6 ms·

What happened to the MIT Administration? Ever since Aaron Swartz death, it seems the administration of the school has been corrupted by some influence. My gue

What happened to the MIT Administration? Ever since Aaron Swartz death, it seems the administration of the school has been corrupted by some influence. My guess is that, like so many universities in this country, the administration is not answerable to students or even alumni.

meddlepal 9y ago
Undergrad students are a nuisance for a school like MIT nowadays. These are giant research corporations masquerading as academic institutions.
- pm90 9y ago
  This is unfortunately too close to the truth. While there are still many who enjoy teaching and guiding undergraduates, a Professors life is consumed by first, the pursuit of tenure and then the pursuit of more and more research funding for projects (not to mention doing the actual research). In that context, issues with undergraduate administration seem like an unsavory part of their jobs: often, offering very little in returns.
  - pishpash 9y ago
    Professors aren't the ones dealing with undergraduates, it's the administration. The administration is answering to the MIT Corporation and the Board of Directors, whose interest has long become to grow the "investment vehicle" (endowment, professorial industry nexus, bureaucracy, etc.) through commercial and real-estate ventures, patents, and the cultivation of the brand. Students, graduate or undergraduate, and their lives are all nuisance, and you can tell from how they are treated in financial transactions relative to the aforementioned beneficiaries on whose behalf the Institute truly works.
    - jpmattia 9y ago
      You must have had a different interaction with the MIT Corp: I've found that they have nothing other than the best interests of MIT at heart. Most of the members are alums, and several of them have made very significant donations (with not a whole lot of recognition imo.) I'm not saying the MIT Corp hasn't made mistakes, but I've never questioned their motives for doing the right thing.
      - pishpash 9y ago
        I don't even think you are contradicting me here. It's just that "MIT" has grown to be a lot lot more than educating its students (for better or for worse), and its ... "interests" much more varied as a result. After all, the students are there for a few years and then leave. Who are the real long-term stakeholders here? As I pointed out already, it's the bureaucracy, the professors, all the commercial interests wanting in on the MIT pie, and an institutional leadership interested in all the powers that accrue to overseeing a larger endowment with a greater capital return. How MIT's immediate neighborhood has developed into an unlivable office park is a vivid example of what I say.
- totalZero 9y ago
  This is so true. My opinion is that the MIT administration does not give a damn about undergraduate students.
afarrell 9y ago
The legal doctrine under which the MIT administration feels pruessure to do these things is called In Loco Parentis and its incarnation at MIT is particularly influenced by the death of Scott Krueger[1]. MIT has to at least appear[2] to be taking issues of student safety and the use of intoxicating substances seriously. [1] http://news.mit.edu/1998/da-0923 http://news.mit.edu/1998/da-0923 [2] In the aftermath of a GHB overdose incident at Senior House's annual party Steer Roast in spring of 2008, there were rumblings that Steer Roast would be prohibited. I was part of a group working with the administration to allow Roast to continue. Rather than being just a CYA, The members of the administration whom I worked with appeared to genuinely and sincerely care about safety in this domain.
- _archon_ 9y ago
  MIT doesn't have to act in loco parentis for anyone over the age of majority (18). Anyone over 18 is an adult, and making their own choices. This happens to be the baseline age for most college entrants. I don't know what agreements are in place, if any, for younger students.
  - afarrell 9y ago
    The latest iteration of this conflict, banning freshman from SH was one of the early stages.
rasz 9y ago
You are forgetting Star Simpson 5 years earlier. MIT was always like that.
- totalZero 9y ago
  Several professors spoke out against President Hockfield's quickly formulated comments against Star. Patrick Winston, who received his BS, MS, and PhD at MIT before joining the faculty, is among them.
ocschwar 9y ago
The problem with MIT is that while MIT students are well, MIT students, and MIT faculty are MIT faculty, MIT administrators are generic college administrators, hopping from school to school as they hunt chances at promotion.
- totalZero 9y ago
  This is especially true of the curricular administrators in the registrar's office, and S^3. You find a lot of folks in positions of authority who just don't get what it's like to be an undergraduate student at MIT.

meddlepal 9y ago

Undergrad students are a nuisance for a school like MIT nowadays. These are giant research corporations masquerading as academic institutions.

pm90 9y ago
This is unfortunately too close to the truth. While there are still many who enjoy teaching and guiding undergraduates, a Professors life is consumed by first, the pursuit of tenure and then the pursuit of more and more research funding for projects (not to mention doing the actual research). In that context, issues with undergraduate administration seem like an unsavory part of their jobs: often, offering very little in returns.
- pishpash 9y ago
  Professors aren't the ones dealing with undergraduates, it's the administration. The administration is answering to the MIT Corporation and the Board of Directors, whose interest has long become to grow the "investment vehicle" (endowment, professorial industry nexus, bureaucracy, etc.) through commercial and real-estate ventures, patents, and the cultivation of the brand. Students, graduate or undergraduate, and their lives are all nuisance, and you can tell from how they are treated in financial transactions relative to the aforementioned beneficiaries on whose behalf the Institute truly works.
  - jpmattia 9y ago
    You must have had a different interaction with the MIT Corp: I've found that they have nothing other than the best interests of MIT at heart. Most of the members are alums, and several of them have made very significant donations (with not a whole lot of recognition imo.) I'm not saying the MIT Corp hasn't made mistakes, but I've never questioned their motives for doing the right thing.
    - pishpash 9y ago
      I don't even think you are contradicting me here. It's just that "MIT" has grown to be a lot lot more than educating its students (for better or for worse), and its ... "interests" much more varied as a result. After all, the students are there for a few years and then leave. Who are the real long-term stakeholders here? As I pointed out already, it's the bureaucracy, the professors, all the commercial interests wanting in on the MIT pie, and an institutional leadership interested in all the powers that accrue to overseeing a larger endowment with a greater capital return. How MIT's immediate neighborhood has developed into an unlivable office park is a vivid example of what I say.
totalZero 9y ago
This is so true. My opinion is that the MIT administration does not give a damn about undergraduate students.

afarrell 9y ago

The legal doctrine under which the MIT administration feels pruessure to do these things is called In Loco Parentis and its incarnation at MIT is particularly influenced by the death of Scott Krueger[1]. MIT has to at least appear[2] to be taking issues of student safety and the use of intoxicating substances seriously. [1] http://news.mit.edu/1998/da-0923 http://news.mit.edu/1998/da-0923 [2] In the aftermath of a GHB overdose incident at Senior House's annual party Steer Roast in spring of 2008, there were rumblings that Steer Roast would be prohibited. I was part of a group working with the administration to allow Roast to continue. Rather than being just a CYA, The members of the administration whom I worked with appeared to genuinely and sincerely care about safety in this domain.

_archon_ 9y ago
MIT doesn't have to act in loco parentis for anyone over the age of majority (18). Anyone over 18 is an adult, and making their own choices. This happens to be the baseline age for most college entrants. I don't know what agreements are in place, if any, for younger students.
- afarrell 9y ago
  The latest iteration of this conflict, banning freshman from SH was one of the early stages.

rasz 9y ago

You are forgetting Star Simpson 5 years earlier. MIT was always like that.

totalZero 9y ago
Several professors spoke out against President Hockfield's quickly formulated comments against Star. Patrick Winston, who received his BS, MS, and PhD at MIT before joining the faculty, is among them.

ocschwar 9y ago

The problem with MIT is that while MIT students are well, MIT students, and MIT faculty are MIT faculty, MIT administrators are generic college administrators, hopping from school to school as they hunt chances at promotion.

totalZero 9y ago
This is especially true of the curricular administrators in the registrar's office, and S^3. You find a lot of folks in positions of authority who just don't get what it's like to be an undergraduate student at MIT.