MIT Presidential Task Force
on Student Life and Learning

Results of the 1997 MIT Faculty Survey

Overview

The Task Force on Student Life and Learning was charged last fall by President Vest to review the educational processes of the Institute and the interaction between student life and learning as MIT moves forward into the next century. During the first year of its efforts, the Task Force solicited broad input to help identify fundamental educational challenges and opportunities facing MIT that would likely have long-term implications for MIT's educational mission. Through meetings, correspondence, focused interviews, and workshops, the Task Force gathered input from undergraduate and graduate students, alumni/ae, parents, Institute executives and administrators, and government and industry representatives.

The Task Force sought particularly to solicit the insight and perspective of the Faculty regarding the role and future of MIT. In addition to meeting and corresponding with individuals, department heads, and school councils and sponsoring a workshop for junior faculty, the Task Force sent to all MIT Faculty, teaching and instructional staff in February an exploratory survey intended to solicit and focus input on student life and learning issues. Reminders and duplicate copies of the survey were mailed in May. This article reports the results of the survey.

The findings of the survey indicated general consensus on the following:

Survey Design

Survey questions were designed in free-response and open comment formats so as not to influence the type or direction of responses and to allow faculty to discuss freely issues of personal interest or concern. Faculty were invited to focus on those questions on which they had the most insight or the strongest opinions and to omit any questions they wished not to answer. The first section of the survey consisted of free-response questions, followed by an open comment section inviting faculty to identify and comment on other issues important to student life and learning at MIT.

The free-response questions focused on the topics below:

The second section asked for the following demographic information:

Demographics

The survey was sent to all 1448 members of the MIT teaching and instructional staff. One-hundred sixteen responses were received (59 professors, 18 associate professors, 12 senior lecturers, 11 assistant professors, 6 professors emeriti, one instructor, one adjunct professor, and one "other"; seven did not indicate their rank). Eighty-four identified themselves as male, twelve as female, and twenty did not indicate their sex. The average number of years teaching at MIT was 18 (of the 109 who responded to the question), and the average age was 48 (of the 90 who responded to this question). Of the 83 who indicated their department, the school distribution was as follows (Table 1):

Table 1: Survey Responses Received by School (n=116).
School Number of faculty (as of 10/96 Number of surveys returned (total of 116 % returned by school
Architecture
71
5
7%
Engineering
314
39
12%
Humanities/Social Sciences
139
18
13%
Management
75
2
3%
Science
262
19
7%
Did not indicate affiliation
---
33
---

Faculty were asked whether they teach primarily undergraduate students, graduate students, or both. Fifty-three indicated that they teach both, 29 that they teach primarily undergraduates, and 26 that they teach primarily graduate students. Eight did not respond. Of those who responded, the average number of UROP students was 2.6, the average number of postdoctoral associates was 2, the average number of non-Ph.D. graduate students was 3.6, and the average number of Ph.D. students was 3.8.

Analysis Method

The analysis of the Task Force survey responses reflects the limitations of a free-response and open comment design. The responses and comments for each question were analyzed and sorted into related categories, which were then tallied by numerical frequency and percentage of respondees providing answers in each. (Note that respondees could indicate more than one answer for each question.) As this exploratory survey was intended simply to identify key issues for faculty, the analysis did not include tests for size or representative accuracy of the sample or statistical significance of the response data. These factors should be considered in interpreting the results below.

(to top of page)(to top of page)

Results

Fundamental Values of the Institute

 The first question, "What do you consider to be the fundamental values of the Institute that should be retained and protected as we move into the future?," yielded 109 responses, which included 221 answers that could be grouped into a broad range of categories including science and technology, excellence, combination of teaching and research, intellectual freedom, service to society, ethics/integrity, and meritocracy. Numerical frequencies and percentages are provided in Table 2.

Table 2: Fundamental values of the Institute.
Fundamental values Number of answers (total of 221, provided by 109 respondees) % of respondees providing this answer
Science and technology
48
44.0%
Excellence
39
35.7%
Combination of teaching/research
26
23.9%
Intellectual freedom
22
20.2%
Service to society
18
16.5%
Ethics/integrity
12
11.0%
Meritocracy/best students
10
9.1%
Intellectual breadth
9
8.3%
Hands-on experience
7
5.9%
Research
7
5.9%
Teaching basic & applied science
6
5.5%
Hard work
5
4.6%
Innovation
5
4.6%
Diversity
4
3.7%
Collegial atmosphere
2
1.8%
Being different
1
1.0%

(to top of page)(to top of page)

Key External Factors Likely to Influence MIT

 One-hundred one respondees listed 247 key external factors likely to influence the way MIT will evolve as an educational institution over the next 20 to 30 years. Those most frequently mentioned included, in descending order: technology, funding, changing government and political roles, competition, world economy, and cost of education. Numerical frequencies and percentage of respondees providing these answers are provided in Table 3.

Table 3: External factors likely to influence MIT.
External factors Number of answers (total of 247, provided by 101 respondees) % of respondees providing this answer
Technology
37
36.7%
Funding
32
31.7%
Changing government /political roles
31
30.6%
Competition
26
25.7%
World economy/global society
26
25.7%
Cost of education
24
23.8%
Demographic changes
17
16.8%
Changing societal values
17
16.8%
Internationalization of students
12
11.9%
Industry
11
10.9%
Societal/environmental concerns
7
6.9%
Secondary education
4
4.0%
Increased importance of broad education
3
2.9%

(to top of page)(to top of page)

Effects of International Trends and Globalization to MIT

 Ninety-five respondees provided 111 likely effects of international trends and globalization on MIT over the next 20 to 30 years, most of which pointed to change, from the levels of international collaboration and competition, to the makeup of the student body, to the use of educational technology (see Table 4). Many of those who predicted change in the student body speculated that there will be increased polarization of classes at MIT and worldwide.

Table 4: Effects of international trends and globalization.
Effects of international trends and globalization Number of answers (total of 111, provided by 95 respondees) % of respondees providing this answer
Increased international collaboration
31
32.6%
Student body will change
24
25.3%
Increased international competition
23
24.2%
No effect on MIT
10
10.5%
Will enrich MIT
9
9.5%
Don't know
7
7.4%
Increased use of educational technology
5
5.3%
Curriculum will change
2
2.1%

(to top of page)(to top of page)

Elements Defining a Well Educated Individual

 In response to a question regarding elements that define a well educated individual, faculty provided a wide range of criteria ranging in categories from academic, to personal, to social. Nearly half of the 98 who responded listed a fundamental base of science and technology as a defining element of a well educated individual that is unlikely to change over the next 20 to 30 years. Approximately one third listed a well-rounded liberal education and communications skills as defining elements. Other responses are included in Table 5.

Table 5: Elements that define a well educated individual.
Elements of a well educated individual Number of answers (total of 224, provided by 98 respondees) % of respondees providing this answer
Fundamental base of science/technology
46
46.9%
Well-rounded, liberally educated
31
31.6%
Communication skills
30
30.6%
Social awareness
19
19.4%
Analytical skills
15
15.3%
Cultural exposure
15
15.3%
Ability to apply knowledge
14
14.3%
Self education
14
14.3%
Teamwork/collaborative skills
11
11.2%
Intellectual curiosity/creativity
11
11.2%
Facility w/ complex systems/organizations
7
7.1%
Sound judgment
5
5.1%
Conversant with information technology
4
4.1%
Integrity/ethics
2
2.0%

How Information Technologies May Affect the Pedagogy of Teaching

 Responses to the question, "In your view, how will information technologies (e.g. World Wide Web) affect the pedagogy of teaching over the next 20 to 30 years and how should MIT respond?" were somewhat difficult to analyze and categorize, as some faculty responded to the former part of the question and some the latter. Although responses reflected a range of opinions, a significant number of respondees suggested that the WWW could enhance, but should not replace, current teaching methods.

(to top of page)(to top of page)

Potential Need to Modify the Educational Mission or Specific Graduation Requirements at MIT

 When asked whether the changes mentioned in the questions above suggested a need to modify the educational mission of MIT or specific graduation requirements, 46 responded no, 44 responded yes, and 26 responded that they were unsure. Fifty-nine specific suggestions for how MIT should modify or change included the following (see Table 6):

Table 6: Suggested modifications of the educational mission or specific graduation requirements at MIT.
Suggested modifications of the educational mission or specific graduation requirements at MIT Number of answers (total of 59, provided by 44 respondees) % of respondees providing this answer
Add communications or language requirement
11
25.0%
Broader academic focus
11
25.0%
More I/T focus
8
18.2%
More flexibility/options
7
15.9%
Changes to graduate degree requirements
5
11.4%
Respond to students' personal/social dev't.
4
9.1%
Add to UG degree requirements
3
6.8%
Extra year
2
4.5%
More professional education
2
4.5%
Inquiry-based educational model
1
2.3%
More internships
1
2.3%
More interdepartmental collaboration
1
2.3%
More lab time
1
2.3%
Simple need for change
1
2.3%
More independent study
1
2.3%

(to top of page)(to top of page)

Relationship Between Teaching and Research

 An overwhelming majority (91 of the 106) who responded suggested that the interaction between their teaching and research is positive. Five said that the interaction was neutral, four that it was negative, six that they were unsure, and ten did not answer (see Table 7):

Table 7: Interaction between teaching and research.
Interaction between teaching and research Number of answers (total of 106) % of respondees providing this answer
Positive 91 85.9%
Unsure 6 5.7%
Neutral 5 4.7%
Negative 4 3.8%

(to top of page)(to top of page)

Faculty Responsibility as Regards the Intellectual and Personal Development of Students Outside of Research and Classroom Activities

When asked to what extent MIT and its Faculty have the responsibility to contribute to the intellectual and personal development of students outside of research and classroom activities, 47 proposed that MIT and its faculty have a high level of responsibility, 37 proposed a moderate level of responsibility (many of these commenting that the status quo seemed to be adequate), 16 proposed no responsibility, and 14 did not answer the question.

Factors Driving Pace and Pressure at MIT

 Respondees identified various institutional, cultural, and personal factors driving pace and pressure at MIT (see Table 8). Responses indicated that there may have been some confusion as to whether the question referred to pace and pressure for students, for faculty, or for both. Nonetheless, 43 suggested that MIT should attempt to mitigate pace and pressure at MIT, 20 suggested that MIT need not do so (many of these asserting that the level of pace and pressure is an integral part of the MIT culture), and 53 did not respond or were undecided.

Table 8: Factors driving pace and pressure.
Factors driving pace and pressure

Number of answers (total of 134, provided by 104 respondees)

 % of respondees providing this answer
Self motivation/drive/ambition 34 32.7%
MIT culture 23 22.1%
Competition 18 17.3%
Curriculum 14 13.5%
Appointment/promotion/tenure system 13 12.5%
Shrinking funding 10 9.5%
Opportunities 5 4.8%
Increasing amount of knowledge in field 5 4.8%
Bureaucracy 4 3.8%
Reengineering 4 3.8%
Committees 2 1.9%
Technical demands 1 0.9%
Academic calendar 1 0.9%

(to top of page)(to top of page)

Factors Encouraging/Discouraging Faculty Members

 The Task Force asked two questions about the factors that make the respondees feel most and least successful as faculty. Among factors yielding the greatest feeling of success were interaction with students, research, and teaching successes (see Table 9). The principal factors leading to feelings of least success were unpleasant interactions with students, funding pressures, and workload (see Table 10).

Table 9: Factors that make faculty feel most successful.
Factors that make faculty feel most successful Number of answers (total of 160, provided by 95 respondees) % of respondees providing this answer
Interactions with students/graduates
44
46.3%
Research
39
41.1%
Teaching successes
36
37.9%
Positive feedback/recognition
15
15.7%
External impact
9
9.4%
Free inquiry
5
5.3%
The MIT environment
4
4.2%
Excellent support
3
3.2%
Interactions with colleagues/peers
3
3.2%
Time for reflection
1
1.0%
Publication
1
1.0%

Table 10: Factors that make faculty feel least successful.
Factors that make faculty feel least successful Number of answers (total of 120, provided by 95 respondees) % of respondees providing this answer
Politics/administrativia/bureaucracy
27
28.4%
Unpleasant interactions with students
22
23.2%
Funding pressures
17
17.9%
Workload
12
12.6%
Institute recognition/reward structures
8
8.4%
MIT environment
7
7.3%
Problems with colleagues
7
7.3%
Wasted time
6
6.3%
MIT's focus
5
5.3%
Curricular/teaching issues
4
4.2%
Lack of community
2
12.6%
Conflicting responsibilities
2
2.1%
Outside demands on time
1
1.0%

(to top of page)(to top of page)

Types of Contact Faculty Have With Students

 The final question asked what types of contact faculty have with students outside the classroom and what barriers, if any, prevent faculty and students from having more informal contact. The first question yielded 181 answers from 102 respondees, which included the following types of contact: undergraduate advising, meals/drinks/socializing, graduate advising/mentoring, counseling, extra-curricular activities/organizations, UROP, dorm, informal conversation, and housemaster. Five respondees reported that that they had little contact with students outside the classroom, and five indicated that they did not wish to have contact with students outside the classroom. For numerical frequencies, see Table 11.

Table 11: Types of student/faculty contact.
Types of student/faculty contact Number of answers (total of 180, provided by 102 respondees) % of respondees providing this answer
Undergraduate advising
51
50.0%
Meals/drinks/socializing
48
47.1%
Graduate advising/mentoring
23
22.5%
Counseling
20
19.6%
Extra-curricular activities/organizations
11
10.8%
No answer
9
8.8%
UROP
7
6.9%
Dorm
6
5.9%
Don't wish to
5
4.9%
Not much
5
4.9%
Informal conversation
4
3.9%
Housemaster
1
1.0%

(to top of page)(to top of page)

Barriers Preventing More Informal Student/Faculty Contact

 A majority of respondees (51 of the 94 who responded to the second part of the question) listed lack of time as a barrier preventing faculty and students from having more informal contact. Other barriers preventing more faculty student contact included: lack of physical structures to support it (7), faculty living at a distance from campus (7), lack of support from the MIT culture and/or reward structure (6), the difficult role of being both a teacher and a friend (4), shyness (4), age differences (4), no inclination (4), and consideration for students' privacy (1).

In the final section of the survey, faculty were invited to comment on other issues important to student life and learning at MIT. Respondees provided comments and suggestions on issues including facilities, curriculum, pace and pressure, role of the faculty, and grading.

In Conclusion

The Task Force wishes to thank all who contributed and responded to the survey and appreciates the opportunity to have heard the voices of the many faculty who cared to communicate their thoughts, concerns, and suggestions regarding the present and future of MIT. The Task Force invites individuals or groups who are so inclined to communicate freely with the Task Force -- by email (learning@mit.edu), correspondence (MIT Rm. 4-117), or in person with individual Task Force Members -- on the above-mentioned or other issues of interest or concern.
mit
Updated 11/6/97