Cpw - a parent's nightmare! Please help

mitalumna
Fri, 12 Apr 2013 04:44:46 +0000

I’m not actually referring to freshmen on campus - that’s ancient history at this point. I will do my best to answer the question… here are some more recent examples (non-exhaustive) which to me indicate that MIT is moving back towards seeing students as children.

0) The language used by the parent which originally prompted my comment (implying students might not be actual adults) is similar to language used by administrators.

1) The residential support system has evolved considerably. Roles, job descriptions, and expectations of house teams (Housemasters and GRTs) and FSILG RAs are moving towards enforcement, as well as mandatory reporting of student problems/issues to the administration. Beyond helping a student interface directly with resources at MIT Medical, S^3, etc., as would have always happened in the past, there is now additional parallel reporting to the administration through Area Directors, Deans on Call, and Residential Life and Dining. The Area Director position was introduced into the dorms this year in order to facilitate this transition, and their job description explicitly requires enforcement, discipline, and reporting.

2) The continual reduction in student choice/input for selection of residential support people: Housemasters, GRTs, and FSILG RAs. In the past, GRTs and to an extent Housemasters were chosen largely by the students, and much of the dorm/hall/house participated. This has changed pretty radically over time, and the influence of student input has diminished to zero in some cases, especially for Housemasters, but even GRTs in places. Students give basic input, but do not select, Area Directors. Similar things are happening with FSILG RAs.

3) The expansion of mandatory dining. Personally, I think an emphasis on dining plans is a part of a move towards treating students like children. Learning how to cook for oneself and/or working together inside a community to make food is a very important life lesson. Although reasonable people can differ on this point, one of the big arguments made for dining was that students were not able to feed themselves nutritiously when left to their own devices. (The main one of course was closing the fiscal gap.)

Further, some of the on campus sororities were forced this year into mandatory dining for their members in a very unseemly way. They have kitchens, and not being allowed to use them for meals is harmful to their community development. Plus, this is a considerable personal expense for their members.

4) The continual reduction in the importance and time given to REX and the freshman readjustment lottery, which was recently de-emphasized further. This is mostly because administrators don’t like the idea that a student would have to move their things twice, if they decide to do so by entering the housing lottery.

5) Movement away from/greater supervision of things at MIT typically run by students. Increased oversight/reduced power for student Room Assignment Chairs is in the works, which probably will affect in house rush. Area Directors are involved with House Governments and are supposed to oversee Judcomms.

The above examples are focusing on shifts in how MIT students are being treated/cared for (in terms of enforcement and support), as well as shifts in attitudes about how much responsibility MIT students should be allowed to have in self-governance. I have refrained from additionally explaining why I believe the above changes will ultimately be bad - just trying to answer the original question of the changes that have happened recently. I definitely am not trying to get into an argument about, for example, whether Area Directors are good or bad per se.

I will add that for any prospective parents or students on here, I don’t think these are reasons to not choose MIT. These changes are happening mostly because MIT has in recent memory been so much better about treating students like adults than other universities - we are catching up to national trends. Whether you think these changes are good or bad depends largely on your opinion about in loco parentis.

I try very hard not to just be a reactionary “MIT culture should never change” person. MIT culture should change and evolve, and it definitely has problems we should try to solve. But I think that we should seek to evolve our culture in a way that promotes responsibility and independence, not dependence. This is especially important given some of the difficulties millenials have been having as they reach the workforce.