Vol. XVIII No. 4 March/April 2006

Vol. XVIII No. 4 March/April 2006

2

The MIT FacultyNewsletterEditorial Board

Alice AmsdenUrban Studies and Planning

John BelcherPhysics

Nazli ChoucriPolitical Science

Erik DemaineElectrical Engineering & Computer Science

Olivier de WeckAeronautics & Astronautics/Engineering Systems

Ernst G. FrankelOcean Engineering

Stephen C. GravesManagement Science and Engineering Systems

Jean E. JacksonAnthropology

Gordon KaufmanManagement Science and Statistics

Daniel S. KempChemistry

Samuel J. KeyserLinguistics & Philosophy

*Jonathan KingBiology

*Stephen J. LippardChemistry

David H. MarksCivil and Environmental Engineering

*Fred MoavenzadehCivil & Environmental Engineering/Engineering Systems

Ronald PrinnEarth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences

David ThorburnLiterature

*George VergheseElectrical Engineering and Computer Science

Rosalind H. WilliamsSTS and Writing

Kathryn A. WillmoreVice President and Secretary of the Corporation

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 617-253-0458Email [email protected]

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

01 Diversification of a University Faculty:Observations on Hiring Women Faculty in the Schools of Science and Engineering at MITNancy Hopkins

Editorial 01 Squeezing Out the Graduate Students

Letters 03 Students Need Dental Insurance PlanYoushun Sun

04 When Disasters Strike!Ernst G. Frankel

05 Faculty Roles in Administration:A Critical Part of Institute GovernanceRobert P. Redwine

Teach Talk 06 Why Students Don’t Attend ClassTom Clay and Lori Breslow

MIT Poetry 08 Life in the Lowlands William Pounds

09 Provost Announces Government Inquiry Into Lincoln Lab Misconduct Charges

10 International Students at MIT Post 9/11Danielle Guichard-Ashbrook

12 A Failure in CommunicationsBrian Evans

14 Peer Support: Taking Advice from a FriendBarun Singh

M.I.T. Numbers 24 International Students at MIT:Top 10 International Countries Over 10 Years;Top 10 International Countries (2005)

contents

Photo credits: Page 1 David Lewis

MIT Faculty NewsletterMarch/April 2006

3

Squeezing Out the Graduate Studentscontinued from page 1

fund the program, the Institute no longercovered the full costs of NSF and othergraduate student fellowship shortfalls,instituted a 10% transaction fee on discre-tionary funds, stopped paying interest onPool C investment accounts, and revisedits schedule of tuition collection duringthe academic year. But as our endowmenteroded following the .com bubble, and thegenerally conservative Corporationbecame nervous, the tuition remissionwas adjusted to 50%, and then to 45%(last year) to cover the costs of risingstudent health care coverage. As a conse-quence, it now costs $57,598 per year tosupport a graduate student at MIT,including stipend ($24,588), tuition($17,765), and F&A ($15,245), among thehighest rates in the country. The transac-tion fee was not removed nor was the PoolC interest restored.

Some granting agencies, such as theNIH, have a cap on the amount of moneythey will award to support a graduate

student. Others, like NSF, also typicallyunder-fund the cost of graduate studentresearch, at least at the MIT level. In thecase of NIH, the direct costs are capped atthe minimum starting postdoctoral salaryof $36,996, resulting in a gap of $5,357 indirect costs per graduate student. Withrising stipend and tuition levels, this gap islikely to widen. In addition, the high costof research at the Institute puts our facultyin a disadvantageous position with respectto their peers at other institutions. Whengrant proposal review groups examineour large budgets, they wonder what therelatively high costs reflect, a process thatcan and has led to recommendations ofsignificant reductions in awarded budgetlevels for MIT faculty.

Readers with a long history at theInstitute may view these facts as old news,and our youngest colleagues on thefaculty may be somewhat shielded fromthese concerns since they run their labs onstartup funds. More senior faculty nearing

retirement may already be in the processof downsizing their groups and/or switch-ing to more postdoctoral associates. Butfor the large group of faculty in between,there are once again serious clouds on thehorizon. Because of the increase in gradu-ate student tuition, labs are now findingthat post-docs are becoming as economi-cal to support as graduate students. As aresult, more postdoctoral associates arebeing appointed and fewer graduateresearch assistants trained. If we are toretain the talented pool of graduateresearch assistants who are so essential tothe breakthrough research that character-izes MIT, serious action on the part of thesenior administration is required in theimmediate future to address this issue.Will our newly appointed leaders find theway or will we continue squeezing out thegraduate students?

Editorial Sub-Committee

Students need dental insurance plan

letters

To The Faculty Newsletter:

I HAVE J U ST R EAD an article in theJanuary/February issue of the MIT FacultyNewsletter: “An open letter to the MITfaculty” concerning the Medical Care TaskForce by Dr. Ed Seldin. I strongly agreewith Dr. Seldin that not having a dentalinsurance plan is a disservice to the MITstudent body. I also agree with Dr. Seldinthat the dental health of international stu-dents deserves more concern.

I was a student from China and I wasthe president of the Chinese Student andScholar Association (CSSA) at MIT forthe year ’00-’01. My very first dental

appointment at MIT was made thisJanuary, one year after I graduated fromMIT and became a postdoc here. Duringthe seven years of my graduate student lifeat MIT, I did not see a dentist because: 1) Ithought I did not need a dental servicesince I have attractive teeth; 2) I did nothave dental insurance and I was afraidthat I could not afford a dental visit. I justjoined the MIT dental plan as a staffmember on January 1, 2006, and I havevisited the dental office four times in thepast seven weeks, with three otherappointments scheduled. I have had mywisdom teeth removed and I am nowwaiting for teeth cleanings. I hope these

appointments will help stop my gingivitisand periodontitis.

I think many Chinese friends of minehave similar experiences and would visitthe dental office more often if dentalinsurance were provided at MIT. Smartpeople should have healthy teeth! I believethe dream could come true with helpfrom the President’s Office.

Youshun SunPhD, Geophysics

Editor’s Note: A similar version of this letter

was sent by Dr. Sun to President Hockfield.

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XVIII No. 4

4

Ernst G. FrankelWhen Disasters Strike!

Help is on the way . . . or is it?

L A R G E D I S A S T E R S O C C U R W I T H

increasing frequency. Most, like lastyear’s Indian Ocean tsunami, thePakistan earthquake, and the Katrinahurricane, are caused by nature. Eachtime, governments and institutionsincluding universities rush to help withmoney, resources, and most importantlypromises; promises of funds, supplies,logistics services, and advice. While somefunds, supplies, logistic services, andadvice are actually delivered, many (andmost importantly) solutions usuallyremain empty promises.

Among the responders are often uni-versities, such as MIT, which announcegrandiose plans and make compassionateappeals, form committees or workinggroups to look into the matter, which aftera period of declining member participa-tion in line with reduced public attentionusually just goes out of existence or dies.In other words, universities, like somegovernments and other organizations,often use disasters more as publicity ploysthan a commitment of help.

There is a lot MIT could do in thesecases, but it requires more than piouspromises; it requires real commitments,including assignment of resources. Whilesome of these will always be provided bywell intentioned faculty and others, thereis a real need for the Institute as a whole tolead and commit to such endeavors. Itwould be effort and money well spent, notjust in enhancing MIT’s public image, butalso in assuring faculty and staff that theyare not alone in providing badly neededassistance. We must consider disasterresponse not just another academic exer-cise, but an opportunity to make a realdifference and/or immediate impact. It isalso an important educational and

research activity in line with our primaryfunctions.

Working with the Senate Committee onHomeland Security investigation of theKatrina response, I became painfully awareof the inexcusable delays and mismanage-ment in the delivery of relief by govern-ment agencies during and after the disaster.But I also had to admit that academic insti-tutions could have done much more thanissue pious announcements, form studycommittees, and dispatch of some isolatedexperts to identify issues.

Most of the damage done by the hurri-canes as well as other natural disasters wasand is preventable. The failure of the leveesystem in New Orleans, for example, wasthe result of a combination of bad design,inadequate construction supervision,inept or non-existent maintenance, andlack of effective inspection. Much of thiscould have been prevented by expert over-sight, which academic institutions (asneutral parties) could provide.

Reconstruction plans now seem toadvocate much of the same faulty non-storm resisting building approach andurban planning that fails to consider thelong-term threats of ever more violentnatural disasters. For example, there is anurgent need for a drastic change over fromthe traditional nailed stick and plywoodhome construction that is used in mostsingle family dwellings that were flattenedby moderately strong winds and not justflood surges, to solid concrete buildingson piled stilts with utilities located not inbasements but in attics. There are simi-larly major opportunities to amelioratethe effects of storm surges by variouscoastal barriers. In my opinion, academicscould and should play a proactive role indeveloping real solutions and use their

knowledge and prestige to influence gov-ernment agencies, industry, and thepublic in adopting meaningful disasterprevention methods as part of reconstruc-tion, relief, and future disaster prevention.

The prestige and reputation of MITshould be used to assure that reconstruc-tion and development decisions are notlargely based on political convenience, buton technical requirements and socio-eco-nomic realities; not on the interests of thecontractor and home building industry,but those of the local population and theirfuture. Universities like MIT, in myopinion, not only carry the responsibilityof providing the best possible educationto top qualified students and offeringunique research and development inscience, medicine, engineering, and man-agement, but also the responsibility ofleading in guiding government, industry,and the public in the right direction, par-ticularly on issues affecting public safetyand security.

Large disaster relief managementcannot be left mainly to politicians if thepublic is to be properly served and pro-tected. There is an urgent need for effectiveguidance, involvement, and leadership bythe intellectual community if the shamefulperformance of disaster prevention andrelief we witnessed in the Katrina episodeis not to be repeated. Many colleagues mayargue that such involvement deviates fromour primary missions of education andresearch. I beg to differ and contend thatthis type of activity provides the very coreand rationale for our primary missions. Ifwe are not at the forefront of disaster pre-vention and relief, how do we justify muchof our work!

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


5

Robert P. RedwineFaculty Roles in Administration:A Critical Part of Institute Governance

I R ECE NTLY COM PLETE D A term offive-and-a-half years as Dean forUndergraduate Education, and am now inthe process of re-invigorating my researchprogram and preparing to return to theclassroom. When the editor of the FacultyNewsletter asked me if I would like towrite a retrospective of my experience asDean, I was initially skeptical. Frankly, Ithink it is very hard to make such retro-spectives interesting to a large fraction ofthe faculty; while experiences such asserving as Dean for UndergraduateEducation are very intense and consum-ing for the individuals who serve, this doesnot guarantee that others will find adescription of the experience of greatinterest.

I eventually decided that writing anarticle would be a good idea, but only if Ifocused on one particular aspect of myexperience and perspective. This certainlydoes not mean that I do not treasure themany experiences I shared with colleaguesfrom the faculty and staff and with manystudents during my tenure as Dean. TheDean’s job is indeed intense and consum-ing. Some of the things one can accom-plish are important, and certainly the jobis always exciting. The best part was thechance to work with so many dedicated,bright people from all parts of theInstitute. I will always feel lucky to havehad this opportunity.

The aspect of my experience I wish todiscuss, has to do with the relationshipbetween faculty members who serve inroles in the senior administration, andtheir other faculty colleagues. The mostsurprising (and most disappointing)aspect of my tenure as Dean was the atti-tude among many faculty colleagues that Ihad gone over to “The Dark Side” and wastherefore not very useful or trustworthy.Somehow, from one day to the next, I hadturned into someone who could neither

understand nor represent a faculty per-spective on important issues. Colleagues Ihad known for years had little interest inkeeping in touch, even when it wasstraightforward to do so. I heard similarexperiences reported by my faculty col-leagues on Academic Council. This atti-tude of many members of the facultycertainly seems illogical, and I believe rep-resents an important lost opportunity foreffective faculty governance of theInstitute.

There are 14 members of the facultywho serve on Academic Council. Most ofthem have spent their professional careerson the faculty at MIT. It is my impressionthat most of them also do not expect totake on additional significant administra-tive roles after they complete their termsas Dean, etc. They are serving the Institutein their current roles because they arededicated to the educational and researchgoals of MIT and because they believe it isimportant that these jobs be done well. Inaddition to carrying out their individualresponsibilities, these colleagues have theopportunity to participate on a regularbasis, through Academic Council, in dis-cussions and decisions which shape theInstitute in critical ways.

This tradition of senior academic andadministrative leaders coming togetherregularly to compare notes, reach consen-sus on important issues, and advise thePresident of MIT, is a major strength ofour system of governance. I do not knowof any other university which has a moreeffective way for faculty to participatestrongly in the governance of the institu-tion. The system is most effective whenfaculty who serve in these positions bringwith them a perspective which has beenformed by their many years teaching anddoing research. It is my observation thatthis is exactly the perspective brought byour faculty colleagues on Academic

Council. Most faculty members serving atthe Dean level do not view that role astheir career goal. Deans at MIT are typi-cally first and foremost faculty membersat MIT; the role as Dean is an interestingand exciting one, but temporary.

Clearly, some of our colleagues do endup going on to other administrative lead-ership positions at MIT or elsewhere, andwe are proud that they do. But my experi-ence is that these individuals also bringwith them the perspective of having servedon the MIT faculty, which informs inimportant ways their judgment and deci-sions as they move into other positions.

So we have an enviable system offaculty participation in the governance ofthe Institute. How can we make it func-tion to its full potential? One way is clearlyto continue to recruit wise, dedicated col-leagues to serve in important administra-tive positions. But along with this shouldcome the recognition by the faculty ingeneral that these colleagues are repre-senting our interests and opinions in animportant setting. They need to continueto feel that they have faculty colleagueswho view them as members of the facultyand who will keep them in contact withfaculty concerns. It would be highly desir-able to reduce the needless barrierbetween the faculty and those colleagueswho serve for a time in administrativeroles, a barrier which is felt strongly bymany. We will all benefit, and our systemof governance will be the stronger.

As I have said on other occasions, itwas a great privilege and pleasure for meto have served as Dean for UndergraduateEducation. I highly recommend such arole for those who may be interested.

Thanks for reading this far. And don’tforget to keep in touch with your friendson The Dark Side.

Robert P. Redwine is a Professor of Physics([email protected]).


6

Tom ClayLori Breslow

Teach TalkWhy Students Don’t Attend Class

AR E YOU D I S SATI S FI E D WITH theattendance at your lectures? Do youwonder what your students are thinkingwhen they skip your lectures? If youanswered “yes” to either question, you’ll beinterested in what 47 undergraduates saidin response to a recent e-mail survey ontheir attitudes toward attending lectures.This article addresses the results of thatsurvey, including (1) the students’ generalattitudes about lecture attendance; (2) theimportance of various factors they con-sider in deciding whether to attend; (3) thethinking process they use to make thosedecisions; and (4) their recommendationsfor ensuring high attendance rates.

Students’ General Attitudes aboutAttending LecturesWe found that students’ attitudestoward lectures vary widely, from “Inever miss them” to “they’re worthless,”with most responses falling somewherein between. Most students reported theytry to attend lectures, and usually do,

missing them from time to time as theresult of academic, extracurricular, orpersonal conflicts. When asked to esti-mate what percentage of lectures theyattend, about two of every three respon-dents (67%) estimated that they attendat least 90%, three of every four (76%)that they attend at least 75%, and morethan nine in 10 (93%) that they attendat least half.

Factors in Decision Making and theirImportanceThe survey results indicate that the mostimportant factor in deciding whether toattend lectures is the lectures’ quality andclarity, followed by conflicting deadlinesfor other classes, the professor’s use of rel-evant examples, and the professor’s abilityto engage and entertain the students. Thefigure below lists various factors from thehighest mean importance score to thelowest (based on a five-point scale inwhich 1 was “not at all important” and 5was “extremely important”).

In creating the list of factors we askedstudents to rate, we tried to adopt theirviewpoint, but we discovered from theirwrite-in comments that we had not antic-ipated the following:

• Whether the students expect to learnfrom the lecture – If students do not expectto learn from lectures, they are less likelyto attend. “The absolute most importantthing,” according to one student, “is if Ifeel that I am learning something in theclass.” A second student echoed thisopinion, adding, “If I’m not learning, whygo?”

• The difficulty of the class and the material – Students say that if they don’tfind the material challenging or if they aredoing well in the class, they may decide toallot time they would otherwise spend onthe class – including attending lectures –to classes they find more challenging,especially at the busiest and most pres-sure-filled times of the semester.

• How the lectures relate to psets andtests – Students felt that the lectures

Quality/Clarity of Lectures

Need to Attend to Extracurricular/Personal Activities

Deadlines for Other Academic Work

Use of Relevant Examples

Lecturer’s Ability to Engage/Entertain

Lack of Sleep

Availability of Lecture Material from Printed Sources

Hour at Which Class is Scheduled

Availability of Lecture Material from Other Students

Use of Demos

Size of Class

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

1.87

2.69

2.70

2.82

3.18

3.43

3.49

3.71

3.82

4.04

4.28

Relative Importance of Factors Used to Decide on Lecture Attendance

1 = Not at all important; 5 = Extremely important


7

should be aligned with what appears inthe homework and on tests. As onestudent put it, “[H]aving the lecturesdirectly relate to the problem sets and testmaterials is probably the most motivatingfactor in going to lecture. Because thatway, what is said in class can be processedin doing the problem sets and I can seethat they are both useful and applicable.”

• How interested the students are in thesubject matter – Not surprisingly, studentsare more likely to attend classes they findinteresting. At first glance, this may appearto be beyond the professor’s control, butat least one student would disagree:

“What matters most for me is howmuch I like the class. Sometimes a class isgood because it is simply an interestingtopic. However, an otherwise boringsubject can become an interesting class ifthe lecturer is able to present the coursematerial in such a clear and cogentmanner that students cannot help findingit interesting. Generally I have found thatif a lecturer genuinely finds the materialhe/she is teaching [interesting], andhe/she is able to connect with studentsthrough lectures (present material in away that makes sense), then he/she doesn’thave trouble making the material interest-ing for students.”

The Decision-making ProcessThe decision-making factors are discussedabove as though each influences the stu-dents independently of the others, butthat is not the case. To the contrary, thewrite-in comments make it clear that stu-dents typically use a very practical deci-sion-making process that considers arange of factors in combination, compar-ing the advantages and disadvantages oflecture attendance, calculating the impact

on their workload, and attempting tooptimize their use of time. While studentsmay or may not be deliberate or system-atic in making their decisions, they doexplain them this way in retrospect. Inlight of this process, the mean importancescores discussed above may best be seen asreflecting, at an aggregate level, theweights the students place on the various

factors in their overall decision-making“calculations.”

Recommendations for Ensuring HighAttendance RatesA number of students offered observa-tions on how professors can ensure highattendance rates. Some of those methods– pop quizzes, taking attendance, andgiving away test questions in class – forcestudents to attend. Students referred tothese methods as “cheap” and “mean,” theimplication being that a professor usingthem might achieve high attendance rates,but would not be earning them. Othermethods, they said, make the studentswant to attend. How can a professor dothis? The easy answer is to say that he orshe should lecture well and clearly, use rel-evant examples, engage the students,schedule classes in the afternoon, use a lotof demos, and align the lectures with thepsets and tests. This is sound advice as faras it goes, but is of only limited usefulness,since it does not suggest how these thingscan be done. Fortunately, some of thesame students who provided the otherinsights in this article also offered specificadvice on how to give great lectures. Theirsuggestions include:

• “It’s a real pleasure to be able to walkout [of class] . . . and know what happened,and how it all fits together. … One way todo this might be to finish the lectures by

stepping down from the position of profes-sor, and taking the view of the students, totry to talk more on a level with them. As a‘student’ [the professor] could run througheverything he had ‘learned’ in that class,describing it in broad, quick strokes. Thenthe students could leave, confidentlyknowing that what seemed so new andoverwhelming just a few [minutes] agocould be explained very simply.”

• “[T]o make the lectures useful, the newknowledge must be integrated into what wealready know. . . . [It] must be continuallyrelated back to known material, so the stu-dents can make the small connections thatkeep the new facts/concepts tied into the exist-ing knowledge structure. This can simply bedone by verbally giving the equivalent ofdirections after every new small concept is . . .introduced. . . . Simply add, so this equationcame from ___ . . . and tells us ___.”

• “The most important thing to comeaway from a lecture with is the overallstructure of the new knowledge gained – inessence how all the parts fit together. …[W]ithout this overall super-structure …,the [information is] no more than dis-jointed facts that seem pointless and frus-trating. [T]hen the lectures become bothmeaningless and frustrating and peoplestop going.”

Tom Clay is a principal in Tom Clay &Associates, Learning Consultants, and anAssociate of the MIT Teaching and LearningLaboratory ([email protected]). Lori Breslow is the Director of the Teaching andLearning Laboratory and a Senior Lecturer, MITSloan School of Management ([email protected]).

About the SurveyThe survey was conducted by Tom Clay &

Associates, Learning Consultants, in associa-

tion with the Teaching and Learning Laboratory

in the spring of 2005, and underwritten by the

Cambridge-MIT Institute (CMIT). Short ques-

tionnaires were sent by email to 116 students in

one subject. Forty-seven students responded for

a 41% response rate. The questionnaire con-

sisted of three questions, each of which afforded

opportunities for write-in comments; the informa-

tion in the write-in comments proved especially

rich. Analysis was also informed by interviews

conducted with students in the same course.

When asked to estimate what percentage oflectures they attend, about two of every threerespondents (67%) estimated that they attend atleast 90%, three of every four (76%) that theyattend at least 75%, and more than nine in 10(93%) that they attend at least half.


8

LLiiffee iinn tthhee LLoowwllaannddss

When corporations failMany drown.

The Party tried with only oneRun for the people

Without success.

Those who do withoutLive on higher ground

Eating roots and berries.

We who prefer the good lifeAdvocate virtue,

But just in case,Stuff old leaks

With laws.

Knowing the sea waits.

MIT Poetry

Professor Emeritus William Pounds has been atMIT since 1961. Along the way, he has served asDean of the Sloan School, on several corporateboards, and as Senior Advisor to the RockefellerFamily. He currently teaches a course on corporategovernance.

by William Pounds


9

Provost Announces Government InquiryInto Lincoln Lab Misconduct Charges

I N A N E - M A I L L E T T E R to the MITfaculty on March 3rd of this year, ProvostL. Rafael Reif announced that the federalgovernment is going to investigate chargesof research misconduct at MIT LincolnLaboratory regarding the test results ofthe 1FT-1A (Integrated Flight Test 1A)missile conducted in June 1997. Theinvestigation is in response to an MITrequest for classified data that the Institutestates it needs to complete its own inquiryinto charges leveled by MIT Professor TedPostol beginning in April of 2001.

In his letter to the faculty, Provost Reifwrites: “Despite the difficulties in resolv-ing the allegation, the MIT administra-tion has never ceased to press for asatisfactory conclusion. To remind you,MIT had followed its procedures (whichconform to federal guidelines) by com-pleting an inquiry into the allegation.The inquiry did not find that misconducthad occurred, but concluded that furtherinvestigation into the facts was needed toaddress several open questions. MIT’ssubsequent attempts to initiate an inves-tigation by non-MIT personnel havebeen stymied by the DefenseDepartment’s restrictions on access tocertain documents essential to the inves-tigation. This has led to the unfortunatedelays.”

In announcing the federal investiga-tion, Reif continues: “The Department ofDefense has now agreed to conduct aninvestigation into the open questions enu-merated in MIT’s inquiry. . . . In this case,the Department has been willing to workwith MIT to define a process that meetsour concerns as well as theirs.”

In a letter to MIT President SusanHockfield dated March 7th and madeavailable to the Faculty Newsletter,Professor Postol takes exception to theInstitute’s response to the announcementby the government. “As you well know, Ihave been trying for nearly 5 years to get

MIT to investigate a serious matter of sci-entific fraud and misconduct at MITLincoln Laboratory regarding nationalmissile defense. Now a letter to the Facultydated March 3, 2006 from Provost Reifstates that MIT’s attempts to initiate suchan investigation have been ‘stymied’ by theDefense Department’s restrictions onaccess to certain information ‘essential toaddress the questions identified in MIT’sinquiry report.’ However, the fundamentalquestion that really needs to be answeredis why you refuse to proceed with aninvestigation and analysis of the ampleexisting public data that shows that fraudoccurred.”

The structure of the investigation,states Reif, will be as follows: “The investi-gation will be conducted by Dr. BrendanGodfrey, a high-level, civilian employee ofthe Department with strong technical cre-dentials who is independent of the MissileDefense Agency (which was the sponsorof the test that the Lincoln scientific staffreviewed). . . . The investigator will begranted access to all relevant documents,including documents for which the statesecrets privilege was asserted in 2003. Hewill submit a report to the UnderSecretary of Defense for Acquisition,Technology and Logistics, Mr. KennethKrieg, who under the federal guidelinesmakes the final decision on the questionof research misconduct.”

An additional key part of the investiga-tion process is the appointment of anadvisor and consultant to Dr. Godfrey.Continues Reif: “MIT has advocated, andthe Department has agreed, that a mutu-ally acceptable outside party act as anadvisor and consultant to the investigator,to help assure an impartial and thoroughinvestigation. This advisor will have fullaccess to all classified and unclassifieddocuments, except those specificallysubject to the state secrets privilegeasserted in 2003. We are extremely fortu-

nate that Mr. Norman Augustine hasagreed to serve as the advisor.”

The appointment of Augustine, aformer Army undersecretary underPresident Ford, past Chairman and CEOof Lockheed Martin Corporation, and apast member of the MIT Corporation,draws nothing but rancor from ProfessorPostol in his letter to President Hockfield:“You have now decided to turn yourresponsibilities over to the Pentagon andhave the ‘investigation’ watched over by aformer CEO of Lockheed-Martin whowrote an editorial in The Wall StreetJournal asserting falsely that the Patriotanti-missile defense had performed suc-cessfully during the Gulf War in 1991. Cananyone who knows about these biasedand misleading claims and the lies thePentagon tells about this and other pro-grams expect an objective investigation ofthis matter? Can you?”

In The Wall Street Journal editorialreferred to by Postol (“How We AlmostLost the Technical War,” June 14, 1991)Augustine writes: “Critics who for yearshave been telling us that our military tech-nology won’t work are now telling us that,in the Persian Gulf, it didn’t work.Fortunately, Saddam and his troops didn’tget the word. We are told that the cruisemissile, the Apache helicopter and theStealth fighter didn’t perform up to par.Neither, it seems, did the Patriot missile –which some apparently would have usbelieve was repeatedly knocked out of thesky by Saddam’s Scuds.” Augustine con-tinues:“Perhaps the best example of all [ofwhat the defense acquisition system canaccomplish when it is unfettered] is thePatriot ‘Scudbuster.’ The Patriot missile isassembled by Martin Marietta under con-tract to Raytheon Corp., the system’sprime contractor.”

Provost Reif completed his letter to thefaculty by promising to keep theminformed.


10

Danielle Guichard-AshbrookInternational Students at MIT Post 9/11

Have increased security measures affected our student population?

T H E R E H A S B E E N C O N C E R N

expressed across the Institute about thepotential effects of the U.S. government’spost-9/11 security measures on interna-tional students. The good news is thatinternational students continue to applyto and matriculate at MIT in significantnumbers. In the immediate aftermath of9/11, we did not see our numbersplummet, as did many schools across thenation.

A quarter of the students at MIT areinternational; nearly 37% of graduate stu-dents are international. Those percentageshave remained fairly constant over the past10 years. Numbers of students from spe-cific countries have fluctuated slightly overthe years. Currently, the numbers forCanada and the United Kingdom aredown, while India’s and Korea’s haveincreased. (See M.I.T. Numbers, backpage.) International graduate applicationsdeclined noticeably in 2004, but thosenumbers are beginning to recover, climb-ing again in 2005. (Source: Office of theProvost, Institutional Research.)

MIT still retains its enormous appealto the best and brightest around the worldin nearly all science and engineeringfields. In spite of onerous post-9/11 visaregulations and processes, our students dosecure their visas and arrive with very littletrouble. In 2002, nearly 100 of our inter-national students were subjected to extrasecurity clearance procedures, elicitingsignificant visa delays. By this year thatnumber has trickled to fewer than adozen. This past academic year, all of our800 or so incoming students whoaccepted offers of admission, and couldidentify funding resources, arrived by reg-

istration day. No one was denied a studentvisa. The oft-discussed “visa problem” forinternational students is not a significantissue at MIT. Our students get their visas.And the vast majority arrives in a timelyfashion.

So what’s to worry?There is growing anecdotal evidence

that while our international student pop-ulation is, by and large, very happy at MIT,they are ambivalent about being in theUnited States. Many of our studentsreport a distinct feeling of unease aboutthe political and cultural climate in theU.S. That unease surrounds their stay atMIT, as they come to understand just howextensively their activities and where-abouts are tracked and recorded by federalauthorities; and as their motives for study-ing in the U.S. are questioned by thoseauthorities. Our students are keenlyattuned to an atmospheric shift in theAmerican environment, one tilted towardsuspicion of foreign nationals, and in theextreme, even menace. Why, we hear someinternational students asking themselves,should we commit to this less-than-fullywelcoming environment?

Once in the U.S., it is relatively easy foran international student to run afoul ofimmigration laws. If you pass your quali-

fiers, but forget to apply for a new immi-gration document that reflects the higherdegree, or if you move and fail to updateyour address within 10 days, or if youallow your documents to expire by as littleas one day, your legal status in the U.S. will

be “terminated.” Such oversights, thoughoften redeemable through a lengthy andcostly reinstatement process, can poten-tially plague a student throughout a careerin the U.S. The record of the “mistake”never goes away. You will likely be askedabout it in future applications.

The Student Exchange VisitorInformation System (SEVIS) is the gov-ernment’s student tracking database. It isoften inaccurate and chronically out ofdate. It is also unforgiving.A few examples:

• A returning African student was told at aU.S. Embassy that his status in SEVISwas “deactivated” and he was no longerentitled to a student visa. In fact, thoughthe student had been a graduate studentfor nearly a year, it was his undergradu-ate record that the Consular Official hadaccessed. Urgent faxes and e-mails fromMIT, even a copy of the active record inSEVIS itself, would not dissuade this par-ticular consular official. The SEVISrecord he could see was all that mattered.

There is growing anecdotal evidence that whileour international student population is, by andlarge, very happy at MIT, they are ambivalentabout being in the United States. Many of ourstudents report a distinct feeling of unease aboutthe political and cultural climate in the U.S.


11

• A PhD student was stopped during arandom security check in upstate NewYork. After a cursory check in SEVIS, theborder official bluntly told her that shewas in the U.S. illegally, and promptlyarrested her, holding her in a makeshiftcell for several hours. Her young friendand boyfriend were witness to theevents, were shocked and frightened,and won’t forget it any time soon. A yearearlier the student had withdrawn fromMIT for a term anddeparted the U.S. to carefor an ill parent. Theauthorized withdrawalwas duly noted in SEVIS,as was the fresh entry tothe U.S. when the studentreturned to full-time reg-istration. According tothe student, the agentsimply didn’t believe herand refused to allow hertime to secure documen-tary evidence of herstatus before placing herdirectly into deportationproceedings. She was, inthe agent’s view, “unlaw-fully present in the United States.” WhenI spoke to the agent a few days later con-firming her MIT status, he told me overthe phone that “she didn’t look like aPhD student at MIT.”

• A pregnant PhD student was re-enteringthe U.S. after a visit home. While theborder official acknowledged that herSEVIS records were in order, he pro-ceeded to aggressively question herabout her pregnancy, accusing her of“using her student status” to ensure thather baby was born in the U.S. Thisdemeaning encounter left our student soshaken that it was weeks before she couldspeak about the experience withoutsobbing.

Of course, cases such as these get even-tually “resolved.” The beleaguered studentarrives back at MIT and returns to his orher research. The anger and hurt retreats.But the experience leaves a sting, not easily

forgotten. And of course these stories havelegs. They are told and retold to other stu-dents, to anxious faculty and staff, and tofamily back home.

Unwelcoming and disconcertingexperiences such as these are having aperceptible impact on our students.Some are beginning to openly questionwhether or not they want to pursue edu-cation, careers, or lives in the U.S. Theyare increasingly considering internships,

research and employment opportunitiesoutside of the U.S. “. . . to hedge my bets,”as one student put it to me,“in case I findI don’t like it here.” Recently, three differ-ent students married to U.S. citizens haveindicated that they have no desire topursue opportunities in the U.S. aftergraduation. One of them, a Russiannational, said he had no intention of everapplying for a green card. Another, a PRCnational, is going off with her husband toa post-doctoral position in Finland aftergraduation. This kind of rejection ofeven considering opportunities in theU.S. was unthinkable as little as threeyears ago.

Should we be concerned that foreignstudents feel less welcomed and at ease ina security-minded America? Other coun-tries have always coveted our highly tal-ented students, and our students havealways had choices. But now competingcountries have more to offer than in thepast. With stronger economies, aggres-

sive global recruitment strategies, andenhanced academic and research infra-structure in places such as Canada, India,China, and much of Asia, “our” studentsare actively wooed. These countries arealso pointedly liberalizing their visapolices as U.S. immigration policybecomes more prohibitive. Friendlyimmigration policies in Canada, the UK,and Australia specifically target scientistsand engineers. Other countries will no

doubt follow suit. The message implicitin these polices resonates deeply withMIT’s international students: “We wantyou. We will value you when you arehere.”

Why wouldn’t our students begin torespond to this welcome?

Wouldn’t you?MIT provides an extraordinary and

effective environment for research andeducation to all of our students, includingour internationals. Within MIT, interna-tional students feel valued and vital to thisvibrant academic community. Many willbuild lasting relationships with theInstitute, and many with the UnitedStates. But we cannot ignore the troublingimplications of the broader Americanenvironment to the well being of ourcommunity.

International Graduate Students Admissions and Yield

Source: Office of the Provost, Institutional Research

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%2002 2003 2004 2005

14.7%

62.2%

14.3%

61.2%

14.5%

60.1%

15.2%

63.2%

% Applicants Admitted % Yield

Danielle Guichard-Ashbrook is Director ofthe Interntional Students Office and AssociateDean for Graduate Students ([email protected]).


12

Brian EvansA Failure in Communications

The metamorphosis of academic publishing

I R EALLY HAVE TO lean into the windto make some headway as I come throughthe wind tunnel at the base of the build-ing. Well, what do you expect? After all, it’sMarch, and this is Building 54. Instead ofwaiting for the elevators, I decide to walkup to the seventh floor. There is not goingto be any time for any other exercise today.How can you work for 12 hours each day,and get further and further behind?

Trudging up the stairs, I go over my listof things to do. Actually the hike is morelike 10 floors, but my list is long enough tolast the entire trip. On the way past themail room, I grab my pile of incoming.Let’s see: junk, junk, the Faculty Newsletter– put that aside to read cover to cover later– junk, junk, some papers to review, a fewproposals to read, a couple of manuscriptsto revise . . . Wait, what’s this? A letter fromthe publisher. Great, our paper wasaccepted! Here’s the copyright agreement.Man, who writes this stuff? Well, at least Ican sign this, get it out of here, and get onwith life. After all, you don’t really have achoice about these agreements, right?There isn’t anything you can do, and themedia rights don’t matter, anyway.Nobody’s going to make a movie out ofmy research.

Well, actually, most of those commentsare dead wrong. There is a choice, thoseagreements do matter, and you, theauthor, are not powerless. There are thingsyou can do about it; but first, a littlehistory.

For perhaps the last 10-15 years, aca-demic publishing has been metamor-phosing in dramatic fashion. Most of usare aware of the transition from print toelectronic media. For those with the right

institutional connections, access to mostmajor research journals is now possiblefrom our offices or, even, at home. Lessapparent to end-users in academe hasbeen the transfer of publication costsfrom the single subscriber to multiple-journal, multi-user access licenses bylibraries, institutions, and systems. Thesefundamental changes in the businessstrategies of the commercial academicpublishers have caused extraordinarilylarge increases of cost for colleges and uni-versities (see graph, next page).Additionally, globalization of the schol-arly printing trade has dramaticallyreduced the number of publishers, even asthe number of journals has increased.

Intellectual property rights are also intransition. The advent of the Internet andits promise of large amounts of freelyaccessible information have triggered amovement to replace copyright law withcontract law. Access to scholarly publica-tions is now rented yearly, rather thanpurchased. The right to own print copiesnow incurs charges in addition to simplesubscription costs, and many publishersare moving to eliminate traditional printversions entirely. Thus, if a library drops ajournal subscription, access to the entireelectronic version may be lost, andrecourse to a printed copy is much lesslikely. Subscription rates are now negoti-ated individually by institutions, ratherthan being based on standard values forall colleges. A small community college islikely to pay much less for a given journalthan a major research institution. Ofcourse, the research institution also hasless flexibility in cutting important jour-nals and, consequently, has less leverage in

threatening to cut subscription costs. Aspublishers strive to protect access tojournal content, the contract and copy-right agreements have become much lessstandard and, generally, more restrictive.

In response to these trends, a grass-root, “open-access” movement has devel-oped with the loosely defined goal ofproviding freely accessible repositories ofintellectual material, governed by lessrestrictive copyright assignments, asdefined by a broader portion of the aca-demic community (for example, see sciencecommons.org/). The open-accessmovement is driven by a wide variety offorces, amongst which are desires forfewer restrictions on the use of publishedmaterial in the classroom, increased acces-sibility, decreased cost, and greater clarityin copyright issues. Open access journalstend to be concentrated in, but not exclu-sively restricted to, health, medicine, andbiological sciences. Concern for publicaccess has been most visible in thesemedical fields, with the argument beingmade that access to publicly fundedresearch should not be overly restricted byprivate copyright interests. Privatefunding foundations, including theWellcome Trust, and other public agen-cies, e.g., the UK Research councils, arealso moving in this direction. In the lastyear, the National Institutes of Health(NIH) have instituted a policy requestingdeposit of final peer-reviewed manu-scripts into a repository called PubMedCentral (NLM). Although the NIH policystops short of requiring deposits, submis-sion is strongly encouraged.

But what, exactly, are the roles of MIT,its faculty, students, and researchers in all


13

this? First, if the Institute can providemechanisms to clarify copyright issuesand to increase the efficiency of scholarlyoutput of our staff and students, it shoulddo so. Second, it is in the best interest ofthe Institute to retain control of its intel-lectual output while insuring broad dis-semination, but only if it can be done inways that are responsible to individualinvestigators, to the academic commu-nity, and to the general public. Finally, it isin the best interests of the entire academiccommunity to encourage balance andcooperation amongst all members of thescholarly publishing community,whether private or public, and if MIT canprovide leadership within academe, weshould not shirk.

Fortunately, progress on the first itemhas been made. Owing to hard work onthe part of Ann Wolpert and the staff ofthe MIT Library Systems, the Committeeon Intellectual Property, Vice Presidentfor Research Alice Gast, and the Office ofthe Provost, there are now systems beingdeveloped to help investigators respond tothe NIH policy. In part, the purpose ofthis article is simply to alert faculty andstaff to the fact that there are some toolsdesigned to help the individual investiga-tor. One of the most recent developmentsis a standard amendment to publicationagreements, drafted by the IntellectualProperty Counsel, which is availableonline at web.mit.edu/faculty/research.html;web.mit.edu/faculty/agreement.pdf;

libraries.mit.edu/about/scholarly/amendment.doc.

The last of these sites also has informa-tion about the open-access movement,clarification of the NIH initiative, and dis-cussion of scholarly communications ingeneral. The amendment to publicationagreement provides a relatively easymethod to standardize copyright asser-tions for your own work. In addition,library systems staff are available to assistNIH investigators and others in the sub-mission of work to Dspace. Bearing inmind that Dspace is available for all MITfaculty members, such a repository couldbe used for a much broader spectrum ofthe research output of the MIT commu-nity, an option that is particularly attrac-tive given the commitment of Dspace toproviding a robust and durable Websitewith upward migration of data.

Progress in the broader community isalso possible, I believe. With increasedawareness of the issues confronting aca-demic publishing, MIT faculty are in aposition to exert responsible leadershipwith our colleagues at other universities.Tempting as it might be to grab pitchforksand torches and march off to man thebarricades, we, as a faculty, need to bethoughtful and constructive in ourapproach. What we cannot do with anysense of collective responsibility is simplywatch. The issues are too important forscientific and engineering research, foruniversities and colleges, and for the ful-fillment of MIT’s core mission, to allowoutside forces to decide the outcome. It istime for a broad discussion involving alarge portion of the faculty and staff toformulate a constructive statement ofpolicy. With general faculty support andawareness, we can exert force for positivechange.

Sadly, though, I have been forced torealize it is probably true that no one isgoing to make a movie of my research.What a shame! Harrison Ford would havebeen perfect for the lead.

Graph 2

Monograph and Serial Expenditures

in ARL Libraries, 1986-2004*

-50%

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

Source: ARL Statistics 2003-04, Association of Research Libraries, Washington, D.C.

*Includes electronic resources from 1999-2000 onward.

Serial

Unit Cost

(+188%)

Serial

Expenditures

(+273%)

Monograph

Unit Cost

(+77%)

Monograph

Expenditures

(+63%)

Serials

Purchased

(+42%)

Monographs

Purchased

(-9%)

CPI (+73%)

250%

200%

150%

100%

50%

0%

-50%1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

SerialExpenditures(+273%)

SerialUnit Cost(+188%)

MonographUnit Cost(+77%)

MonographExpenditures(+63%)

CPI (+73%)

MonographPurchased(-9%)

SerialsPurchased(+42%)

Source: ARL Statistics 2003-04, Association of Research Libraries, Washington, DC*Includes electronic resources from 1999-2000 onward.

Monograph and Serial Expendituresin ARL Libraries, 1986-2004*

Brian Evans is a Professor, Department ofEarth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences([email protected]).


14

Barun SinghPeer Support: Taking Advice from a Friend

AS TH E ROLE OF graduate educationin our society continues to evolve, theneeds of graduate students are changingtoo. Support for graduate students is nolonger restricted to academic and finan-cial issues – MIT must also consider howit might help this changing demographicdeal with the amorphous pressures andstresses of graduate school. An examina-tion of advising issues done by theGraduate Student Council last year pointsto peer support as the single most effectivemechanism for doing this, and it comeswith the added benefit of teaching valu-able mentoring skills. MIT has the oppor-tunity now to adopt formal peer supportprograms and thereby add great value toits graduate programs – but doing so willrequire the full backing and activeinvolvement of the faculty.

Sources of Stress and Sources ofSupportInstitutions of higher education have longrecognized the varied forms of supportthat must be provided to undergraduates.The modern graduate student faces issuesthat are different in nature from thosefaced by undergraduates, but are no lesscomplex or challenging. For over a thirdof first-year graduate students, MIT pres-ents their first time away from their nativeculture and country. The very nature ofconducting research, in which the studentmust be responsible for keeping them-selves on target without the aid of regularproblem sets or exams, can present amajor challenge to most graduate stu-dents. Picking an advisor, and indeed aresearch area, can be a very stressful deci-sion. Confusion and potential conflicts

are commonplace in dealing with researchcollaborators and advisors. Uncertaintyregarding career paths is equally if noteven more prominent for graduate stu-dents than undergraduates, and the

common notion that “MIT must havemade a mistake in admitting me” is nearlyuniversally prevalent.

Support for these issues comes from anumber of places. Last year, the GraduateStudent Council conducted a survey of allMIT graduate students that sought todetermine, among other things, which ofthese sources of support is most useful.What this survey found was that studentsseek out the support of their significantothers, families, advisors, and mentors,but the largest number of students – over80% – turn to their peers. Institutionally,students’ satisfaction levels for graduatestudent groups and peer support groups(where available) are among the highest ofall resources available at MIT. In an articlepublished in the March/April 2005edition of the Faculty Newsletter, I usedthe data regarding peer support to draw asimple conclusion that I repeat again now:In many cases, the best way to supportgraduate students is to empower them tohelp themselves as a community.

Defining Peer SupportSo what exactly is a “peer supportprogram?” There are a few currently in

place at MIT that may be used as exem-plars. One that has received much atten-tion over the past year is the “Resourcesfor Easing Friction and Stress” (REFS)program located in the Department of

Chemistry. REFS consists of a group ofvolunteer graduate students, trained inmediation skills, who meet regularly withstudents and work with departmentfaculty as well. The volunteers are alsotrained with regards to the varioussupport options available at MIT. Thisprogram has proven its effectiveness sinceits inception five years ago, both through adramatic reduction in the number ofcases reported to the Ombuds office fromChemistry, as well as very high satisfactionratings from Chemistry graduate stu-dents.

Many departments have adopted verydifferent sorts of peer-support programsthat are not as formal as the REFSprogram. For example, HST has a “bigbuddy” mentorship program that part-ners every first-year graduate student withan experienced upperclassman. Similarone-on-one mentorship programs can befound in other departments as well,including Mechanical Engineering,Materials Science, EAPS, and Economics.

All of these programs rely on the factthat students feel much more comfortablediscussing their concerns with a peer theytrust than they do with faculty, adminis-

For over a third of first-year graduate students,MIT presents their first time away from theirnative culture and country.


15

trators, or mental health providers. Byacting as a first contact, the peer is oftenthen able to direct the student to a moreknowledgeable Institute resource, andprovide the student with the encourage-ment they need in order to seek out thatresource. Even more valuable, however, isthat these programs allow students to getsupport without having to explicitly askfor it. Because of the localized nature ofpeer support programs, students will runinto their upperclassman mentor, or theirlab’s REFS volunteer, on a regular basis.These chance encounters provide anopportunity for the volunteer to ask thestudent how they’re doing, and follow upon concerns the student might haveexpressed at some point in the past. Formany students who feel especially iso-lated, these simple acts can make a worldof difference.

A Mechanism for Skills TrainingUnlike other alternatives, peer supportprograms place students at both sides ofthe equation. Not only do they receive thebenefits of a supportive environment,they are also responsible for providingthat support. In fulfilling this responsibil-ity, students are taught valuable mentor-ing skills. They learn how to deal withdifficult situations and they gain new per-spectives on the conflicts and issues thatarise around them – all of which helpsprepare them for future careers bothwithin academia and outside of it.

Most faculty will agree on the impor-tance of advising and mentoring – not justas services to provide to students but alsoas skills to teach. Peer support fits withinthat framework quite nicely. It providesstudents a unique opportunity to learn bydoing, as is the MIT way.

Necessary Next StepsThough peer support programs by defini-tion involve student-student interactions,the creation and success of these pro-grams will require a great deal of facultysupport. Last year, the Graduate StudentCouncil recommended faculty to espousethe development of formal peer supportprograms within their departments. In a

variety of forums, faculty members haveexpressed agreement with this proposal,and we are now presented with an oppor-tune time to transform this into action. Alarge quantity of feedback, from students,

faculty, and administrators, has suggestedthe following steps in order to moveforward:

• Department faculty must reach out tointerested graduate students.This is the single most important step.Students must know that their advisorsand their department as a whole support(both in theory and in practice) theirinvolvement in a peer support program.The most effective way to do this is tosend general messages to all graduatestudents in the department as well asmore focused messages aimed at thosestudents known to be active participantsin student life issues (if you have adepartmental graduate student group,many of the active students will bemembers of it).

• Involve students, faculty, and graduateadministrators throughout the process.

• Survey what exists currently within yourdepartment.Even if a program exists within yourdepartment, it is important to considerhow that program might be augmentedor altered to better meet students’ needs.

• Survey what exists in related departments.The Graduate Student Council may beable to assist you with this task.

• Determine what structure works for yourdepartment.Each department has its own culture anda single solution is unlikely to be optimalfor all of them. Each program mustcreate an environment where studentsfeel comfortable and familiar with thosewhom they might turn to for support.Will formal mediation training help in

your department? How should faculty beinvolved in the long run? What aboutexisting departmental student groups?

• Encourage Institutional support for yourdepartmental program.

The only component of a departmentalpeer support program that might consti-tute a non-negligible cost is the media-tion training. A practical implemen-tation of departmental programs wouldfund and coordinate this training at anInstitute-level, most logically within theOffice of the Provost and perhaps theOffice of the Chancellor, and requiredepartments to work with this centraloffice and their graduate studentsregarding the details.

Peer support ought to be seen as notonly a possible mechanism for the advis-ing, mentoring, and support of graduatestudents – but as a vital component of theInstitute’s overall vision. It has the poten-tial to provide an incredibly effective wayto improve the quality of graduate studentlife, and it also poises MIT graduate stu-dents to act as mentors in their futurecareers. Effectively implementing theseprograms requires leadership by bothfaculty and students, and work at both thedepartmental and Institute level.

Editor’s Note: Barun Singh was President of the

MIT Graduate Student Council in 2004-05,

where he oversaw its Advising Initiative, a compo-

nent of which examined peer support issues. He

would be happy to discuss ideas and concerns

regarding the development of peer support pro-

grams at MIT, or to help link faculty and adminis-

trators with appropriate resources.

Barun Singh is a graduate student in ElectricalEngineering and Computer Science([email protected]; [email protected]).

Unlike other alternatives, peer support programsplace students at both sides of the equation. Notonly do they receive the benefits of a supportiveenvironment, they are also responsible for providingthat support.


16

I. Introduction(a)Context A broadly diverse faculty, including gender, racial, and all otheraspects of diversity, has been determined by the faculty and theadministration of MIT to be critical to the achievement of theInstitute’s educational mission. A diverse faculty is essential inorder to offer the best education to all of MIT’s students. It is alsoessential to serve the nation’s needs for a broadly diverse andhighly qualified labor pool, including the academic work force.MIT employs many approaches to recruiting and retaining anexceptional faculty. However, as discussed below, the regularapproaches to recruiting and hiring faculty may not be adequateto recruit women. It can be difficult to know how effective par-ticular processes are at recruiting the women and racial minori-ties needed to achieve the gender and racial diversity essential toour educational mission. As Co-Chair, with Provost Reif, of theCouncil on Faculty Diversity, I have been interested in assessingthe effectiveness of some of these processes. To do so, I looked atoverall trends in the hiring of women faculty in the Schools ofScience and Engineering.

(b)Percent women faculty and students in Science and Engineeringat MITBeginning around 1970, the percent of female undergraduates atMIT began to rise sharply: in 1966, fewer than 5% of MIT under-graduates were women, today, 40 years later, 43% percent arewomen (Figure 1). In the School of Science at MIT today, 51% ofundergraduate majors are women, in the School of Engineering,

women comprise 36% of undergraduate majors. The dramaticincrease in the number of women in the MIT undergraduatestudent body was soon accompanied by an increase in the numberof women obtaining PhDs in science and engineering at MIT,although increases vary considerably depending on the specific field.

Despite the increases in the number of women in manyundergraduate and PhD science and engineering programs overthe past 40 years, the percent of women on the science and engi-neering faculties of research universities, including MIT, remainssmall: only 13% of the Science faculty and just under 14% of theEngineering faculty at MIT today are women. Table 1 (next page)shows the percent of female PhD students in each Sciencedepartment at MIT and the percent and number of womenfaculty in each of these same departments.

In part, the small number of women faculty in Science andEngineering can be explained by (1) the fact that the “pipeline”began to fill only about 40 years ago; and (2) faculty turnoverrates are slow, with many faculty who achieve tenure staying atMIT for 30-40 years. Only about 5% of the MIT faculty leaveeach year due to retirement, failure to achieve tenure, or otherfactors. At this rate, and assuming a 50% tenure rate, it wouldtake approximately 40 years for a department that had nowomen faculty to have a faculty that has the same percentage ofwomen as the PhD pool.

Despite this explanation for the small number of womenfaculty in Science and Engineering, people who study the hiringof women faculty, and also the hiring of under-representedminority faculty, arrive at shared perceptions about the process,namely: that increases in the representation of women andminorities don’t just “happen,” but result from specific pressures,policies, and positive initiatives designed to increase hiring of

women or minorities; and that whenthese pressures abate or expire, hiringprogress stops or even reverses.

(c) A brief history of some recent efforts toincrease faculty diversityIn 1995, at the request of tenured womenfaculty in the School of Science, aCommittee was appointed by then Deanof Science, Robert Birgeneau (nowChancellor of Berkeley) to study thestatus of women faculty in Science atMIT. In their 1996 report to the Dean(The First Report of the Committee onWomen Faculty in the School of Science onthe Status and Equitable Treatment ofWomen Faculty), in addition to identify-ing factors affecting status, thisCommittee took note of the very smallnumber of women faculty in Science atthat time (22 women and 252 men). Theyalso noted that the number of women

Diversification of a University FacultyHopkins, from page 1

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

1901

1906

1911

1916

1921

1926

1931

1936

1941

1946

1951

1956

1961

1966

1971

1976

1981

1986

1991

1996

2001

2006

The Percent of Female Undergraduates at MIT from 1901-2006


17

faculty had not changed significantly during the previousdecade. Dean Birgeneau concluded that increasing the numberof women faculty in the School of Science was a critically impor-tant element to remedy the unintended marginalization, under-valuation, and exclusion of senior women faculty documentedby the report. As discussed below, he made considerable and suc-cessful efforts to hire highly qualified women scientists until hisdeparture from MIT in 2000.

In 1999, a summary of the report on the status of womenfaculty in the School of Science was published in this Newsletter.The summary came to be known as the MIT Report on Women inScience. This Report, with validation from then MIT PresidentVest, had a substantial impact outside MIT, because when news

of it appeared on the front pages of The Boston Globe and TheNew York Times, its content resonated with professional womenboth in the U.S. and abroad. The MIT Report on Women inScience provoked similar examinations at many other universi-ties, helped to inform the design of the ADVANCE program atNSF, and resulted in the formation of a network of 9 Universitieswhose Presidents and women faculty have continued to meet toanalyze and discuss this topic and to formulate policies.

Within MIT, the Report on Women in Science led to initiativesto try to ensure equity and prevent marginalization of womenfaculty, to facilitate easier family-work integration, particularlyfor junior faculty, to increase the number of women faculty inadministrative positions, and to increase the number of womenand under-represented minority faculty. Major initiativesincluded: (1) increasing the number of women faculty in aca-demic administration; (2) establishing committees called GenderEquity Committees within each School to report on the status ofwomen faculty and to review equity in working conditions,including salaries, on an ongoing basis with the Deans; (3) estab-lishing a Council on Faculty Diversity, co-chaired by a tenuredwoman faculty member who sits on the Academic Council andby the Provost, to address Institute policies that impact thequality of life, status, and numbers of women and under-repre-sented minority faculty; and (4) increasing day care facilities (aneffort promoted by, among others, Professor Leigh Royden, DeanBirgeneau, and Provost Brown). More recently, under PresidentHockfield and Provost Reif, and in accordance with a faculty res-olution sponsored by former Faculty Chair Rafael Bras, AssociateChair Paola Rizzoli, and Secretary Kenneth Manning, commit-tees have been established to focus on the hiring and retention ofunder-represented minority faculty. The network of Committees

now under the auspices of theProvost and the Council onFaculty Diversity are shown inFigure 2.

It has been a full decadesince The First Report of theCommittee on Women Facultyin the School of Science waspresented to Dean Birgeneau.Given the considerable effortsin response to this report, Idecided to examine theimpact on the number ofwomen faculty at MIT. Here Ipresent some of the initialfindings and discuss what theysuggest about ways in whichuniversities can achieve adiverse faculty.

continued on next page

Department% Female

PhD Students% Female

Faculty# Female

Faculty/Total

Biology 52% 21% 11/52

Brain &CognitiveSciences

43% 24% 8/33

Chemistry 35% 20% 6/30

Earth, Atmos-pheric & PlanetarySciences

38% 8% 3/38

Mathematics 22% 6% 3/53

Physics 12% 7% 5/70

Table 1. Percent of PhD students and faculty who are women in each of thesix departments in the School of Science in 2006. The number of womenfaculty and the total number of faculty are shown in the third column.

CHANCELLOR

PRESIDENT

PROVOST

DEANSCHOOL OF

ENGINEERING

DEANSCHOOL OF

SCIENCE

DEANSCHOOL OF

ARCHITECTURE

DEANSCHOOL OFHUMANITIES

DEANSCHOOL OF

MANAGEMENT

Committee of Presidents of 9 Universities

Council onFaculty Diversity

Committee ofChairs

Gender EquityCommitteeSchool of

Engineering

Gender EquityCommitteeSchool ofScience


Architecture


Humanities


Management

Committee on Minority Faculty Recruitment

Committee on the Retentionof Minority Faculty

Figure 2. Members of the MIT academic central administration (white boxes) and committees (grey boxes) that havebeen established to address the under-representation of women and under-represented minorities on the faculty.


18

II. Observations on Hiring of Women Faculty in the Schoolof Science

(a) The Percent of Women Faculty in the School of Science is theconsequence of two actions: A response to pressure associated withthe Civil Rights Act, and Dean Birgeneau’s response to the 1996Report on the Status of Women Faculty, combined with efforts thatsustained the resulting progress

Figure 3a (next page) shows the total number of tenured anduntenured women faculty in all six departments in the School ofScience from 1963 (when there was a single woman facultymember) through 2005 (when there were 36 women faculty).The curve rises steeply twice: once between 1972-1976 and oncebetween 1997-2000. These rises do not reflect contemporaneousincreases in the size of the faculty during those periods: Thenumber of male faculty at several relevant years is shown in thenumbers at the top of the graph. The number of male facultyactually decreased (from 259 to 229) during the rise in femalefaculty between1997-2000, due to an early retirement program.As of 2006, there were 36 female faculty and 240 male faculty inthe School of Science at MIT.

I deduce that the first sharp rise in the number of womenfaculty in Science, beginning in 1972, is the result of pressuresassociated with the Civil Rights Act and of affirmative action reg-ulations. In particular, in 1971 Secretary of Labor George Schultzordered compliance reviews of hiring policies of women in uni-versities. All institutions receiving federal funding were requiredto have such plans in effect as of that year. In addition, a group ofwomen faculty and staff worked to persuade MIT to hire morewomen faculty at this time (M. Potter, personal communica-tion). The second sharp rise, between 1997-2000, directlyresulted from Dean Birgeneau’s response to the 1996 Report onWomen Faculty. Despite the small numbers, the increase inwomen faculty that resulted can be seen in five of the six depart-ments of Science: Table 2 shows the percent of women faculty ineach department in 1996 and the percent just four years later, in2000, the year Birgeneau left MIT. Significant increases in thenumber and percent of women faculty were achieved in fivedepartments in just four years. They ceased when Birgeneau left,except in Chemistry where they continued under DepartmentHead Steve Lippard.

The data show that significant and rapid increases in thenumber of women faculty can result from intentional targetedactions and responses to external pressures. However, this alonecannot explain the shape of the curve in Figure 3a. This isbecause MIT hires primarily junior faculty, not all of whomachieve tenure or choose to stay. Tenure rates vary in differentdepartments, but average roughly 50% in both the Schools ofScience and Engineering. The rates of attaining tenure are thesame for women as for men in Engineering and the same orslightly higher for women than men in Science. To maintain the

progress that is achieved in response to unusual hiring pres-sures requires that additional women be hired.

(b) Women faculty hired in the School of Science in response tointentional targeted actions and pressures are as scientifically successful as their male colleaguesA critical question is whether in response to extraordinary pres-sures universities ever hire, or even worse, tenure individuals oflesser ability or accomplishment. Clearly, at the faculty level it isimperative that the criteria for hiring and tenure remain identi-cal for all individuals. While this necessity should be obvious,opponents of targeted actions to increase gender diversity rou-tinely argue that increases in the number of women on universityfaculties as a result of external pressures may lower academicstandards.

As already noted, overall the tenure rates for men and womenare almost identical in both the Schools of Science andEngineering. However, to ask specifically whether standards forhiring and tenure were compromised to achieve rapid increasesin the numbers of women faculty, I examined the success ofwomen hired in the School of Science between 1996 and 2000.Fifteen women were hired in this period, and eight are nowtenured faculty. Of these eight, three have been elected to theNational Academy of Sciences and one (other) has won theWaterman award (for a young United States scientist or engineerof exceptional accomplishment). Since the women are still rela-tively young, it seems almost certain that others of them will beelected to the National Academy of Sciences. These levels ofaccomplishment are already comparable to the tenured MITScience faculty (see below and Table 3 [page 20]).

In 1999 when the MIT Report on Women in Science wasreleased, some individuals and several groups outside MITattempted to discredit the Report’s findings by claiming that thewomen faculty involved in writing it were less successful than

Diversification of a University FacultyHopkins, from preceding page

1996 2000 2006

Biology 15% 22% 21%

Brain &CognitiveSciences

17% 26% 24%

Chemistry 6% 13% 20%

Mathematics 2% 8% 6%

Physics 4% 7% 7%

Earth, Atmos-pheric & PlanetarySciences

13% 11% 8%

Table 2. Increases in the percent of women faculty in five of the six departments of Science as a result of Dean Birgeneau’s response to the1996 Report on Women Faculty in Science. Note that after 2000 the percentof women faculty continued to increase in only one of the five departments,namely Chemistry.


19

their male colleagues and thatthis explained or justified theirlower status and unequal treat-ment in previous decades.Judith Kleinfeld (University ofAlaska) made particularly neg-ative criticisms of the report(labeling it “junk science”) andof its authors, and she has con-tinued to do so, as haveChristina Hoff Summers(Clark University), CathyYoung, and other right wingpolitical writers and organiza-tions such as the IndependentWomen’s Forum and AmericanEnterprise Institute. To put torest any concerns such criti-cisms may have raised, wereviewed the objective aca-demic credentials and achievements of the authors of theReport, as determined by their comparative membership inthe prestigious associations and Academies. As Table 3 shows,this group is, on average, at least as accomplished as their malecolleagues. Of the 16 tenured women faculty in Science whoparticipated in the study that resulted in the 1996 Report onWomen in Science, 10 are members of the National Academyof Sciences, two are members of the Institute of Medicine ofthe National Academy, 11 are members of the AmericanAcademy of Arts and Sciences, and two have won thePresidential Medal of Science. As the table shows, these fre-quencies are higher than the overall tenured Science faculty.Thus, by these criteria, these women faculty are somewhatmore successful than their male peers. Moreover, given thescientifically well-documented under-valuation of women’sacademic accomplishments, it is likely that these women may,in truth, be still more accomplished than the table indicates.Many of the women who participated in the 1999 study werehired during the first wave of affirmative action in the 1970s,showing that such efforts do not result in lowering standardsat elite research universities such as MIT. I conclude thatunfounded criticisms of these highly successful women’saccomplishments and of their Report on Women in Sciencewere motivated by ignorance, intransigence, a politicalagenda, or by gender bias itself on the part of these critics:namely, the inability to recognize equal accomplishment inwomen, despite overwhelming evidence.

In summary, women faculty hired in Science at MIT as aresult of unusual pressures and intentional targeted proce-dures and actions are as scientifically successful as their malecolleagues.


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1990 1995 2000 2005

0

10

20

30

1990 1995 2000 2005

1971

1996Women in

Science Reportto Dean

2001-02Reports on Women in

Engineering andArchitectureCompleted

School ofScience

School ofEngineering

School ofArchitectureand Planning

Num

ber

of W

omen

Fac

ulty

Num

ber

of W

omen

Fac

ulty

Num

ber

of W

omen

Fac

ulty

Figure 3. The number of women faculty in the Schools of Science (a),Engineering (b), and Architecture and Planning (c) over time. The number ofmale faculty in each School is indicated for certain years near the top of eachgraph. The years of key events that led to rapid increases in the numbers ofwomen faculty are indicated by the dotted vertical lines. Note that the threegraphs are positioned so that the calendar years are aligned.

Number of Women Faculty in the Schools of Science (1963-2006) and Engineering and Architecture and Planning (1992-2006)

259 229 240 Number of Men268 264

323 311 317 Number of Men

1995 2000

1995 2000

52 58 55 Number of Men


20

(c) Relationship between the PhD pipeline of women scientists andthe hiring of women faculty in Science at MITHiring women faculty depends upon there being a highly quali-fied pool of women PhDs to hire from. Could the unusual shapeof the curve in Figure 3a reflect the availability of women PhDsin Science? To fully understand the pipeline for this purpose, onewould need to know the percent of women receiving PhDs inscience over time from the types of universities whose graduateswe hire. I did not obtain these data. However, I did look at thepercent of PhD students who are women in departments ofscience at MIT from 1985-2005. MIT is the type of school whosegraduates we hire, and its numbers of women PhDs are likely tobe similar to those of the other schools we hire from. There is nosharp rise in the percent of women receiving PhDs in Sciencethat correlates with the sharp increase in the number of womenfaculty in Science between 1997 and 2000. Nonetheless, thepipeline curves (not shown) are informative: As early as 1985,37% of PhDs in Biology, 28% of those in Chemistry, and 13-15%in Math went to women. These numbers continued to climb overthe next decade to 45%, 32%, and 19-20%, respectively. Duringthis period, however, the percent of women faculty in Biologyremained flat at 13-15%, the percent in Chemistry did not movefrom 7% (two women faculty), and the percent in Mathremained between 0 and 2%. Only when the Dean interveneddid the percent of women faculty in these departments increase.The gap between the percent of women obtaining PhDs and thesmall percent on the faculty is an example of what is oftenreferred to as the “leaky pipeline” of women – the fact that ahigher fraction of women are trained than go on to be faculty.While the leak is most often attributed to women opting out ofthese careers, the data in Figure 3a and the data just cited for indi-vidual departments show that at least part of the leak is due to afailure of search committees to identify and hire exceptionalwomen faculty candidates in the pool.

Physics may present a different situation from Biology,Chemistry, or Math: the percent of women obtaining PhDs inPhysics has remained low and the percent hired may be closer tothe available pool. Clearly, a much more thorough understand-ing of the pipeline is important, as it provides a guide to theupper limit of what the faculty could look like, and these studiesshould be undertaken for each department at MIT.

III. Observations on Hiring of Women Faculty in the Schoolof EngineeringA recent increase in the number of women faculty in Engineeringreflects the response of Dean Tom Magnanti to the Report onWomen Faculty I did not obtain data back to the 1960s and ’70s for the numberof women faculty in the School of Engineering, but obtained it

for the past 25 years. The number of women faculty does notshow the 20-year-long plateau seen in Science, but increasesmuch more steadily, presumably reflecting more closely theincreasing number of women obtaining PhDs in Engineering,and the fact that individual departments were successful athiring them. However, the curve does show variation in therate of hiring. The variation that is useful for the purpose ofthis article is shown in Figure 3b. Very recently, for a five-yearperiod (’00-’05) the School hired women at the rate of fivewomen faculty/year vs two women faculty/year for the previ-ous 15 years (including in each preceding five-year period).The rates of hiring of men in these same intervals were 11.4male faculty/year for the past five years and 12/year for the pre-ceding 15 years. The increased rate of hiring of women wasprimarily due to the efforts of Dean Tom Magnanti followingthe Report on Women Faculty in the School of Engineering. Thisreport, prepared by a Committee appointed by the Dean in2000, was presented to Magnanti in 2001 and to the MITfaculty in 2002.

Given the impact of the Reports by women faculty commit-tees on the hiring of women faculty in Science andEngineering, I looked at other Schools of MIT as well, sincesuch Reports were made in all five Schools. Figure 3c shows thenumber of women faculty in the School of Architecture andPlanning over the past 14 years. The curve reveals a sharpincrease under Dean Mitchell and Associate Dean Knight fol-lowing the 2001-2002 Report on Women Faculty in that School.The number of women faculty in the School of Architecturewas 14 for about a decade, then rose quickly to 25 as shown inthe figure. In the Sloan School there was a modest rise in thenumber of women faculty following a Report on Women Faculty(data not shown). In the School of Humanities, Arts and SocialSciences there was no rise, and the percent of women facultyremains about the same today as a decade ago (28% in 1997,29% in 2006). I did not examine overall hiring rates and trendsin these Schools.


# Out of 16Women Faculty

# Out of All 208Tenured Faculty

in Science

Presidential Medal of Science

2 (13%) 8 (4%)

National Academy of Sciences

10 (63%) 60 (29%)

Institute of Medicine of theNational Academy

2 (13%) 23 (11%)

American Academy of Arts and Sciences

11 (69%) 115 (55%)

Table 3. Measures of scientific success of the 16 tenured women faculty inScience who, in 1994, asked the Dean to allow them to study the status ofwomen faculty and who authored the 1996 and 1999 Reports on Women inScience, relative to the same measures of success among all tenured facultyin Science at MIT as of 2006. Currently there are 208 tenured faculty inScience, including 182 men and 26 women.


21

IV. Different Hiring Processes Yield Different Numbers ofWomen Faculty but Any Process may Depend on SpecificIndividuals and Circumstances(a) Explaining the shapes of the curves in Figure 3 In response to external pressures or engagement of their Deans,how did the Schools of Science and more recently Engineeringand Architecture succeed in hiring so many highly qualifiedwomen faculty in just 3-4 years? And why did many departmentsfail to increase the percent of women faculty between thesebursts, even though many were able to sustain the increasedlevels of women hired as a result of external pressures? We knowquite a lot about the answer to the first question, which informsspeculation about the second. Importantly, the processes used toidentify and attract women candidates and the hiring processesfor faculty are very different during periods of increased hiring ofwomen. Below I use the example of the recent jump in womenfaculty in Engineering, since, through my role on the Council onFaculty Diversity, I am familiar with many of the administrativeprocedures that produced it.

On average, as noted above, faculty turnover is about 5% ayear at MIT, so the number of hires required to maintain facultysize is small: for example, a department of 40 will hire about two(usually junior) faculty a year, about half of whom will later gettenure. Faculty searches are conducted by a committee appointedwithin the department, and each search process is independentof any other. Even if the applicant pool were 50% women PhDs,the hiring of a man in any one search would be unremarkableand statistically insignificant. In fact, even to notice that womenare not being hired in numbers equal to their availability requiresoversight over a period of time, and at a level above, the individ-ual search committee’s perspective or mandate. Even today, insome fields of science, only about 10, 20, 30, or 40% of PhDs goto women (see Table 1). For a department of 40, these numberstranslate to hiring rates of only 1, 2, 3, or 4 women every fiveyears, assuming no leakage from the pipeline. Given that thenumber of women one might expect to hire is too small to be sig-nificant annually, and in some fields too small to be significantover even longer periods of time, one can see how a departmentmight suddenly realize that it had not increased its number ofwomen faculty in a decade. Assuming that a Department Head’sterm is five years, and that an understanding of this issue takestime to master, one can see how a departmental administrationcould turn over without knowing if it had significantly increasedthe hiring of women faculty, or whether a potential increase wassustainable. The data for individual department hires in theSchool of Science that I examined (not shown) suggest that whenthe percent of female faculty in a department begins to fall,efforts are made to replace the women who have left, though howand why this occurs is unclear.

The processes that led to a rapid increase in the number ofwomen faculty in the School of Engineering between 2000-2005were different from those just described for how departments

usually hire faculty. They involved unusual administrativeapproaches by the Dean of Engineering, Tom Magnanti, withadditional administrative actions and support from then ProvostBob Brown. Several key aspects of the processes are revealing: 1)the Dean made it known to department heads that hiringwomen faculty was a high priority for him, and he reinforced hiscommitment by returning a chosen male candidate to a depart-ment because he concluded that the search committee had failedto interview qualified female applicants. 2) The Dean focused

particular effort on two departments that had been identified bythe Report on Women Faculty in Engineering as having particu-larly poor records of hiring and retaining women faculty. 3) TheDean pooled open faculty slots and made as many slots availablefor the pool as possible, so that search committees could look formore than one candidate at a time, and the Provost encouragedthis practice. 4) When canvassing Department Heads and col-leagues at other universities to ask informally for names ofpotential outstanding candidates (a standard process during jobsearches), search committees specifically asked for names of out-standing female candidates, which they found were sometimesomitted unless specifically requested. 5) The Dean made it clearthat (a) all candidates for a faculty position have to be evaluatedunder the same criteria, including both academic qualificationsand whether the candidate would contribute to high priorityneeds of MIT, the School and the Department at the time, suchas gender and racial diversity and extraordinary excellence in afield (even by MIT standards); (b) for individuals who couldmake contributions to such needs, in addition to satisfying manyother criteria, the Dean made clear that excellence was far moreimportant than their specific field of research. 6) Efforts weremade to identify exceptionally talented women candidates whohad not applied for the jobs in the conventional manner orwhose names did not surface through other standard informalinquiries. These approaches are routinely used for hiring, butpossibly used less often or less successfully for women andminority candidates. Importantly, many women who were hiredin this period did not think to apply for the job at first. Some haveeven noted that they would not have thought the departmentwould be interested in them, due to their field of research or

This raises the profoundly importantpossibility that exceptional womenmay not apply for faculty jobs in thesame way that has worked forrecruiting exceptional male facultycandidates. If true, such womencandidates might very well not befound by conventional departmentalsearch committee methods.



22

other reasons. This raises the profoundly important possibilitythat exceptional women may not apply for faculty jobs in thesame way that has worked for recruiting exceptional male facultycandidates. If true, such women candidates might very well notbe found by conventional departmental search committee

methods. 7) Finally, the Dean made exceptional personal effortsto work with Department Heads to help them attract outstand-ing faculty candidates to MIT once offers had been made. Theissues that determine acceptance rates for faculty candidates arehighly variable, as are acceptance rates over time, and success inrecruitment may require a greater knowledge of the system thatsome Deans may possess.

MIT has long had mechanisms to hire exceptional womenand under-represented minority faculty candidates wheneverthey are found in fields where they are severely under-repre-sented on the faculty. However, these had seldom been used byindividual departments in Science and Engineering. But, in thewake of the Reports on Women Faculty, these mechanisms as wellas those devised by Provost Brown were more heavily used,perhaps because of the involvement of Deans in searchprocesses.

In summary, the data show that the regular processes bywhich departments hire faculty may be less likely to identify andattract exceptional women candidates than the effort of a SchoolDean, using innovative approaches in collaboration withDepartment Heads and the Provost, all in a context in which theInstitute has made it clear, through the words and actions of itsPresident, that diversity is a high priority.

(b) Impact of hiring additional women faculty on a departmentand potential fragility of progress When will the hiring of women faculty cease to be an issue thatrequires special attention? Is there some percent of womenfaculty that constitutes a critical mass, after which the processbecomes self-sustaining? In addition, what is the impact ofadditional women faculty on a department? The biological sci-ences are the best place to look for answers to these questions

because among the sciences, the number of women undergrad-uate and PhD students, hence the number of women faculty,has been highest there. Between 1975 and 1995 the percent ofwomen faculty in the Department of Biology remained flat at13-15%. During this interval no woman served as DepartmentHead, Associate Head, or Head of a Center or Institute withinthe department. Within a few years of the 1996 Report onWomen in Science, the percent of women in the departmentrose to 22%. Furthermore, a woman faculty member becamethe first female Associate Head of this department, a womanbecame the Head of the Whitehead Institute, and a womanbecame Associate Head of the Center for Cancer Research.These appointments changed the professional experience ofwomen in the department. However, such progress is not nec-essarily permanent.

In recent years the biological sciences in the School ofScience, including the two departments, Biology and Brain andCognitive Sciences (BCS), have expanded to include faculty inseveral new Centers and Institutes. Nevertheless, no womanheads any unit of seven units of the biological sciences inScience today, and only one woman professor (vs three just a fewyears ago) occupies a major administrative position within theseDepartments, Centers, or Institutes. Particularly concerning isthat in some new units, where, given many recent hires, onemight expect to see more women than in the sections that nowcontain most of the very senior faculty, the percent of womenfaculty is extremely low. Overall, as of 2006, 21% of the Biologyfaculty and 24% of the BCS faculty are women. The CancerCenter, Whitehead Institute, and McGovern Institute have 30,27, and 23% women faculty, respectively, but the Picower Centerfor Learning and Memory has only 10%, and the Broad has hada small but entirely male core faculty since its inception, and hasan associated faculty (of over 60) that is 15% women. Theselatter numbers rival those of the 1970s, and show how rapidlygains in diversifying the faculty can be lost. They also demon-strate the need for continued leadership from the Dean, theProvost, and the President, as well as for accountability of thesystem at some high level.

ConclusionAchieving faculty diversity, particularly in science and engineer-ing fields, consumes considerable amounts of faculty and admin-istrators’ time, effort, and resources, often with frustratingresults. It also receives considerable attention at the NationalAcademies, the NSF, other government agencies, and evenCongress, because the issue could affect the future technologicalcompetitiveness of the United States. As recently documented inRising above The Gathering Storm, the highly influential, congres-sionally requested report from the National Academies, thiscountry faces ever-stiffer worldwide competition for talent inSTEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) fields.Thus, there is a pressing need to utilize the talents of women and


Nevertheless, no woman heads anyunit of seven units of the biologicalsciences in Science today, and onlyone woman professor (vs three justa few years ago) occupies a majoradministrative position within theseDepartments, Centers, or Institutes.


23

under-represented minorities at all levels of these professions.Together, women and under-represented minorities comprisenearly 70% of the U.S. labor force. A diverse faculty is not onlycritical to the best educational experience for all MIT students, itis also seen as critical to our ability to remain competitive as auniversity and a nation.

The observations presented here suggest that historicalmethods of faculty hiring within individual departments arenot always as effective as they could be in addressing thisproblem. The obstacles remain: 1) the continuing smallnumbers of women applicants in some fields; 2) the lack ofawareness and understanding of the problem by most facultyand search committees, despite good will and intentions; 3) thewell-documented, but not widely appreciated under-valuationof women of equal or even greater merit, particularly, perhaps,in search processes that seek a single candidate; 4) the slow rateof faculty hiring relative to administrators’ terms of office; 5)possibly, the failure to use optimal strategies to identify and toattract the best candidates when they are different from themore typical candidate; and 6) perhaps the misperception thatany solution is more likely to be seen as a general institutionaland national responsibility, rather than a departmental imper-ative. The finding that Deans, with the backing of the Provostand the input of highly knowledgeable faculty committees,have been able to significantly increase faculty diversity in ashort time and to assist departments to hire exceptionalwomen, shows that solutions exist beyond the more widelyknown, equally essential efforts by individual departments.Critical to both types of efforts, in order to keep moving ahead,is a system that includes accountability at some level. While allcan agree that diversity is an essential goal, this is insufficient toachieve the goal in the absence of 1) concrete plans for how todo so, 2) a method to measure progress, given that the numberof individuals being hired is so small, and 3) a system ofaccountability at the level of Department Heads and SchoolDeans.

While the data here show that the hiring of women facultyunder certain circumstances can be successfully overseen andadvanced at the level of School Deans, it may be that toincrease significantly the number of under-representedminority faculty will require oversight and assistance at a levelabove the Schools, namely the Provost. The relative scarcity ofqualified minorities in the pipeline may mean that yet differ-ent innovative search processes will be necessary. Monitoringof progress will be needed at the Institute rather than Schoollevel, simply to obtain significant data to ascertain whetherprogress is being made.

It has been suggested recently that meeting the national needfor a diverse STEM workforce, including on university faculties,will require the use of Title IX. This approach has been proposedby Oregon’s Senator Wyden, among others. Such approacheswould require affirmative action plans to be developed and affir-mative actions to be taken in order to remedy any manifest imbal-ance in the representation of women and minorities in, forexample, MIT’s workforce in relation to the representation ofwomen and minorities in the available qualified pool of candi-dates. While this might prove to be an effective means of achiev-ing diversity, it is encouraging that, during certain periods, rapidprogress in diversifying a science and engineering faculty in termsof gender has been accomplished at MIT without governmentalintrusion, by the use of innovative approaches of the centraladministration in collaboration with departments and inresponse to coordinated efforts by women faculty dedicated tofaculty diversity.

AcknowledgmentAlthough this article focused on unusual advances in hiringwomen faculty that depended on members of the central admin-istration, in no way is this meant to detract from the essentialcontributions and successes that individual departments havemade in increasing faculty diversity at MIT. I thank Lydia Snoverwhose office (Office of the Provost, Institutional Research) pro-vided most of the data used in this article, and particularly SoniaLiou, Professor Lotte Bailyn (Sloan) with whom I have discussedthese issues for many years and whose ideas have profoundlyinfluenced my thinking, and Dinny Adams and Professor LornaGibson for a careful editing and reading of the text. I thankProfessors Steve Graves and Molly Potter for helpful discussionsof the pipeline. Finally, I express my thanks to the many remark-able women faculty of MIT with whom I have been privileged towork on these issues for the past 12 years.

Nancy Hopkins is the Amgen Professor of Biology and works in theCenter for Cancer Research. She is a member of the National Academyof Sciences, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and theInstitute of Medicine of the National Academy and serves on its Council([email protected]).

While the data here show that thehiring of women faculty under certaincircumstances can be successfullyoverseen and advanced at the levelof School Deans, it may be that toincrease the number of under-represented minority facultysignificantly will require oversightand assistance at a level above theSchools, namely the Provost.


M.I.T. NumbersInternational Students at MIT

Rank Country Undergraduate Graduate Total

1 China (People’s Republic of) 20 308 328

2 Korea, South 18 226 244

3 India 13 221 234

4 Canada 17 200 217

5 France 6 106 112

6 Japan 5 92 97

7 Taiwan 6 70 76

8 Germany 6 70 76

9 Italy 5 69 74

10 United Kingdom 27 45 72

Top 10 International Countries Over 10 Years (1996-2005)

Top 10 International Countries (2005)

ChinaJapan

Korea, SouthTaiwan

IndiaGermany

CanadaItaly

FranceUnited Kingdom

1996 Fall 1997 Fall 1998 Fall 1999 Fall 2000 Fall 2001 Fall 2002 Fall 2003 Fall 2004 Fall 2005 Fall

# o

f In

tern

atio

nal S

tude

nts

Term

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Vol. XVIII No. 4 March/April 2006

Documents

Transcript of Vol. XVIII No. 4 March/April 2006