4 ms·

Thanks for bringing this point up. Without that context, this issue could seem fairly trivial. I would go as far as to say that living group culture (e.g, whi

by mhalle 9y ago

Thanks for bringing this point up. Without that context, this issue could seem fairly trivial. I would go as far as to say that living group culture (e.g, which side of campus, living group, floor, and even finer grain) is the strongest social bond that most MIT undergrads establish. While students participate is a wide variety of activities and intramural sports, living groups are where you come home to. If you didn't fit in the rest of your life, your living group is usually your best bet to make bonds in a pretty brutal academic environment. To be fair, that's also probably why MIT is cranked up about places like Senior House and Bexley (whole other story) if it gets the (simplistic) idea that bad forces might lead the innocent astray.

Bartweiss 9y ago
> To be fair, that's also probably why MIT is cranked up about places like Senior House and Bexley (whole other story) if it gets the (simplistic) idea that bad forces might lead the innocent astray. Also a good point. I don't think the MIT administration is so clueless that they assume this behavior will disappear when the dorm closes. I suspect they're hoping to change behavior at the margins - that somebody who might have tried acid because so many of their suitemates in Senior did will make a different choice. I think the decision is a mistake regardless, and I think the reasons given are generally pretty small-minded. Does MIT of all places really need to juice its graduation rate? Are the students who don't graduate being harmed, or just taking a different path? But I can certainly see why MIT might take aim at dorms as a means to changing culture.