M IT F a culty N ewsletterweb.mit.edu/fnl/volume/201/fnl201.pdf · at M IT is sh ort lived , an d m...

in this issue we offer a call for nominations to the Newsletter EditorialBoard (p. 4); Ernst Frankel on “America’s Infrastructure Engineering Dilemma” (p. 10);an update on the recommendations of the Task Force on the UndergraduateEducational Commons (p. 12); and a “Who’s Who in the MIT Administration” (p. 22).

MITFacultyNewsletter

Vol. XX No. 1September/October 2007

http://web.mit.edu/fnl

MassachusettsInstitute ofTechnology

John Belcher and Jonathan King

continued on page 6

Bish Sanyal

From The Faculty ChairFacultyRepresentation?How?

continued on page 3

20th Anniversary ofFNL: A Brief Historyof its Founding

TH I S COM I NG MARCH 10, 2008 willmark the twentieth anniversary of the“zeroth” issue of the MIT FacultyNewsletter (FNL). Institutional memoryat MIT is short lived, and many at theInstitute now have little knowledge of theevents 20 years ago that led to the found-ing of the FNL. We think it is appropriateat this juncture to review that history.

This is not a question of revisitingevents long past that are no longer rele-vant. Indeed, the recent near-death expe-rience of the Newsletter underscores thefact that many of the same issues thatmotivated its founding are alive and welltoday (see the article entitled “The Saga ofthe Struggle for Survival of the FacultyNewsletter” in the March/April 2007 issueat web.mit.edu/fnl/volume/195/me.html).There are many reasons we think that thecontinued existence of the FNL is impor-

Newsletter Staff

M I T FAC U LT Y R E A D T H E FacultyNewsletter more than any other campuspublication, according to results of theInstitute Communication Survey admin-istered last March. Nearly 87% of facultywho responded said they regularly oroccasionally read the Newsletter, whileonly 2.5% said they were aware of theNewsletter but never read it. Tech Talk wasthe second most read publication byfaculty, with a little more than 78%reading it regularly or occasionally (seegraph, page 8).

Regarding MIT online resources orWebsites, 73% of faculty who have visitedit said they found the Newsletter Websiteeither very or somewhat valuable, secondin percentage to only the MIT NewsWebsite, with a little more than 77% offaculty finding it very or somewhat valu-able (see graph, page 8).

Newsletter MostPopular Among MIT Faculty

continued on page 8

O N E K E Y R E S P O N S I B I L I T Y O FMIT faculty officers is to convey wishesand concerns of the faculty to the seniormembers of the administration. But howdo we as faculty officers come to know ofyour preferences or concerns?

At the moment, there are three waysyou can communicate with the facultyofficers, even though some of you maynot be aware of any of these options. Infact, some of you may not be aware thatthere are three individuals, includingmyself, who are your faculty officers! (Inaddition to myself, the two other facultyofficers for 2007-2009 are: MelissaNobles, Vice Chair of the Faculty, andBevin Engelward, Secretary of theFaculty.) Nevertheless, we want you toknow that your first option is: You cancontact any one of us directly and meetwith us either in our offices, or you can

MIT Community Picnic

Vol. XX No. 1 September/October 2007

2

The MIT FacultyNewsletterEditorial Board

Alice AmsdenUrban Studies & Planning

*John BelcherPhysics

Nazli ChoucriPolitical Science

Erik DemaineElectrical Engineering & Computer Science

Olivier de WeckAeronautics & Astronautics/Engineering Systems

Ernst G. FrankelMechanical Engineering

Stephen C. GravesManagement Science/Engineering Systems

Jean E. JacksonAnthropology

Gordon KaufmanManagement Science/Statistics

*Jonathan KingBiology

*Stephen J. LippardChemistry

David H. MarksCivil & Environmental Engineering

Fred MoavenzadehCivil & Environmental Engineering/Engineering Systems

Ronald PrinnEarth, Atmospheric & Planetary Sciences

David ThorburnLiterature

*George VergheseElectrical Engineering & Computer Science

Rosalind H. WilliamsScience, Technology, & Society/Writing

David LewisManaging Editor

*Editorial Sub-Committee for this issue

AddressMIT Faculty NewsletterBldg. 11-268Cambridge, MA 02139

Websitehttp://web.mit.edu/fnl

Telephone 617-253-7303Fax 617-253-0458E-mail [email protected]

Subscriptions$15/year on campus$20/year off campus

From The 01 Faculty Representation? How?Faculty Chair Bish Sanyal

01 Newsletter Most Popular Among MIT Faculty

01 20th Anniversary of FNL: A Brief History of its Founding

04 A Call for Nominations to the Newsletter Editorial Board

Editorial 05 Transparency and Communication

05 Hockfield to Write on “State of the Institute”in Next NewsletterDavid Lewis

07 Teaching this fall? You should know . . .

MIT Poetry 09 machinegunnerJoe Haldeman

10 America’s Infrastructure Engineering DilemmaErnst G. Frankel

11 Is it Time for a New Manhattan Project?William Schreiber

12 Update on the Implementation of the Recommendations of the Task Force on the Undergraduate Educational CommonsDiana Henderson

14 Experimental Project-Based Subjects:A Hit with StudentsEduardo Kausel

16 Faculty Calendar

17 Student Systems – A Vision for the FutureLarry Benedict, Jerry Grochow, Dan Hastings, Steve Lerman

18 MIT 1st in Engineering, 7th Overall in Latest U.S. News Rankings

19 Combining Investment with Philanthropy:Faculty and the MIT EndowmentSarah E. Rowley

20 Proficiency in Customary UnitsEduardo Kausel

22 Who’s Who in the MIT Administration

M.I.T. Numbers 24 Campus Population in Representative Years: % Change and Absolute Numbers

contents

Photo credit: Page 1, David Lewis

MIT Faculty NewsletterSeptember/October 2007

3

tant to the MIT community, and the bestway to illuminate those reasons is toreview the events that led to its foundingin the first place.

On January 6, 1988, faculty membersof the 43-year-old Department of AppliedBiological Sciences, then Course 20, wereinformed by the MIT administration thatthe department would be phased out overthe course of the coming 18 months. Thedepartment at that time consisted ofabout 200 members, including 24 faculty,86 graduate students, plus undergraduatemajors and support personnel. In a subse-quent article in The Boston Globe ofFebruary 2, 1988, MIT officials werequoted as saying that the plans to phaseout the department arose “. . .because it isnot meeting the intellectual standardsexpected of a department at MIT. . .” Thefollowing paragraph is from the samearticle:

“While no jobs will be immediately lost,MIT officials said some tenured and non-tenured faculty may end up leaving theInstitute. They said ‘every effort’ would bemade to place tenured faculty in otherdepartments, but no guarantees have beenextended to faculty, or to secretaries andother support staff. Four non-tenured assis-tant professors may lose their jobs when thecurrent contracts expire. Graduate studentsin the department will be allowed to finishtheir degrees.”

The response to this disbanding of thedepartment was immediate and over-whelmingly negative. Graduate studentsin the department circulated a petitionwith over 110 signatures, maintaining thatstatements by the administration in theGlobe as well as those “. . .appearing inScience and in other scientific journalsseemed to publicly label the faculty andstudents as second rate. The question isnot only whether MIT will award degreesto current students, but whether thosedegrees have been discredited, said aresearch associate who had gotten a grad-

uate degree from the department…” [TheTech, February 19, 1988]. At the regularlyscheduled faculty meeting in February,every faculty member who spokedeplored the decision-making processused in disbanding the department.“Professor Gerald Wogan, the head of thedepartment, read a letter from the depart-ment faculty which expressed ‘disagree-ment with the decision’ and‘disappointment with the surprisingprocess’ by which the department was dis-banded. The letter said the process lacked‘due process and adequate review’ andnoted that the faculties were not given ‘theopportunity to respond professionallyand effectively to criticism’” [The Tech,February 19, 1988].

As a result of the March facultymeeting, an Ad Hoc Committee onReorganization and Closing of AcademicUnits was formed whose members wereGlen Berchtold, John Essigmann, MorrisHalle, Henry Jacoby, Phillip Sharp, ArthurSmith, and Sheila Widnall (Chair). Thecomplete report of this committee wasdistributed to the faculty prior to the May 18, 1988 faculty meeting. The conclu-sions of that report are online at web.mit.edu/jbelcher/www/ABS/,and we quote two of theparagraphs from those conclusions.

“It is the view of this committee, and webelieve of the faculty at large, that a key tothe success of the Institute his been the main-tenance of a system of shared governance.Few of the MIT faculty see themselves in anemployee-employer relationship with theAdministration. Rather, most feel that theAdministration and faculty share a jointresponsibility for sustaining the excellence ofthe Institute. They expect that, when impor-tant choices arise about mission or internalorganization, they will naturally be involvedin the process leading up to decisions and inthe planning of implementation.”

. . .

“Aside from the issue of shared responsibil-ity, a source of concern in this case arisesfrom the collective regard of the faculty forone another. It is the perception of the

faculty that members of ABS were poorlytreated in the process: the unfavorable pub-licity that impacted their careers, the lack ofunderstanding and communication by theAdministration as to the nature of theInstitute’s commitment to their careers, thelack of consultation prior to the decision,and the announcement of the decisionwithout a detailed plan for assuring thecontinuity of the careers of the faculty. Thisis not acceptable treatment of facultymembers at MIT by its administration. Theincident raised apprehension in the mindsof many about the meaning of tenure andthe obligations to junior faculty, other MITpersonnel and students. We believe thefaculty needs a clear statement on theseissues and below we make recommenda-tions to this effect.”

One of the lasting results of the ABSclosing was the fact that the changes inPolicies and Procedures recommended by theWidnall Committee were subsequentlyadopted. In the recent merger of theMechanical Engineering and OceanEngineering Departments, these procedureswere carefully followed, but few currentfaculty members know the history that ledto the adoption of those procedures.

The second lasting change (at least sofar) resulting from the ABS closing wasthe founding of the MIT FacultyNewsletter. At the time of the dissolutionof the ABS department, MIT facultymembers preparing a petition calling for areversal of the administration’s actionshad difficulty in circulating the draftbroadly due to the unwillingness of theadministration to make faculty mailinglists available. In addition, with the facultymeeting agenda set and the facultymeeting chaired by the President, fullyopen discussion was not easy. The FNLemerged as an effort to establish openlines of communication among faculty. Inthe zeroth issue of the Newsletter, which isonline at web.mit.edu/fnl/volume/201/fnl00.pdf, Vera Kistiakowsky wrote:

“A group of faculty members which hasbeen discussing the recent events concerning

20th Anniversary of FNLBelcher and King, from page 1

continued on next page

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XX No. 1

4

the Department of Applied BiologicalSciences has concluded that difficulty incommunication prevents faculty considera-tion of the problems except in crisis situa-tions. There exists no channel for theexchange of information between facultymembers for the discussion of problems atMIT, since neither Tech Talk nor the facultymeetings serve these purposes. Therefore, wedecided to explore the desirability of anewsletter, and one purpose of this zerothedition is to see whether there is support forsuch a publication.”

There was significant support for sucha publication, and the subsequent 19+years of issues of the Newsletter after the“zeroth” issue can be found in theNewsletter archives. Initially the Newsletterwas supported by contributions, butgiven that the faculty brings into MIT alarge amount in research income, itseemed reasonable to the first FNLEditorial Board that a tiny fraction of thatbe returned directly to the faculty to

finance the Newsletter. It was a full nineyears after these origins that President Vestformally agreed to support the publica-tion costs and a salary for the managingeditor of the Newsletter. This battle hashad to be fought continually in the yearsfollowing, as described in the article in thelast issue referenced above.

During the ensuing years, theNewsletter has provided a forum forexpression of faculty concerns and views,a major channel of communicationamong the faculty, and a means for candiddebate on difficult issues. The primaryguiding principles have been to provideopen access for faculty and emeritusfaculty to express views on issues ofconcern through control of editorialpolicy by the faculty Editorial Board,independent of influence by the MITadministration. Areas where the inde-pendence of the Newsletter have beenimportant include the first public release,on our Website, of the report on the“Status of Women Faculty at MIT;” thepublication of the recent Special EditionNewsletter devoted to responses to theReport of the Task Force on the

Undergraduate Educational Commons,to which more than 40 faculty con-tributed; exploration of health insurance,pension, and retirement issues; compactswith foreign governments; and minorityrecruitment and promotion.

Since its inception, the Newsletter hasbeen maintained by a volunteer EditorialBoard, over time involving more than 30members of the faculty from all Schools ofthe Institute. As described below, we arenow moving to a more formal nomina-tion process, and direct election of Boardmembers by the full faculty.

The Newsletter has come to be widelyread, not just at MIT but outside as well,through the online edition atweb.mit.edu/fnl. The FNL Website alsocan potentially serve as a forum for dis-cussion of national and internationalissues. With the support and involvementof MIT’s faculty, the Newsletter will con-tinue to play an important role at MITand beyond.

20th Anniversary of FNLBelcher and King from preceding page

AS AN NOU NCE D I N TH E last issue ofthis newsletter (Vol. XIX No. 6, May/June2007), a change in the Policies andProcedures of the Faculty Newsletter nowcalls for direct election by the faculty ofNewsletter Editorial Board members.

The Newsletter NominationsCommittee (Alice Amsden, John Belcher,Fred Moavenzadeh, Ron Prinn) will

review nominees, and faculty-wide, elec-tronically based elections are planned forearly next year.

Nominees for the Editorial Boardshould give evidence of commitment tothe integrity and independence of thefaculty, and to the role of the FacultyNewsletter as an important voice of thefaculty.

Please forward all nominations to:[email protected]. Nominating faculty shouldinclude, both for themselves and theirnominee, full name, department, Instituteaddress, phone number, and e-mail address, as well as a brief explana-tion of nominee qualifications to serve onthe Board.

A Call for Nominations to the NewsletterEditorial Board

John Belcher is a Professor of Physics([email protected]);Jonathan King is a Professor in theDepartment of Biology ([email protected]).


5

EditorialTransparency and Communication

SCI E NCE AN D TECH NOLOGY PLAYcritical roles in the formulation of inter-national policies on challenges facing theglobal community. They also contributesubstantially to the development ofenabling technologies for implementationof these policies and for coping with theirconsequences. Global issues such asclimate change, renewable energy sources,and the security and privacy of individu-als are matters in which science and tech-nology take a lead. Many of these issuesbenefit from the core competency of MIT,thereby ensuring that the Institute will becalled upon more frequently to participateand contribute to their resolution.

Some new technologies are highlycontroversial and will generate substan-tial debate and opposing points of viewswithin the MIT community. Forexample, a national information systemfor tracking activities of suspected indi-viduals could raise significant concernsabout protecting the privacy of the inno-cent. Similarly, formulation of energy or

environmental policies that may favor aspecific technology or a particularnational resource could create similarcontroversy. As we have witnessed overthe past few years, the manner by whichthe federal government has handledseveral of these issues, especially thoserelated to security and privacy, hasresulted in a great deal of disagreement,resignations of officials, and even discus-sion of indictments of some seniormembers of the government. We at MITneed to put in place a process that istransparent, extensively debated, andwell accepted by the community.

We welcome the recent emphasis onincreased communication within MITand with the outside world that the MITadministration has initiated in support ofthese undertakings. The Faculty Newsletterwill carry more reporting on administra-tion policy and planning. At the same timewe caution that the administration notconfuse transparency and communicationwith public relations.

This edition includes an article on thehistory of the Faculty Newsletter (p. 1) andits roles both in correcting policy errors atMIT and in broadening discussion,debate, and participation on a variety ofimportant matters. The topics were notjust internal to MIT, but representedinteraction with national and even inter-national constituencies. As we moveforward toward increased communica-tion and transparency within MIT andoutside, having the FNL as a channel fordiscussion and debate becomes even morecritical. In the coming year we will bedeveloping the Newsletter Website as amechanism for timely consideration ofnational and international policy issues,along with items of primarily internalinterest. We also will be increasing theclarity and transparency of our editorialpolicies, as well as moving to an EditorialBoard that is elected by the full faculty.

Editorial Sub-Committee

David LewisHockfield to Write on “State of theInstitute” in Next Newsletter

PR E S I D E NT HOCKFI E LD AN D othersenior administrators have agreed to writefor future editions of the Faculty Newsletter,with topics of interest to the faculty agreedupon with the Newsletter Editorial Board.

President Hockfield will lead off in theNovember/December issue by writing onthe “State of the Institute,” based on herOctober 2 Institute forum of the samename. Much like the town meetings heldduring President Vest’s tenure, the forum

will be open to all members of the MITcommunity and will feature a questionand answer period.

Following President Hockfield, othersenior administration members will writefor each issue of the Newsletter for theremainder of the academic year. Otherpotential participants include the Provost,Chancellor,and the Executive Vice President.

The Newsletter wishes to thank theadministration for recognizing the value

of communicating with the facultythrough its pages. We expect that theadministration will address topics ofinterest and concern to the faculty. TheEditorial Board requests suggestions fromthe MIT faculty.

You can reach us at [email protected], andwe strongly encourage you to make yourdesires known.David Lewis is Managing Editor of the FacultyNewsletter ([email protected]).


6

also talk to us at the reception which isheld after every faculty meeting on thethird Wednesday of each month. Yoursecond option is to speak to any memberof the Faculty Policy Committee (FPC),which includes the three faculty officers,and 12 other senior faculty members fromthe five Schools. The FPC meets on alter-nate Thursdays; and even though itsagenda focuses on faculty governanceissues, other issues are discussed as well.The third option is to voice your concernsat the monthly Random Faculty Dinnershosted by Jay Keyser. The guest list for thisdinner is randomly selected, as Jay alwaysreminds the guests; but the Faculty Chairis invited to all the dinners and partici-pates actively in the discussions, which areanimated by good food and decent wine.

These three options are, of course, farfrom adequate in their current form foryou to voice your aspirations and con-cerns. Very few of you attend the monthlyfaculty meetings, and even fewer make theeffort to walk up to the R&D Pub after themeeting to attend the reception. Thetiming of the faculty meeting – endingaround 5:30 pm – and the spatial distancebetween the meeting room (32-141) andthe R&D Pub may explain, partly, thepoor attendance at the reception.

The FPC as well has yet to serve its rolefully as a truly representative forum for in-depth discussions of the wide-rangingfaculty issues at MIT. The FPC membersare nominated by the NominationsCommittee, which usually nominatesknowledgeable and like-minded facultymembers who attend the luncheons, butrarely debate any issue beyond the politeluncheon conversations.

In contrast, the dinners hosted by JayKeyser have been more lively, at leastduring the last few years. I have often won-dered the reasons for their success. Is itbecause the number of guests is relativelysmall? Is it because the guests are selectedrandomly? Is it because senior members ofthe administration do not usually attendthese dinners? Or, is it because Jay sends

personally addressed invitations to eachinvitee and then plays the role of a witty,smart, as well as a knowledgeable host whomakes everyone feel at ease in speakingtheir mind? Whatever the reason, thesedinners have turned out to be a goodsetting for interactions among the facultyand for evoking genuine faculty concernson various issues.

Based on this informal assessment ofhow faculty officers may learn about the

wishes and concerns of the faculty, we –the incoming officers – have decided thatit may be worthwhile for us to introduce afew incremental changes intended toevoke more discussions. First, the agendasof the monthly faculty meetings may needto be set with the aim of generating dis-cussion on important general topics –which means fewer agenda items andmore deliberations on issues prior to deci-sion making. Second, we need to shift thelocation of the faculty reception closer tothe room where the faculty meets (Room32-141). My preference is that the recep-tion be held right outside Room 32-141,so faculty can have a glass of wine if theylike on the their way out of the meeting,and engage in informal conversationsproviding feedback on the issues raised atthe meeting.

Third, the FPC needs to go beyond theusual Thursday luncheons and engagemore deeply with a few issues, generatingbrief written documents (not more thanfive to 10 pages) that would capture wellthe views of the faculty on such issues.This may require FPC members to spenda few more hours in addition to attendingthe wonderful luncheons. At the moment,

we are finalizing the issues to be deliber-ated by the FPC in 2007-2008, and I willinform you in my next note to the facultywhich issues we will focus on next year.Fourth, on the first Wednesday of everymonth, the faculty officers will be avail-able to meet with you over lunch at 12:30pm in the faculty lunchroom. If this turnsout to be a popular venue, we may expandthe frequency of the luncheons. Finally,we are always open to hear from you

directly, either via e-mail, phone conversa-tion, or a personal meeting, regardingyour wishes as well as concerns. In thepast, faculty officers did receive such feed-back, but only when there was a contro-versy or dispute of some kind. It will benice to have discussions without any suchparticular case looming over our heads.So, please, do send us your comments ifyou want us to convey your position onany issue to the MIT administration.

And how would the faculty officersconvey your views to the senior membersof the administration, you may ask; afterall, the faculty officers are not part of theadministration! Fortunately, the chan-nels of communication between theadministration and the faculty officersare quite open: the President, theProvost, and the Chancellor meet withthe faculty officers every month to final-ize the agenda for the faculty meetings.The President attends FPC meetings atleast once every semester, and the VicePresident for Institute Affairs attendsthese meetings regularly. Other membersof the administration do not attend FPCmeetings regularly, but do so wheneverrequested by the FPC. In addition, the

Faculty Representation?Sanyal from page 1

. . . on the first Wednesday of every month, thefaculty officers wil l be available to meet withyou over lunch at 12:30 pm in the facultylunchroom. If this turns out to be a popularvenue, we may expand the frequency of theluncheons.


7

Provost meets weekly with the Chair ofthe Faculty; and there are numerousoccasions, sometimes held in the beauti-ful Gray House, where the faculty officersinteract closely with senior members ofthe administration. In addition, as Chairof the Faculty I regularly attend theweekly Academic Council meetings,affording me yet another opportunity toconvey the faculty’s interests.

And, much like you who can make apersonal appointment to talk to either

the President, the Provost, theChancellor, or any other member of theadministration, the faculty officers canalso converse with the senior administra-tors, one to one, on any issue we mayconsider important.

This open communication is possiblebecause most top-level administrators atMIT are also faculty members who arequite aware of the institutional constraintsand opportunities that shape faculty life.It is true that the concerns of the faculty

are not the only concerns of the senioradministrators: They also have to considerthe concerns of students, staff, alumni,Corporation members, prospectivedonors, and so on. In that regard, it is theresponsibility of the faculty officers toconvey your concerns to the members ofthe administration; but we can best servethat role only if you and we begin to com-municate well.

Teaching this fall? You should know …the faculty regulates examinations and assignments for all subjects.

Check the Web at web.mit.edu/faculty/termregs for the complete regulations.Questions: Contact Faculty Chair Bish Sanyal at x3-3270 or [email protected].

No required classes, examinations, exercises, or assignments of any kind may be scheduled after the lastregularly scheduled class in a subject, except for final examinations scheduled through the Schedules Office.

First and Third Week of the TermBy the end of the first week of classes, you must provide a clear and complete description of:

• required work, including the number and kinds of assignments;• an approximate schedule of tests and due dates for major projects;• whether or not there will be a final examination; and• grading criteria.

By the end of the third week, you must provide a precise schedule of tests and major assignments.

For all Undergraduate Subjects, Tests Outside Scheduled Class Times:• may begin no earlier than 7:30 P.M., when held in the evening;• may not be held on Monday evenings;• may not exceed two hours in length; and• must be scheduled through the Schedules Office.

No Testing During the Last Week of ClassesTests after Friday, December 7 must be scheduled in the Finals Period.

Bish Sanyal is a Professor of Urban Planning;Faculty Chair ([email protected]).


8

The student newspaper, The Tech, alsorated quite highly among facultymembers, with nearly 71% reading theprint version regularly or occasionally, and68.5% finding The Tech Website very or

somewhat valuable. Not surprisingly, theMIT Home Page was the Website ratedhighest among faculty, with more than93% finding it very or somewhat valuable.

Other online campus sites faired lesswell among faculty, with the followingpercentage reporting they have nevervisited or can’t rate the online resource:

• ZigZag (83%)• MIT Alumni Association (70%)• MIT World (62%)• Technology Review (54%)• Faculty Newsletter Website (47%)• MIT News Website (37%)

Newsletter Most Popularcontinued from page 1

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Faculty Newsletter

Tech Talk

The Tech

Technology Review

DepartmentNewsletters

52.2% 34.7% 10.6% 2.5%

5.5%

6.5%

7.8%

8.6%

16.3%

22.7%

26.8%

12.6%

38.1%

36.0%

43.8%

33.7%

40.1%

34.7%

21.6%

45.1%

Below is a sampling of MIT publications. Please ratehow often you read the print version of each one.

Note: Among facultywho are aware ofeach publication.

Regularly read Occasionally read or skim Rarely read or skim Never read

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%0%

Faculty Newsletter (online)

MIT News Website

The Tech (online)

Technology Review (online)

MIT Home Page

MIT World

ZigZag

MIT OpenCourseWare

MIT Alumni Association Website

Group-specific news online

25.8% 47.2% 19.0% 8.0%

26.6% 50.5% 16.1% 6.8%

16.7% 51.8% 21.4% 10.1%

8.6% 36.7% 35.3% 19.4%

61.7% 32.0% 5.6%

12.1% 38.8% 31.9% 17.2%

8.0% 18.0% 26.0% 48.0%

37.7% 40.1% 16.3% 5.8%

27.5% 37.4% 34.1%

36.0% 42.2% 15.6% 6.2%

1.1%

Note: Among facultywho visited eachWebsite.

Very valuable Somewhat valuable Not very valuable Not valuable at all

Please rate how valuable you find each of the following MIT online resources.

0.7%


9

machinegunner

last night and afternoon I cleaned each round with a gasoline-soaked rag, and inspected each round before snapping it into the belt so that when my loader is killed the belt will run true for as long as I am allowed to live

forgive me my sin

at a cyclic rate of firethe bipod would dig into the sandand restrict lateral movement,so I took a sandbagand invested a canteen of waterto make a firm base for the weaponfor as long as I am allowed to live

forgive me my sin

I hear the muted cough and clank of their tanks and I hear the whip of the helicopter blades from just below the near horizon and with my loader I stare at the horizon and wait, and keep touching the safety pushing it uselessly forward so the weapon will fire at the first man that I see

forgive me my sin

I will die hereand my loader will die herebefore noonwe will be dead and crushed by the treads of tanks

Allah

forgive me my sin

but they are just men,like me and my loader,and it hurts me to glory in killing them as it hurts me to be afraid of dying.

MIT Poetry

Joe Haldeman teaches in the Program in Writing andHumanistic Studies and is best known for his award-winning science fiction novels. This poem appeared in a2007 collection titled On Our Way to Battle: Poetry fromthe Trenches. This is his second appearance in the FNL.

by Joe Haldeman


10

Ernst G. FrankelAmerica’s Infrastructure Engineering Dilemma

PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE, ONCEthe pride of America and a major contrib-utor to its economic and social growthand success, has in recent years become anacute embarrassment to this nation.Infrastructure failures, ineffectiveness,and the inability to properly plan, con-struct, manage, and maintain it now posean acute challenge to America’s claims ofeconomic, social, environmental, andtechnological leadership.

Most of our road, rail, water, sewer,electric power, wired telephone, and otherdistributed systems infrastructure are oldand in need of repair. Our ports, airports,and rail terminals are archaic, ill designed,badly run, and poorly maintained. Levees,coastal defenses, and dams often lack effec-tive inspection and maintenance. In NewOrleans, the core of many levees had beenwashed out, causing them to fail – a factnot discovered by simple visual leveesurface inspection. Yet seismic measure-ments would have readily identified thegrowing problem for timely remedialaction. Similarly, the recent Minnesotahighway bridge collapse should have beenprevented by proper timely inspection andmaintenance. But most of our infrastruc-ture is 50 years old or older, uses outdateddesigns and engineering, and has experi-enced little if any maintenance updating orrepair. We do not have or use advancedinfrastructure testing, inspection, or main-tenance management methods.

Performance of recent infrastructureprojects such as Boston’s “Big Dig,” itsKenmore Square bus station, NewOrleans’ levee reconstruction, and variousdams, bridges, port and airport projectsare a reminder of how far this country has

sunk in its public infrastructure develop-ment capability. Rapidly developing neweconomies such as China, Vietnam,Korea, Singapore, and others all placegreat emphasis not only on the timely andefficient development of infrastructure,but also on effective maintenance, updat-ing, and constant improvements of theseessential systems.

I just returned from Shanghai andNingbo in Central China, two cities

which, in 1998 when I planned their ports,were connected by one 2x2-lane highway.Since then, this roadway has beenenlarged to a 4x4-lane highway, and anadditional new 80 km causeway bridgeroad connector with 4x4 lanes will soonbe inaugurated. Large American con-struction firms, once global leaders intheir field, are increasingly being shunnedfor large projects abroad such as thisbecause of their lack of advanced engi-neering, planning, and implementation.

Much of this may be the result of edu-cational priorities given to high technol-ogy, with fewer students interested ininfrastructure-type problems thatinclude civil and mechanical engineering,as well as electrical and nuclear engineer-ing. MIT established many of the normsand procedures that still serve some

sectors, such as the nuclear power indus-try. Professor Norman Rasmussen estab-lished the standards for reactor safety andtaught reliability, maintenance, andrepair of nuclear reactors for many years.The enviable safety records of that indus-try are a monument to his contributionto engineering education. Similarly,excellent courses were offered in engi-neering project and risk managementthat served generations of engineers to

effectively plan, design, and maintainlarge-scale and often sophisticated infra-structure projects.

Significant research also went into thedevelopment of materials, fabricationprocesses, surface treatments, materialhandling and forming. All this allowedAmerica to advance its infrastructure andthereby economy and quality of life for along time. Yet, today we are faced with adebt-ridden economy, decrepit infrastruc-ture, and an educational system thatlargely trains engineering scientists andnot engineers, and an infrastructure badlyin need of complete rework, update, andmodernization. We teach logistics but nottransport planning and engineering, andas a result have some of the world’s worstairports, train stations, bus terminals,roads, and rail networks.

Performance of recent infrastructure projects suchas Boston’s “Big Dig,” its Kenmore Square busstation, New Orleans’ levee reconstruction, andvarious dams, bridges, port and airport projects are a reminder of how far this country has sunk in itspublic infrastructure development capability.


11

Infrastructure engineering offers manytechnically and scientifically exciting chal-lenges, and American ingenuity couldagain lead the world in developing a newgeneration of infrastructure. But this willonly happen if American universitiesreverse their priorities and reemphasizethe challenges in infrastructure engineer-ing by developing formal programs in thefield. There are many technological andscientific challenges in the planning/design, use, and maintenance of futureinfrastructure that are no less excitingthan those in so-called high tech areas,from advanced design to sophisticatedtesting, control, and operations manage-ment methods.

Infrastructure is the lifeblood of aneconomy and continued failure to addressits needs will invariably lead to decline,

particularly in an American economyincreasingly based on services and not onmanufacturing and agriculture. Unless wetrain a larger cadre of new, well-educated,committed engineers to develop a newgeneration of essential infrastructure,America’s economic future may well be indanger. Our competitors, such as China,India, and others, train proportionally amuch larger number of engineers com-mitted to and capable of advancing theirinfrastructure. This will give them anenormous advantage in facing increas-ingly complex economic challenges.

Many of our competitors build majorinfrastructure in less than half the timeand at less than half the cost as we do.They increasingly dominate the globalinfrastructure engineering and projectmarket, a sector in which U.S. firms led

not too long ago. In many Asian countriesas much as 30% of engineering researchfunding is for infrastructure design, tech-nology, materials, testing, and fabricationresearch – and that percentage is growing.

There are estimates that the U.S. willhave to spend as much as 5% of its GNP(or over $600b/year) for infrastructurerepair, replacement, and expansion formany years to come if it wants to remaincompetitive in the international economy.Unless American institutions of higherlearning recognize these needs anddevelop required programs to train theprofessionals needed, America’s infra-structure will continue to atrophy and itscompetitiveness decline.

Ernst G. Frankel is a Professor Emeritus in theDepartment of Ocean Engineering([email protected]).

William SchreiberIs it Time for a New Manhattan Project?

ALB E RT E I N STE I N HAD NO troublehelping to convince President Rooseveltof the importance of designing anAmerican atom bomb to counter the onethought to be under development byGermany. Roosevelt understood both thesignificance and difficulty of the work tobe done, and concluded that such amassive (and in that case, secret) projectcould only be done by the governmentitself, and not by contracting out the workto non-government entities. Eventuallythe code name for the resulting effort wasthe Manhattan Project. After World WarII, the government did many large proj-ects, such as dams, in this way.

Now may very well be the time foranother Manhattan Project, this timewith regards to solving the energyproblem. Of course today, with thewidespread misperception that the U.S.government can never do anythingright, the idea of a large-scale scientificworkforce led by the government islikely to be a much harder sell.Nevertheless, it’s my opinion that thereis really no other way to completely solvethe energy problem.

The technology of my proposed solu-tion to the energy problem was discussed inmy article in the last MIT Faculty Newsletter(“Solving the Energy Problem,” Vol. XIX

No. 6, May/June 2007). It was only afterpublication that I realized that perhaps thebest argument for proceeding in the way Isuggested was to compare the scope of thework needing to be done with the highlysuccessful project conceived by Roosevelt.

I urge readers to examine my articlefrom the last Newsletter, and encourageany responses (pro or con). For unless wehave a solid foundation on which tobuild a solution, the chances of effec-tively solving the energy problemdecrease dramatically.

William Schreiber is a Professor Emeritus inthe Department of Electrical Engineering andComputer Science ([email protected]).


12

Diana HendersonUpdate on the Implementation of theRecommendations of the Task Force onthe Undergraduate Educational Commons

WITH TH E N EW ACAD E M IC year andnew energy, faculty and staff are busilyworking on implementing those recom-mendations made by the Task Force onthe Undergraduate Educational Commonsthat have found favor within the MIT com-munity. Generating both heat and lightsince its release in October 2006, the Reporthas now been discussed at numerousInstitute faculty meetings, in SchoolCouncils and departments, and in regularfaculty committees. These responses, as wellas those garnered online and through theDean for Undergraduate Education’s andFaculty Officers’ “listening tours,” havespurred additional ideas for improvingthe undergraduate educational experienceat MIT.

Some results have already beenachieved, and others are imminent. Thenumber of faculty serving as first-yearadvisors, after averaging around 62 from2002-2006, has risen from 66 in 2006-7 to87 in 2007-8. Dean for UndergraduateEducation Dan Hastings has appointedProfessor John Brisson of MechanicalEngineering to head an advisory commit-tee focusing on classrooms and teachingspaces. Anticipating the recommenda-tions on international education inChapter 4 of the Task Force Report, a newresidence linked with international devel-opment courses, iHouse, is opening thisautumn in the New House dormcomplex; Professor of Urban PlanningBish Sanyal, D-lab lecturer Amy Smith,and director of the Public Service CenterSally Susnowitz are among those involvedin this “living and learning community.”Dean Hastings also created a committeenow known as GEOMIT, headed by

Professors Linn Hobbs and Hazel Sive, toexplore ways for MIT to expand its globaleducational offerings. In an aligned effort,the DUE (Office of the Dean forUndergraduate Education) sponsoredtwo sets of workshops in April and June2007, both to build on “lessons learned”and generate new ideas for the ongoingCambridge-MIT undergraduate exchangeprogram (CME). The workshops werealso designed to generate clearer princi-ples, conditions, and support structuresfor any new study abroad and exchangeprograms, and relied upon the remarkableexperience, efforts, and thoughtful partic-ipation of MIT faculty members.

Curricular InnovationsAs has been true everywhere such reviewshave occurred, at MIT the faculty paidmost attention to suggestions involvingcore curricular redesign. The discussionsalready have helped to generate numerouscurricular innovations, including five new“HASS experiments” and eight project-based subjects supported in part by thed’Arbeloff Fund for Excellence inEducation. [See the related article on theresults of the six project-based subjectsoffered in 2006-7, page 14.] Other newclasses are being assisted by the SchoolDeans and by the Alumni Class Fundsadministered through the DUE; all thoseinvolved encourage their faculty col-leagues to keep suggesting new and betterways to ignite a passion for learning in ourfirst-year students and to prepare all ourundergraduates for an increasingly glob-alized, ever-changing world.

Several programs sharing and dis-seminating “best practices” learned

through pedagogical and curricularexperimentation will be held thisautumn. [See the Faculty Calendar inthis issue for some key dates, and for theapplication deadlines for d’Arbeloff andAlumni Class Funds, page 16.] The hopeis that our community (as well as indi-vidual faculty members and subjects)will begin to benefit more broadly fromthese sponsored experiments.

However, curricular redesign is also thearea that takes the longest to resolve, andwill require the dedication of a newimplementation subcommittee of theCUP (Committee on the UndergraduateProgram) which this year will refine andmodify the Task Force proposals in accor-dance with the views of the teachingfaculty. This co-chaired subcommittee ischarged with developing a concrete pro-posal built on the full work of the TaskForce as well as its final report and thepublic response, and will present its finalproposals to the full faculty for a votebefore the end of 2008.

Of course, educational improvementinvolves more than new or differentrequired subjects, no matter how highlywe value these. Thus the Task Force madenumerous recommendations in other –many would argue, more – importantareas. Some suggestions aim to streamlineand simplify administrative processes,while others advocate fairly fundamentalcultural changes. Encouraging moreactive forms of learning and valuingdiversity in education are long-term proj-ects that will require the ongoing effortsof department chairs and well-trained,well-supported faculty. Those imple-menting the Task Force recommenda-


13

tions wish to acknowledge and increasethe incentives and rewards (be they finan-cial, intellectual, or intangible) for facultywho dedicate their time and energy toteaching and serving in the Commonswith excellence. The Campaign forStudents, now in its “whispering phase,”will be crucial for raising sufficientresources to sustain the kinds of innova-tive classes, infrastructure, and trainingenvisioned by the Task Force.

Faculty and staff alike must continu-ally address the wide diversity of twenty-first century student needs andaspirations, through and beyond our cur-riculum. The DUE has several offices nowdedicated to:

• expanding the use of pedagogies thatfoster learning (the Teaching andLearning Lab, headed by Lori Breslow),

• supporting the exploration and adop-tion of innovative uses of technology ineducational practice (Office of Edu-cational Innovation and Technology,headed by Vijay Kumar), and

• understanding and promoting the bene-fits of diversity at all academic levels(Office of Minority Education, headedby Karl Reid).

All these offices welcome faculty partici-pation and suggestions.

Double Degrees to Double MajorsAmong the recommendations in Chapter5 of the Report that met with generalapproval was the change from doubledegrees (requiring substantial extra elec-tive credit units for students wishing topursue two major programs) to doublemajors (acknowledging completion of theGIRs and two major programs within asingle MIT degree). As a result, the Officeof the Registrar, the UndergraduateOfficers, and the Committee on theUndergraduate Program have all pro-ceeded to study the details of enactingsuch a change, and hope to bring legisla-tion to the Institute faculty meetings for avote this year. This is the time for those

with further comments and suggestions toshare them: the staff members who arecollecting these comments are ElizabethCooper ([email protected]) and Gen Filiault([email protected]) in the Office of FacultySupport.

An overlapping aim is to simplify theregulations and reduce the number of“cannots” (you cannot double-count,etc.), instead explaining the basic goalsand rationale for the GIRs so that faculty,students, and staff can better understandand support them. Within departmentalprograms, this means emphasizing thepositive minimum expectations for any

degree program. The Task Force advo-cated that there be enough flexibility instudents’ schedules to allow them to makeeffective choices and changes as they dis-cover their more advanced talents andpreferences. The idea of a “flexible major”option in any field with a large number ofrequired units is one solution that relieson departments’ willingness to considerand support the varying goals and careertrajectories of their undergraduatemajors. One goal this year is to encourageand support programs that are attemptingto create such flexible options.

Meanwhile, the UndergraduateAdvising and Academic ProgrammingOffice, guided by Julie Norman, hasexpanded its attention to advising beyondthe first year, and Donna Friedman hascompleted a report on good practices inadvising across the Schools. The hope isthat soon every first-year student will haveat least one faculty mentor via UROPs,advising, and small class instruction. TheOffice of Faculty Support (OFS) isworking with faculty across the Schoolsinterested in creating new cross-discipli-nary and cross-School collaborations,such as:

• an “ethics concentration” that has beeninitiated by faculty in SHASS,

• discussion of learning objectives andcoordination among project-based pilotclasses, and

• interdisciplinary faculty seminars andbrainstorming sessions.

These and other initiatives will receiveattention in future Newsletter articles.Please feel free to send your suggestionsand queries to this Office in its entirety([email protected]) or to me specifically([email protected]), as we stand ready toassist the faculty in maintaining andimproving our undergraduates’ educa-tional experience, and in sustaining ourown vibrant teaching community.

Diana Henderson is Dean for Curriculum andFaculty Support and a Professor in theLiterature Section ([email protected]).

The Office of Faculty Support

Established in July 2006, the mission of theOffice of Faculty Support (OFS) is to helpthe faculty develop and coordinate theundergraduate curriculum and educationalprogramming; to support faculty governanceand to provide useful information related toundergraduate education; and to improvecommunications and educational community-building, both within MIT's unified faculty andamong faculty, staff, the five Schools, and thecentral administration.

The OFS works closely with other officesunder the supervision of the Dean forUndergraduate Education, in order to helpfaculty provide MIT students with the besteducation possible. Faculty members areencouraged to contact the OFS at 617-253-6776, [email protected], or in person (12-127),and they will provide assistance or direct youto the appropriate help.

Among current OFS projects are:

• distribution of the d'Arbeloff Grants forExcellence in Education and Alumni Funds

• oversight of the Communication Requirement

• distribution and compilation of student subject evaluations

• staff support and archiving for the CUP,SOCR, the Task Force on theUndergraduate Educational Commons, and other committees related to the undergraduate curriculum

• outreach and communications regarding theundergraduate program generally and theGeneral Institute Requirements in particular,both online and person-to-person.

For more information, see the OFS Website: web.mit.edu/facultysupport/.


14

Dennis M. FreemanElizabeth D. CooperWilliam A. Lucas

Experimental Project-Based Subjects: A Hit with Students

SIX EXPERIMENTAL PROJECT-BASED(PB) subjects were taught for the firsttime during the 2006-2007 academicyear. The impetus for these subjects camefrom the deliberations of the Task Forceon the Undergraduate EducationalCommons, which has recommendedfreshman projects as one way to increasefreshman motivation and enthusiasm aswell as to introduce more active learningin the first year. Specific goals wereestablished for the project-based subjectsthat included:

• learning opportunities that involveeither design or creation,

• the synthesis of ideas and techniques,• the use of real-world problems to moti-

vate the acquisition of disciplinaryknowledge,

• cross-disciplinary interactions needed toaddress design problems,

• outcomes that are not narrowly pre-scribed in advance, but rather definedthrough informed decisions. [Report ofthe Task Force on the UndergraduateEducational Commons, p. 49.]

MIT has traditionally taught a numberof project-based subjects at the upperclasslevel. Only a few project-based subjectsare offered in the first year: 2.000 (Howand Why Machines Work), 12.000(Solving Complex Problems), and 16.00(Introduction to Aerospace and Design).Faculty from these highly successful sub-jects provided valuable insight and experi-ence to faculty developing the six newsubjects taught this past year.

Funding for subject development andresources for the first year of classes came

from the d’Arbeloff Fund for Excellencein Education. [See web.mit.edu/darbelofffor more information.] Subjects included:

• Exploring Sea, Space and Earth:FUNdaMENTALS of EngineeringJoint subject listed in Aero/Astro andMech EFaculty: A. Techet (Mech E), A. Slocum(Mech E), D. Newman (Aero/Astro),E. Crawley (Aero/Astro).

• Solving Real ProblemsMech E subject Faculty: D. Wallace (Mech E), D. Frey(Mech E, ESD)

CityScope Destination 2007: New OrleansJoint subject listed in Architecture andUrban PlanningFaculty: J.P. Thompson (UrbanPlanning), J. Fernandez (Architecture)

• Energy, Environment and SocietyChemistry subjectFaculty: J. Steinfeld (Chemistry),J. Tester (Chem E), A. Graham (LFEE)

• Freshman Projects in MicroscaleEngineering for the Life SciencesJoint subject listed in EECS and HSTFaculty: D. Freeman (EECS), A. Aranyosi(RLE), M. Gray (HST)

• Physics of EnergyJoint subject listed in EECS andArchitectureFaculty: J. Kirtley (EECS), S. Leeb(EECS), L. Norford (Architecture).

Faculty CommentsMost, but not all, faculty taught these sub-jects in addition to their regular teachingload. Generally faculty felt positive aboutthe PB subjects; they generally agreed theywere pleased with the student outcomes

and learning. One stated, “I’m converted.”Most felt it was a lot of work, but veryworthwhile. Several faculty spoke abouthaving to adjust the amount of work andexpectations from the students during thesemester. They all hoped to offer thesubject again.

There is some concern about thenumber of credit units for PB subjects.Several subjects offered 12 units credit,while others offered nine. Some facultyfelt it was easier to drop the nine-unitcourses as evidenced by serious attritionin one of the nine-unit subjects, but thatthe 12 units could push students into anoverload or make it impossible for themto fit a PB subject into their schedule.Several subjects made significant revi-sions to the syllabus to make them eligiblefor CI (Communication Requirement)credit. Undesignated CI credit wasoffered on an experimental basis for oneyear for the project-based subjects.Students, however, were not convinced, inspite of assurances, that this CI creditwould help them.

Resources remain a concern for theproject-based subjects. All relied heavilyon TA support. Departmental support forsubjects was uneven. Space remains anissue. The general consensus of thefaculty was that flexible space was neededbecause classes had different needs ondifferent days. Those subjects thatrequired specific, non-portable machin-ery were meeting in evenings and onweekends to access the appropriate space.The ideal space described was one thathad access to a machine shop or fabrica-tion facilities, lecture space, design space,and seminar rooms.


15

Student OutcomesOut of a class of 999 first-year students,147 (14.7%) took project-based subjects ineither the first or second semester. Thegender breakdown was 71 (48%) men, 76(52%) women, compared with the generalfirst-year population of 55% men and45% women. A number of assessmentmethods were used to ascertain whetherthe project-based subjects had an impacton students. All of last year’s freshmenwere surveyed at the beginning and end oftheir first year, focusing mainly on first-year expectations and on self directedlearning styles. In addition, all students inthe project-based subjects were surveyedbefore and after taking the subject to assessself-efficacy in communication, teaming,and other technical areas. The last surveyclosed mid-July; all findings reported hereare preliminary. One student focus groupwas conducted at the end of the year.

Student expectations. A series of ques-tions were asked on the post-test to see ifthe freshman year had met student expec-tations. While there were no differencesbetween PB and non-PB students onseveral items, and some of the differenceswould be expected (see below), a generalconclusion is that expectations tend tohave been better met if the students took aPB subject. The larger positive and statis-tically significant differences were foundfor the following:

• My classes have stimulated my interestsin new areas.

• Some of the subjects I studied this pastyear were so interesting that I did morethan the required work.

• I have had opportunities for hands-onactivities.

• This past year at MIT I have conductedexperiments and/or projects using scien-tific methods.

• Since coming to MIT I have beeninvolved in a research project.

• Some faculty now know me wellenough to write a good letter of recom-mendation for me.

Supporting the faculty concern aboutthe possibility that these courses could

contribute to heavy course loads, therewas a negative and statistically significantdifference, with PB students being lesslikely to agree that:

• I have been able to maintain a balancebetween my academic work and otheraspects of my life.

Additional differences were found thatsuggest that PB subjects have particularbenefits for first-year women. Females inPB courses were significantly more likelyto agree than the rest of the females in thefreshman class that the following expecta-tions had been met:

• I have been able to talk to faculty outsideof class about my interests.

• Some faculty now know me well enoughto write a good letter of recommenda-tion for me.

• Faculty have been encouraging andhelpful.

Student self-confidence in skills. Confidencein task performance, or self-efficacy, is awidely used concept that, among otheroutcomes, predicts improved learningpractices and persistence in careers. Theassessment used this concept to examinewhether first-year students had confidencethey could perform specific tasks in thearea of communications, working onteams, and working with technology. Inthe case of communications, while PB stu-dents were somewhat more confident oftheir communications skills than non-PBstudents, the differences were small andnot statistically significant.

By contrast, differences are foundbetween PB and non-PB students onboth their confidence to performteaming and technology-oriented tasks.Confidence in teaming skills was signifi-cantly higher among PB students thanfor non-PB students. When a check wasmade by making separate comparisonsof PB and non-PB males and females, thedifferences for the males were modest,but the differences for PB females alonewere significantly different than non-PBstudents. For confidence in working with

technology, a similar difference wasfound only among females, with PBfemales appearing to benefit with signifi-cantly higher self-confidence in theirability to perform technology-orientedtasks than non-PB females.

The findings for women on self-effi-cacy are most interesting. Self-efficacy islinked to academic task goals associatedwith motivation to master material,deeper learning, and a view of learning asan end in itself. [Pajares, Frank, Shari L.Britner and Giovanni Valiante (2000),“Relationship between achievementgoals and self-beliefs of middle schoolstudents in writing and science,”Contemporary Education Psychology 25:406-422.] Further, young women withhigher self-efficacy in given fields aremore likely to persist in a career inscience or engineering. [Mau, Wei-Chang (2003) “Factors that influencepersistence in science and engineeringcareer aspirations,” The CareerDevelopment Quarterly, March 2003, 51:3, pp 234-243.] Both genders benefitedfrom increases in project-based planningand teaming skills.

Results of the surveys were validated bythe focus group which was, interestingly,all women. The women students uni-formly “loved” the classes; found them tobe a lot of work, but worthwhile. Theywere a welcome break from more lecture-based classes. Students appreciated thereal-world implications and felt that theylearned useful skills such as research andpublic speaking. Students valued theincreased exposure to and attention fromthe faculty.

ConclusionsThe first experimental year for the six newproject-based subjects appears to be a

continued on next page

The women studentsuniformly “loved” theclasses; found them tobe a lot of work, butworthwhile.

Faculty Calendar

Talk with your colleagues about ways to improve teaching and education.

Thursday, October 4 Crosstalk Seminar on Educational Change web.mit.edu/acs/crosstalk/

Thursday, October 11 Speaker: Dr. Grant Wiggins, author ofUnderstanding by Design web.mit.edu/tll/

Friday, October 26 Panel Discussion: Alumni Class Funds Projects web.mit.edu/alumnifunds/

Thursday, November 15 Crosstalk Seminar on Educational Change web.mit.edu/acs/crosstalk/

Thursday, December 13 Crosstalk Seminar on Educational Change web.mit.edu/acs/crosstalk/

Monday, January 28 – Friday, February 1 Better Teaching @ MIT Series web.mit.edu/tll/programs-services/teaching.html

Tuesday, February 19 Crosstalk Seminar on Educational Change web.mit.edu/acs/crosstalk/

Friday, March 7 MacVicar Day web.mit.edu/provost/macvicar/index.html

Monday, March 31 Crosstalk Seminar on Educational Change web.mit.edu/acs/crosstalk/

Friday, May 16 Crosstalk Seminar on Educational Change web.mit.edu/acs/crosstalk/

Apply for funds to develop new curriculum.

Friday, October 12 Preliminary proposals for d’Arbeloff Funds due web.mit.edu/darbeloff/

Monday, December 3 Final proposals for d’Arbeloff Funds due web.mit.edu/darbeloff/

Friday, February 1 Proposal for Alumni Class Funds due web.mit.edu/alumnifunds/

Nominate your colleagues for Institute awards.

Friday, November 2 Nominations for MacVicar Faculty Fellows due web.mit.edu/provost/macvicar/index.html

Friday, February 1 Nominations for Killian Faculty AchievementAward due web.mit.edu/committees/faculty/Rosters/Killian.pdf

Friday, February 1 Nominations for Edgerton Faculty AchievementAward due

web.mit.edu/committees/faculty/Rosters/Edgerton.pdf


16

success when measured against the initialcriteria set by the Task Force. Facultydeveloped subjects that involved creationor design, but did not prescribe theoutcome. Most involved individuals fromseveral departments and academic disci-plines. The “real-world” approachappeared to increase student satisfaction

that they were receiving the educationthey had expected, and it resonated par-ticularly with women students.

These six subjects will be taught nextacademic year and will be joined by twoadditional subjects. The same assess-ment activities will continue next year. Iffindings are consistent, one might positthat the hands-on, real-world approachrepresented by the project-based sub-jects is a pedagogical tool that is of

general value for MIT freshmen, and ofparticular value for women in their firstyear at MIT.

Experimental Project-Based SubjectsFreeman, et al. from preceding page

Dennis M. Freeman is a Professor in theDepartment of Electrical Engineering andComputer Science ([email protected]);

Elizabeth D. Cooper is a Senior ProjectManager in the Office of Faculty Support([email protected]);

William A. Lucas is Executive Director of theCambridge-MIT Institute ([email protected]).


17

Larry BenedictJerry GrochowDan HastingsSteve Lerman

Student Systems – A Vision for the Future

WITH A PUS H FOR more internationalexperiences, a desire for increasedadvisor/student interaction, updatedGIRs, and changing student expectations,how will MIT’s student informationsystems support an ever changing land-scape while still supporting everything wecurrently do? What are the requirementsof a system that ensures a stable yet flexi-ble platform to support our current needsand services and, at the same time, is suffi-ciently forward looking to make certainfuture innovations can be incorporated?These are the types of questions we willanswer as part of an exciting project todevelop a vision and strategy for thefuture of student systems at MIT.

The Student System Vision (SSV)study is a once-in-a-generation opportu-nity to assess the evolving needs of thecommunity and improve the studentexperience. This collaborative project isbeing sponsored by Dan Hastings, theDean for Undergraduate Education; SteveLerman, the Dean for Graduate Students;Larry Benedict, the Dean for Student Life;and Jerry Grochow, the Vice President forInformation Services and Technology.

MIT’s student information system is alarge and complex set of applications (oftenreferred to as MITSIS and WebSIS) sup-porting our students’ administrative lifecycles starting with their admissions appli-cation and following them through theirentire MIT experience. Faculty depend onthe student system to help them in advisingstudents, by providing online access to theiradvisees’ current registration, grades, andGIR audit report. Instructors use thestudent system for class lists, student pic-tures, and prerequisite reports.

Today’s students have grown up in aworld where information and services areavailable at any hour of the day or nightvia the Internet. The expectation, sharedby students, faculty, and staff is that MIT

will provide services to support adminis-trative, classroom, and informationalneeds through state-of-the-art Internet-based services that ensure the protectionof student privacy. The various studentapplications now in use were developedover a period of years, without a consis-tent architecture or user interface; theylack the flexibility to add new functional-ity in a consistent, well-planned fashion.Many of the core applications were devel-oped prior to the popular use of theInternet and are implemented using out-dated, inflexible technologies. The origi-nal system focus was for administrativeoffice use. In order to meet the expecta-tions of today’s students and faculty, amore student- and faculty-centric designapproach is needed.

Understanding the needs of all of theconstituents who work with studentsystems is of the utmost importance andrequires Institute-wide collaboration.Throughout this study, the SSV ProjectTeam will host workshops, meetings,

focus groups, and presentations thatinvolve faculty, staff, and students fromacross the Institute. These activities willtap into MIT’s collective intelligence toensure that the long-term vision and notjust the immediate needs are fully under-stood. An SSV Faculty Advisory Groupwith participation from MIT’s Council onEducational Technology will inform thiseffort, and an outside consulting firm hasbeen engaged to facilitate the overallprocess. We want to ensure that the rec-ommendations coming out of the studyrepresent a broadly-based evaluation ofwhere MIT would like to be – a true“vision” of student systems in the future.

In the spring of 2008, the SSV teamwill present its findings along with a planfor implementing this next generation ofMIT’s student system. Although the studywill be completed in a relatively shorttime, the implementation will likely spanmany years. Ultimately, the new StudentSystem will provide the community withthe tools that evolve to support MITstudent services effectively for years tocome. To learn more about the StudentSystem Vision Study, please visit theproject Website at https://web.mit.edu/stu-future/www/.

If you have any ideas or suggestions orif you have a question or comment pleasee-mail [email protected]. Allfeedback is welcomed and encouraged.

Larry Benedict is Dean for Student Life ([email protected]); Jerry Grochow is VicePresident for Information Services and Technology([email protected]); Dan Hastings is Deanfor Undergraduate Education ([email protected]);Steve Lerman is Dean for Graduate Students([email protected]).

The various studentapplications now in usewere developed over aperiod of years, withouta consistent architectureor user interface . . .

U.S. News Rankings for National Universities (1999-2008)

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Princeton 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Harvard 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2

Yale 1 4 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3

Stanford 4 6 6 5 4 5 5 5 4 4

CalTech 9 1 4 4 4 5 8 7 4 5

UPenn 6 7 6 5 4 5 4 4 7 5

MIT 4 3 5 5 4 4 5 7 4 7

Duke 6 7 8 8 4 5 5 5 8 8

Columbia 10 10 10 9 10 11 9 9 9 9

UChicago 10 10 9 9


18

Newsletter StaffMIT 1st in Engineering, 7th Overall inLatest U.S. News Rankings

M IT MAI NTAI N E D ITS PLACE as thenumber one undergraduate engineeringschool in the latest U.S. News & WorldReport rankings, announced in the maga-zine’s “America’s Best Colleges” issue pub-lished in late August. The Institute alsoremained second to the University ofPennsylvania in the undergraduate busi-ness school category. [See web.mit.edu/fnl/201/usnews.html for complete details.]

MIT was seventh in the overall rankingsfor undergraduate national universities, con-tinuing its decade-long history of finishingbetween third and seventh. Traditionalleaders Princeton, Harvard, and Yale againgrabbed the first three spots (see table below).

Categories (and weights) used by U.S.News to judge colleges include:

• Peer assessment (25%)• Faculty resources (20%)• Graduation and retention rate (20%)• Student Selectivity (15%)• Financial resources (10%)• Alumni giving (5%)• Graduation rate performance (5%)

U.S. News also rated individual engi-neering and business departments. [Notethat not all programs are rated each year.]Several of the Institute’s programs in theseareas were ranked in the top five. They are:

Engineering• Aerospace/Aeronautical/Astronomical (1st)• Chemical Engineering(1st)• Civil Engineering (3rd)

• Computer Engineering (1st)• Electrical/Electronic/Communications (1st)• Environmental/Environmental Health (5th)• Materials (3rd) [tied with Michigan]• Mechanical Engineering (1st)

Business• Entrepreneurship (4th)• Finance (5th)• Management Information Systems (2nd)• Productions/Operations Management (1st)• Quantitative Analysis (1st)• Supply Chain (2nd) [tied with ASU]

Data was taken from the 2008 edition of theU.S. News & World Report’s “America’s BestColleges.” Charts used were prepared by theOffice of the Provost/Institutional Research.


19

Sarah E. RowleyCombining Investment with Philanthropy:Faculty and the MIT Endowment

FAC U LT Y W H O W I S H TO receiveincome while making a gift to MIT cannow invest in the MIT Endowment. InNovember 2006, the Internal RevenueService issued a private letter ruling pro-viding this opportunity to those whoestablish a charitable remainder unitrust(CRUT).

A CRUT is a fund managed by MITthat pays variable income for life.Specifically, the unitrust pays 5% of its fairmarket value each year to one or two ben-eficiaries. At the end of the trust’s term,any remaining assets support MIT stu-dents or faculty. Thus the CRUT com-bines investment with philanthropy.

CRUTs have long been popularbecause they let faculty and other friendsof the Institute avoid capital gains taxes onhighly appreciated assets, such as stocks orreal estate. Now, with the new ruling, theInstitute can commingle the CRUTinvestments with those of the MITendowment. In other words, a facultymember who establishes a CRUT can nowrequest that it be invested in the endow-ment and receive approximately the sameresults as does the endowment.

The new option permits CRUTs to beinvested in part in nonmarketable securi-ties, or “alternative assets,” which form asignificant portion of MIT’s endowment.These assets, including private equity,venture capital, real estate, and naturalresources investments, are rarely availableto smaller investors and will significantlyincrease the trusts’ diversification andgrowth potential.

The MIT EndowmentCRUTs invested in the new option will

benefit from the MIT endowment’s histor-ically strong performance. For example, ifa CRUT earns 15% in a given year, it willpay 5% as income to its named beneficiar-ies. The other 10% would be reinvested,increasing the trust’s market value. Thusfaculty can make a gift to MIT that will payvariable income and further diversify theirportfolios, with the potential for veryattractive income growth over time.

As of June 30, 2006, the MIT endow-ment totaled $8.36 billion, with an annualreturn of 23.0%. The MIT endowment hasaveraged a 15.3% return over the past 10

years (see chart). As always, past perform-ance does not guarantee future results.

Because a CRUT and any additionalgifts to it are irrevocable gifts to MIT, thedonor also receives a series of tax benefits,including an income tax deduction andthe opportunity to avoid capital gains tax.When a faculty member contributeshighly appreciated assets to a CRUT, MITcan sell them without paying capital gainstax, and reinvest all proceeds in a more

diversified portfolio. Thus the CRUT con-verts the full value of the assets intoinvestments that generate income for itsbeneficiaries. (Currently MIT requires allCRUT beneficiaries to be age 55 or olderat the time of the gift.)

When the trust terminates (usually atthe end of the beneficiaries’ lives), itsremaining assets support MIT scholar-ships, fellowships, professorships, the MITLibraries, or general educational pur-poses, according to the donor’s prefer-ence. For example, a faculty membercould fund fellowships in a specific

department, or support or establish afaculty chair.

The minimum to establish a charitableremainder unitrust is $100,000. For moreinformation, contact Judith V. Sager,Director of the Office of Gift Planning, at617-253-6463 or [email protected]. Allinquiries are strictly confidential.

Annualized Returns of University Endowments25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%10 Years 5 Years 1 Year

MIT Princeton Harvard Stanford

Rat

e of

Ret

urn

Source: Office of Gift Planning

Sarah E. Rowley is Gift Planning Coordinator,Office of Gift Planning ([email protected]).


20

Eduardo KauselProficiency in Customary Units

WITH TH E NOTAB LE EXCE PTION ofthe U.S., most of the world has universallyadopted the metric system of units, andthis includes the United Kingdom,Canada, and Australia. Nonetheless, somesectors in the U.S. went metric a while ago,such as the automobile industry, wine andspirits or beverages, and so on. However,the full conversion of the U.S. to themetric (or SI) system has consistentlybeen held back by a vocal group of politi-cally influential individuals who liken thechangeover to an unpatriotic and un-American act, indeed, the possible causefor economic and cultural disaster.

I, for one, am fluent in, and use, bothsystems, so I won’t take sides – at least notherein – as to whether or not we shouldcomplete the conversion. Nonetheless, Ican share at least one anecdote that mayhint as to my preferences. When I took thelicense exam for professional engineer inMassachusetts some three decades ago, Ihad a memorable question that chal-lenged my proficiency with units. Thequestion went roughly like this:Determine how many horsepower mustan electrical motor of efficiency E have if itdrives a water pump that elevates water atthe rate of R gallons per minute over aheight of H feet using a pipe of D inches indiameter and the head loss in the pipe is Linches per linear foot (where, of course, E,R, etc. were just numbers). What a mix ofunits! I first converted all the parametersto metric, computed the power in KW,and then back into HP, rememberingfrom high-school days that one HP equalsapproximately 3/4 of a KW, and sureenough, it worked!

Personally, I use both systems depend-ing on context, and my measuring tapesand calipers are dual metric and English.For technical work, I stick mainly tometric units, but at home, when I build orinstall artifacts such as cabinets or pictureframes and the like, I primarily employinches, mostly because of my need toaccommodate the standard Americansizes that permeate all dimensions in thehouse. Still, even there I also resort oftento centimeters and millimeters, especiallywhen I need high precision – e.g., in a sawcut – or when I divide a non-integermeasurement in inches into some integerfraction. It is easier and faster for me tocompute, say, one-third of 13.8 cm thanone-third of 5 7/16 inches, and also, I canlocate much faster the result of that divi-sion on the metric part of the tape.

To test this observation on others, Ihave on various occasions carried out aninformal experiment in which I asked anAmerican-born person (but not a carpen-ter or mason) to measure the length ofsome piece of wood to the nearest 1/16thof an inch, and in most cases that meas-urement demanded some fifteen seconds,if not more. Most of my test persons pro-ceeded roughly as follows: let’s see, thisline must be 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16. . . and thenproceeded to count those lines one by onefrom left to right starting from the nearestfull inch. Then I repeated the experimentwith that same person, and asked him/herto give me the same measurement in cen-timeters, accurate to the nearest millime-ter. The response was consistentlyinstantaneous and with no delay whatso-ever: 27.4 cm. Some of them then smiledand nodded affirmatively while admit-

ting, “Yes, I read it right away, but I haveno feeling for what I read.” Hmmm.

For all of their resistance to a change tothe metric system in the U.S., you wouldbelieve that Americans are intimatelyfamiliar with their system and know theircustomary units like the palm of theirhand. Further experiments with a popquiz I carried out with two of my classesof both undergraduate and graduate stu-dents at MIT (a total of 46 students), andalso with colleagues, friends, and neigh-bors, have shown me otherwise. Yes, theyall know what an inch or a gallon is, butafter that it gets really murky. Not every-body could tell me how many feet are con-tained in a mile, fewer still how manysquare feet in an acre, what the boilingtemperature of water is in degreesFahrenheit, or the atmospheric pressurein psi, and I have yet to find anybody whocan tell me accurately how many gallonsfit in a cubic foot (please guess that fornow, and I’ll give you the answer later on).For that matter, many could not evendecide how many fluid ounces are con-tained in a pint, how many pints in agallon, or how heavy a pint (or gallon) ofwater is. By contrast, most of my quiztakers knew the fundamental metric unitsreasonably well. I tallied the answers, dis-tinguishing between American-bornand/or educated and international stu-dents (about 60% vs. 40%), and alsobetween males and females. The table onthe next page shows my 10-minute ques-tionnaire on English and metric unitstogether with its resulting statistics.

As for the answers, there appeared tobe no significant differences in scoresbetween men and women, but there were


21

big differences between U.S. and foreign-born or educated. By and large, foreignerswere wholly ignorant of U.S. customaryunits, with the exception of the mile andthe temperature for freezing water, forwhich about half knew the correct answer.Among American respondents to myquiz, 86% gave an answer within 10% ofthe actual length of the mile and 66%knew the correct boiling temperature ofwater, but less than half knew the numberof fluid ounces in one pint, only aboutone-fifth knew the atmospheric pressurein pounds per square inch, and barely17% knew the weight in pounds of onepint of water. Likewise, only 10% couldestimate even approximately the size of anacre. In case you wonder, an acre is therectangular plot of land that can beplowed by an ox in one day, and its size is

one chain by one furlong, the chain being22 yards and the furlong 10 chains, whichresults in an area of 66 x 660 = 43,560 ft2.Interestingly, this number has no integersquare root, so there is no square plot ofland of integer dimensions in feet thatcontains an acre.

Concerning the metric system, bothAmericans and foreigners knew prettymuch most of the important units andequivalences, and not surprisingly, for-eigners scored somewhat higher in thiscategory. Overall, only 36% of respon-dents gave correct answers for U.S. cus-tomary units, but 71% did so for metricunits. Interestingly, only 20% ofAmerican-born students at MIT preferthe use of U.S. customary units. The over-whelming majority prefers either themetric system (54%), or the use of both

systems (25%). I’ll let you judge the prac-tical and political implications of theseresults. And whatever your thoughts onthe matter, we should also not forget theunfortunate loss of the $125 million MarsClimate Orbiter in September 1999,which occurred because the Lockheed-Martin engineering team used Englishunits in their code of navigational com-mands for the orbiter, in lieu of NASA’susual metric system.

And by the way – believe it or not – acubic foot contains nearly seven-and-a-half gallons, or 7.481 to be precise. Indeed,a gallon is exactly equal to 231 cubicinches, a cabalistic number that youshouldn’t soon forget.

POP QUIZ ON MEASURING UNITSFill out the appropriate equivalence of units (guessing and approximate values is OK):

US Foreign TotalNumber of students 29 17 46

I. U.S. Customary Units (“English” or “Avoirdupois” units)1 mile = feet 25 86 % 8 47 % 33 71 %1 acre = ft2 3 10 % 0 0 % 3 7 %1 cubic foot = gallons 4 14 % 0 0 % 4 9 %1 gallon = pints 18 62 % 1 6 % 19 41 %1 pint = fluid ounces 14 48 % 0 0 % 14 30 %1 pound = ounces 24 83 % 2 12 % 26 56 %1 (short) ton = pounds (lb) 24 83 % 1 6 % 25 54 %Atmospheric pressure = psi (= lb/in2) 6 21 % 1 6 % 7 15 %Specific weight of water = pcf (= lb/ft3) 10 34 % 2 12 % 12 26 %Specific weight of concrete = pcf 10 34 % 4 24 % 14 30 %Weight of 1 pint of water = lb 5 17 % 0 0 % 5 11 %Weight of 1 slug = lb 8 28 % 1 6 % 9 20 %Acceleration of gravity = ft/s2 (or in/s2) 18 62 % 8 47 % 26 56 %Power, 1 HP = lb-ft/sec (or BTU/s) 2 7 % 1 6 % 3 7 %Temperature of freezing H2O = ºF 29 100 % 9 53 % 38 83 %Temperature of human body = ºF 29 100 % 5 29 % 34 74 %Temperature of boiling water = ºF 19 66 % 5 29 % 24 52 %

II. Metric (SI) units1 kilometer = meters 29 100 % 17 100% 46 100%1 meter = millimeters 28 96 % 17 100% 45 98 %1 hectare = m2 5 17 % 6 35 % 11 24 %1 cubic meter (m3) = liters 14 48 % 13 76 % 27 59 %1 liter = milliliter 27 93 % 13 76 % 40 87 %1 milliliter = cm3 24 83 % 10 59 % 34 74 %1 kg = grams 29 100 % 17 100 % 46 100 %1 metric ton = kg 18 62 % 15 88 % 33 72 %Atmospheric pressure = kPa or kg-force/cm2 18 62 % 8 47 % 26 57 %Density of water = kg/liter (=kg /dm3) 19 66 % 10 59 % 29 63 %Density of rock (or concrete) = kg/liter 3 10 % 8 47 % 11 24 %Weight of 1 liter of water = N 15 52 % 12 71 % 27 59 %Acceleration of gravity = m/s2 27 93 % 17 100 % 44 96 %Power: 1 kW = N-m/s (= joule/s) 11 38 % 8 47 % 19 41 %Temperature of freezing H2O = ºC 29 100 % 17 100 % 46 100 %Temperature of human body = ºC 14 48 % 12 71 % 26 57 %Temperature of boiling water = ºC 27 100% 17 100 % 46 100 %

III. Personal info (choose one) (ratios indicated are US/Foreign)Gender Male 19/12 Female 10/5I grew up in US 29 Abroad 17In primary/secondary school, I was educated in US-units 9/0 Metric 2/14 Both 18/3I prefer/use/think in the following system: US-units 6/2 Metric 13/13 Both 10/2

Eduardo Kausel is a Professor in theDepartment of Civil and EnvironmentalEngineering ([email protected]).

Pop Quiz on Units Given to MIT StudentsYou may wish to take this quiz yourself to seehow well you do, but please do not allow morethan 10 or 15 minutes for its completion. Also,do not take time to carry out hard conversionsand hand computations; what matters is whatyou have in your head, and not what you canestimate or derive given enough time.


22

Who’s Who in the MIT Administration

Steven LermanDean forGraduateStudents

Daniel HastingsDean for

UndergraduateEducation

Larry BenedictDean for

Student Life

Adèle Naudé SantosDean, School ofArchitecture and

Planning

Subra SureshDean, School of

Engineering

Deborah FitzgeraldDean, School of

Humanities,Arts, and Social

Sciences

Marc KastnerDean, School of

Science

Steven EppingerDean (Interim),Sloan School of

Management

Because of the recent large turnover in the upper administration, the FNL thought it would be helpful to print photos and list top priorities for each of the Deans and Vice Presidents.

Top Priorities:

• Working with all the academic units to recruit more womenand underrepresented minority graduate students, particularlyin PhD programs.

• Expanding the number of fellowships to support doctoral stu-dents in their first year at MIT.

• Supporting a strong sense of community among graduate students in general, and providing a wide range of opportunitiesto graduate students for activities outside their departments,labs, and centers.

Top Priorities:

• Support the curricular reforms outlined in the Task Force forthe Undergraduate Educational Commons.

• Provide opportunities for all our students to have global educational opportunities without any penalty.

• Work with the Dean for Student Life in integrating life and learn-ing including developing programs for improving advising/ mentoring, understanding how to incorporate diversity in ourcurriculum and helping the faculty focus on improving learningfor our students.

Top Priorities:

• In coordination and collaboration with others, oversee thecompletion of NW35, the new Graduate Residence Hall, aswell as the initial steps at renovating W1 to open as an under-graduate hall. We expect both halls to be opened bySeptember, 2008.

• Conduct a comprehensive review and analysis of campus dining to insure that our programs and services are as flexibleand responsive to the needs of our students, faculty, staff, andvisitors as possible.

• Continue to develop our Student Leadership Development initiatives, especially the new Allan G. and Terri SpoonCommunity Catalyst Leadership Program for rising Juniorswho have shown leadership potential.

Top Priorities:

• academic excellence- faculty renewal- hiring of well-known and distinguished faculty

• play a greater role in the university- more participation in undergraduate programs- strengthen offerings in the arts- collaboration in MIT initiatives like the energy initiative

• one school identity- consolidation of space from six locations into two- building collaborations across programs

Top Priorities:

• To ensure that the School of Engineering remains the mostattractive place of work for the highest quality engineers,educators, and scientists of diverse backgrounds who worktogether in an exciting academic environment that fostersthe creation of knowledge, innovation, and the education ofthe world’s most gifted students.

• To facilitate new activities aimed at defining and shaping thenext frontiers of engineering and technology that will helpsolve society’s most challenging problems as, for example,those related to energy, global environmental sustainability,and human health.

• To promote innovation in education and research that lies atthe intersections of multiple disciplines.

Top Priorities:

• Strengthen the core educational mission of SHASS by providing MIT students with the analytical and imaginativetools they need to be global leaders.

• Encourage and support innovation in research and teaching.• Build collaborative relationships with colleagues in the other

four Schools.

Top Priorities:

My dream for the School of Science is that we continue to wina Nobel Prize every other year, help translate basic sciencediscoveries into technology to make the world a better place,and educate the future leaders of the world.

• My first priority is to make it even more attractive than italready is to be a faculty member at MIT, especially forwomen and minority candidates.

• My second priority is to make life better for our graduate students and postdocs.

• My third priority is to strengthen ties between the School ofScience and the other schools, especially the School ofEngineering, to make the most of our unique strengths.

Top Priorities:

In my current position as Interim Dean, my priorities focus oneffective administration of the Sloan School's programs and initia-tives, of which there are many. Here are three of the top priorities:

• Implementation of program and curriculum developments- The new Entrepreneurship and Innovation option within our

MBA program, a proposed Masters in Finance, andenabling of more international experiences for our students.

• Keeping building E62 on track- Construction has begun for the new Sloan building, even

while we develop the final design details and create plansfor occupancy in 2010.

• Preparations for the new dean- I look forward to welcoming David C. Schmittlein as the

new dean to the Sloan School and helping to ensure asmooth leadership transition.


23

Kirk KolenbranderVice President

for InstituteAffairs and

Secretary of theCorporation

Deborah BohrenVice President for

External Affairs

Theresa Stone Executive VicePresident and

Treasurer

R. Gregory MorganVice Presidentand General

Counsel

Alison Alden Vice President forHuman Resources

Jerrold GrochowVice Presidentfor InformationServices andTechnology

Top Priorities:

• Ensure strong corporate governance through effective connections between the Corporation and the Institute’s senior leadership.

• Work closely with MIT’s first Vice President for ExternalAffairs to establish a communications strategy for MIT thatserves Institute and external interests through transparentprocesses.

Top Priorities:

• To establish the Office of External Affairs as a respectedand valued member of the MIT community with MIT deans,faculty, center directors, and staff.

• To develop a research-based strategic external communicationsplan in support of MITs educational and research objectives.

• To enhance MITs relationship with the media, businesses,community groups, and local and state elected officials.

Top Priorities:

• Bring MIT’s operations and finance to the level of excellenceworthy of MIT.

• Assure that physical and fiscal are integrated by creating aunified financial organization which performs effective stew-ardship of MIT’s financial assets and recruiting and develop-ing Facilities leadership which provides credible, effectivestewardship of MIT’s physical assets.

• Create an environment where we can and do attract thebest talent to serve the Institute’s mission and develop colle-gial, effective working relationships in support of the missionof MIT.

Top Priorities:

• To build the Office of the General Counsel by aligning thelawyers and staff of the office, in combination with outsidelegal counsel, to meet MIT’s needs for legal services.

• To bring the office to bear on MIT’s most important risk-management issues.

Top Priorities:

• Learn from all my MIT constituents what key humanresource issues I should help address at MIT.

• To build the community of HR professionals and key administrative officers who are embedded in all the DLCs, sothat together we can bring effective human resource solutions to faculty and staff alike.

• To build needed HR services, such as more recruiting assis-tance, broader leadership programs, and more professionaldevelopment for staff.

Top Priorities:

• In association with the Dean for Undergraduate Educationand the Director of the Libraries, better coordinate our activities supporting technology used in teaching and learning, including enhancements to Stellar.

• In association with the Dean for Graduate Students, and theDean for Student Life, develop a vision for future studentinformation systems at MIT, and develop a new approach forprovisioning spaces for student computer use.

• In association with the Associate Provost and VicePresident for Research, develop plans for supportingresearch computing at MIT including the potential forshared data centers.

Claude CanizaresVice President for

Research andAssociate Provost

Top Priorities:

• Foster an outstanding research environment for MIT's faculty,students, and staff.

• Enable major research initiatives that cut across the Institute.• Maintain a research administration infrastructure whose

excellence matches that of MIT's research itself.

Jeffrey Newton Vice Presidentfor ResourceDevelopment

Top Priorities:

• Deliver campaign plans for the Energy and Cancer Initiatives.• Complete the silent phase of the Campaign for Students

and launch the public phase in October 2008.• Establish productive working relationships with the academic

and development leadership of the Schools and centers.

Israel Ruiz Vice President

for Finance

Top Priorities:

• Integrating the Financial Groupso Organizational Dimensions

- Leadership- Structure- Functions

o Roadmapping of Activities- Inventorying- Prioritizing- Trade-Offs

• Fostering Cross-Functional Collaborationo Internalo External

• Rationalizing Communications

Photo Credits: Donna Coveney (Deborah Fitzgerald, Daniel Hastings, Marc Kastner, Steven Lerman, R. Gregory Morgan, Subra Suresh); David Lewis (Deborah Bohren, Jeffrey Newton)


M.I.T. NumbersCampus Population in Representative Years: % Change and Absolute Numbers

140%

120%

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

-20%

-40%

140%

120%

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

-20%

-40%1985 1995 2000 2005 2006 2007

Undergraduates Graduate StudentsResearch StaffService Staff

FacultyAdministrative Staff*Academic Staff

Support Staff

1985 1995 2000 2005 2006 2007Undergraduates 4,536 4,472 4,300 4,136 4,066 4,127Graduate Students 5,090 5,302 5,672 6,184 6,140 6,126All Students 9,626 9,774 9,972 10,320 10,206 10,253Faculty 989 954 931 983 992 998*Academic Staff 1,739 2,224 2,552 3,093 3,350 3,794Research Staff 984 999 1,022 1,411 1,456 1,474Administrative Staff 1,024 1,301 1,427 1,784 1,837 1,886Support Staff 1,645 1,611 1,517 1,565 1,637 1,575Service Staff 1,151 929 797 839 843 890Faculty and Staff 7,532 8,018 8,246 9,675 10,115 10,617Campus Total 17,329 17,962 18,370 20,097 20,424 20,980

Source: Office of the Provost/Institutional Research

* Academic Staff = Lecturers, Instructors, Adjunct Faculty, Professors of the Practice, Retired Faculty, Professors without Tenure, Faculty Emeriti,Visiting Faculty, Visiting Lecturers, Visiting Instructors, Senior Scientists/Engineers, Postdoctoral Associates, Research Fellows, Academic Administrators, Affiliates

M IT F a culty N ewsletterweb.mit.edu/fnl/volume/201/fnl201.pdf · at M IT is sh ort lived , an d m...

Documents

Transcript of M IT F a culty N ewsletterweb.mit.edu/fnl/volume/201/fnl201.pdf · at M IT is sh ort lived , an d m...