MIT Presidential Task Force
on Student Life and Learning
Summary of Discussions from the 1997
Task Force Junior Faculty Workshop
On January 21, 1997, the Task Force on Student Life and Learning sponsored a
workshop for junior faculty for the purpose of soliciting junior faculty
input to the Task Force through non-traditional interaction. In a letter
inviting all junior faculty to participate, President Vest wrote:
It is important that members of the Task Force hear from you the
generation of faculty who will shape the university of the next century.
This workshop will provide you with an excellent opportunity to become
involved with the process of defining MIT's future and will challenge you
to think broadly about MIT's mission. At the same time, this is an opportunity
for you to reflect on your own career in a broader context and to meet
your colleagues.
Approximately 75 participants (nearly one-third of junior
faculty members at MIT) attended the workshop. After Task Force co-chairs
R. John Hansman and Robert J. Silbey provided a brief summary of the history,
charge, and activities-to-date of the Task Force on Student Life and Learning,
Professor Jesus del Alamo, who coordinated the event on behalf of the Task
Force, explained that participants would be separated into six breakout
groups to discuss and report back to the larger group on the following six
questions:
What establishes MIT's reputation in its various areas of activity?
Where does MIT stand in comparison with other institutions in these different
areas?
What are the personal goals of faculty members and how do they relate
to MIT's educational mission? How does MIT support these goals?
What are the forces for change that are likely to affect MIT over the
next 20-30 years? What are the implications for MIT? Are there barriers
to change?
What are the elements of the job description of an MIT faculty member?
What percentage of a faculty member's effort is typically dedicated to
each element? Which of these elements impact learning? How should this
change to further MIT's educational mission?
What is the quality of the undergraduate and graduate student experience
at MIT? What can we do to enhance the experience?
What will define a well-educated person in the 21st century? How do
we deliver such an education?
During the breakout sessions, each group elected a representative to
present a summary of their discussions to the larger group. Summaries presented
by each of the groups are as follows:
1. MIT's Reputation
The five leading elements that have established MIT's current reputation
are, in descending order:
- excellence in research
- graduate education
- professional leadership
- societal impact
MIT's reputation in the future will depend on:
t
- he continued vitality of its research enterprise
- its relationships with industry
- its ability tomaintain an intellectually stimulating environment
- the application of research to problems with societal implications
- teaching its students how to learn (rather than simply imparting factual knowledge)
- innovative applications for continuing education
- its ability to increase students' self esteem
(to top of page)
2. Goals of Faculty Members
Members of the second group, who discussed personal goals of faculty members,
suggested that the goals of faculty include "inner-originating" and "outer-originating"
goals.
"Inner-originating" goals of faculty include:
- making an impact on the outside world (i.e., societal contribution)
- personal and intellectual growth
- opportunity to explore the intellectual ambiance at MIT
- interaction with excellent students
- pursuit of their own research
- participation in collaborative and interdisciplinary work
"Outer-originating" goals, or those which are part of the Institutional structure include:
- securing tenure
- securing funding
- finding a good balance between work and life
- teaching
- mentoring
- building program reputation
As regards these goals, group members outlined the support MIT provides its faculty:
- seed funding
- release time
- the MIT "name"
- a reasonable teaching load
- excellent students
- an interdisciplinary environment
They suggested that MIT could enhance the environment for junior faculty by providing:
- broadened (not increased) tenure criteria that integrate the value of teaching and curricular development
- better opportunity for "life outside MIT"
- opportunity to better develop a sense of ownership
- clearer criteria for advancement and better mentoring
- a better balance of life inside vs. outside MIT, and research vs. teaching
(to top of page)
3. Forces for Change
This group classified the forces affecting MIT as technical, economic, and social.
Technical forces for change included:
- an increasing knowledge base
- increasing complexity of how scientists interact
- the need for life-long learning caused by the rapid change of information
Economic forces for change included:
- reactions to tuition
- the changing nature of funding sources
Social forces for change included:
- changes in student demographics (ethnic, cultural, academic preparation levels)
- changes in life-cycles (i.e., timing of post high school and graduate school attendance
- a rise in the part-time student population
- changing definitions of basic literacy levels
- heightened interest in environmental sustainability
- higher levels of computer skills and understanding amongst students;
- a rise in the number of female professionals
- more people trying to balance family and career obligations (male and female)
Cutting across areas, members suggested that the declining perceived value
of basic research is both an economic and social force for change, and that
the job demands of the 21st century (the fading concept of life-long jobs
creating a need for changing skills) is a social, technical, and economic
force for change.
Given the above forces for change, group members suggested that MIT should consider:
- faculty development, requiring changes in faculty incentives
- supporting lifelong learning for MIT's undergraduate alumni by taking advantageof new technologies
- re-thinking the core skills it should provide its undergraduates
- the Institute's social responsibility to bring and apply its knowledge to society
- continued experimentation and innovation in the arena of education
Group members suggested that barriers to change included:
- MIT's existing culture (which fears change and includes tenured faculty's resistance to change)
- finances (especially for cost of remote facilities and faculty development)
- possible devaluation of the S.B. degree if it's given remotely
- increased stratification of the education levels of the U.S. students
(to top of page)
4. Faculty "Job Description"
The job description of a faculty member at MIT includes the following five elements:
- research (perceived as the highest priority)
- teaching (an important element, but follows research)
- administration
- service
- student interactions outside classroom
There was no clear consensus on a unified description, as it seemed to vary
amongst disciplines and departments at MIT. There was, however, agreement
on the "ultimate job description", which is "to become a leader in the world and to teach."
This group noted several conflicts in trying to meet this job description:
- As regards the balance between research and teaching, the need to work in "trendy" new areas moves areas of
expertise away from established practice and makes it difficult to keep the curriculum up to date. There is also a
perception among students that "research counts more than teaching" for faculty at MIT, which strains MIT's
reputation.
- Faculty interaction with the students outside the classroom needs more recognition. While it is relatively easy to
measure the impact of research, it is difficult to measure the impact of such interaction on students. MIT should care
deeply about student opinion on this issue.
- Students are never asked for input in faculty promotions (as seems to be done at other institutions).
The group summarized two additional points of consensus:
- teaching is an attractive part of the job, as it has direct impact
- MIT should develop a way to assess the impact that faculty members have on the lives of their students
(to top of page)
5. Quality of the Student Experience at MIT
As regards the quality of undergraduate life, this group identified several
negative cultural elements of MIT:
- exhaustion -
- huge workload
- late drop date adding to anxiety
- pass/fail serving to increase students' workload
- the perceived lesser importance of the Humanities
- pressure
- unhappiness
- love/hate relationships with MIT
- some bad affects resulting from MIT's flexible environment
- lack of balance
- lack of humanistic values
- environment of social-ineptitude
Positive cultural elements for undergraduates included one-on-one interaction
with faculty available through programs such as UROP and the external relevance
to students' work.
The group commented that faculty can help students by providing:
- coping strategies and guidance
- teaching learning skills
- advising students to try to enjoy their experience
- helping students to improve their self esteem
- teaching better communication skills
- better respecting each others' time
- teaching social skills, which are becoming an economic necessity
As regards graduate student life, group members suggested that negative
cultural elements included:
- lengthy programs
- ever-expanding requirements
- financial (RA/TA funding) difficulties
- the need for more meaningful interactions with faculty and for enhancement of current support structures
Group members noted that Masters students are becoming almost a category
of their own and that new campus dormitories are a necessity.
(to top of page)
6. Elements of an Educated Individual
Group six discussed the elements of a well-educated person in the 21st century
and how do MIT might deliver such an education. Group members commented
that, working under the assumption that knowledge bases are increasing,
MIT must realize it can't teach everything and must be able to teach flexibility.
Defining qualities of well-educated person in the 21st century included:
- problem solving capability
- creativity
- ability to solve fuzzy and well-structured problems
- ability to work with multiple ways of representation
- ability to self-educate
- intellectual independence
- motivation to learn
- communications skills (oral, written, teamwork and interpersonal skills)
- global awareness and vision
- a sense of human responsibility
- a sense of ethics
Members noted that in addition to the above (the tools), students still
need discipline specific learning (the core), and suggested that MIT could
deliver this by offering:
- interdisciplinary courses
- continuing educational courses and programs
- distance and remote learning options
- a variety of size of subjects
- "in context" delivery through internships
- partnerships with industry
- hands-on courses, and by maintaining its depth of expertise and teaching real-world contexts and global
implications
Possible teaching models include:
- apprenticeship models (such as UROP)
- team teaching
- design courses
- integrating different subjects through projects
(to top of page)
* * * * *
Following the group reports, Professor Silbey thanked participants for their
valuable input, and opened the floor for questions and comments.
World Change
Following a comment regarding world change, some participants suggested
that MIT should become an innovator and a leader as regards world change,
rather than simply adapting to it.
Curricular Development
Following a participant's comment that although many junior faculty would
indeed like to be involved in the development of the 21st century curriculum,
they must devote their time to activities necessary for tenure, another
participant suggested that curricular development should be given a higher
level of institutional legitimacy.
Valuing Teaching
Participants agreed that:
- Teaching should be given more value at MIT.
- MIT should design mechanisms to measure the success of students and the impact of teaching.
Responsibility to Students Outside the Classroom
Professor Hansman noted that faculty tend to talk about the academic part
of their responsibility and suggested that the group should discuss briefly
their responsibility to students outside the classroom. Many participants
agreed that the Faculty has distinct non-academic responsibilities to students,
but commented that the institutional incentive system does not value these
non-academic factors. One participant pointed out that UROP is one of very
few points of interaction outside the classroom between undergraduates and
faculty. Others commented that the quality of student advising at MIT is
quite poor; there is little opportunity to teach in the advising role unless
faculty realize the opportunity.
International Exposure/Experience
A participant commented that MIT should better prepare its students for
careers and lives in international settings. Those present agreed that,
given that approximately 25% of the MIT faculty was born outside the U.S.
and approximately 25% of MIT students come from homes where a foreign language
is spoken as the primary language, MIT already has tremendous resources
in this regard.
Updated 11/6/97