleagues and pressure from others. For in this sense, the model is closest to the society around them, and they must learn to work in an imperfect environment. In this setting our objectives will be most closely approached when, as noted in the Ryer Report, "The students find, for one thing, that student government is one element in a partnership in which sever-al groups work together for the advancement of learning, for the enrichment of the minds and lives of young people, and for the durable satisfaction of joint achievement in an arduous undertaking ... and that to take up responsibility for others, however slight or utilitarian, is to find self-realization, self-mastery, and humility."
It is interesting to infer the implied assessment of values of various aspects of residential life by comparing space assignments to various functions within our pre-sent residential system and at other educational institutions. In particular, we have reviewed the breakdown of space in the old and new Yale and Harvard Houses, new Boston University dormitories, new Tufts dormitory, and our present dormitories.
We have attempted to assess the merits of their systems in light of our goals for MIT. We conclude that while we should attempt to establish assignment of space approaching the Harvard scale as distinct from the B.U. or Tufts scale, our buildings must reflect a desire for economy in construction and simplicity in design.
With the objectives which we have set forth in mind, we discuss those elements which should be considered in planning MITís residential system.