<p>This sounds like someone going to a place like Syria… Amusing thread.</p>
<p>As a current student I can say that all of the undergrads I know at MIT go out of their way at CPW to make sure that the prefrosh are well taken care of and have a great visit. I can’t comment on hazing freshman after they have arrived at MIT and joined various groups (simply because I’m not a member of all the groups ever and can’t know what they do), but there are no situations where I could see students hazing prefrosh.</p>
<p>Right now, we all want to make this weekend as enjoyable and informative as possible for a bunch of people we want to come to school with us next year. A lot of your concerns have already been addressed, but I just wanted to add the ‘no way’ on prefrosh hazing. And, if your son has any concerns on campus, all he has to do is ask a question/look like a confused prefrosh and there will be people willing to help.</p>
<p>“Why not a dorm with an adult advisor?” </p>
<p>Just wanted to point out to everyone that the dorms and FSILGs are almost entirely comprised of adults. Your son will likely be an adult when he matriculates, if not very soon after. </p>
<p>Drawing such a distinction, and referring to those in positions of responsibility as “adults,” seems to indicate you conceptualize your son, and students generally, as children.</p>
<p>While there are older people - faculty and graduate students - who live in the dorms and the FSILGS (GRTs, Housemasters, and FSILG RAs), it does not change the fact that the students are also adults.</p>
<p>^ If only MIT recognized that.</p>
<p>MIT is pretty schizophrenic on the point I think. We are slowly moving towards the child model, for sure. </p>
<p>Part of the reason that they get away with it is that many students don’t repeatedly demand, or even expect, better. A lot of students here (not all) still conceptualize themselves as kids. </p>
<p>I do think that students could (and sometimes do) succeed in pushing back, but it takes determination/organization, learning from past mistakes, and especially learning from past successes (rare though they are). There is not a lot of institutional memory about how to navigate MIT politically. </p>
<p>For reference, I’m one of those “adult advisors” on campus who the OP apparently expects will be on babysitting duty this weekend. I wandered into this thread while googling about CPW.</p>
<p>^ How is MIT moving towards it (as opposed to being relatively static about it, aside from FOC)?</p>
<p>I’ve seen plenty of work done over the years by students, but the fact is that we do not have much to leverage.</p>
<p>I think it’s unfortunate that the FOC (freshman-on-campus) directive is interpreted as treating freshmen like children. In my admittedly minority view, it is the reverse, at least for the male population. </p>
<p>Prior to FOC, freshman males would rush the first week and those that chose frat would be pledges for the entire first semester. In actuality, you really got only 1-2 days to make a decision. The older “brothers” would act like parents, only their advice or coercion was not helpful. Mandatory drinking rituals were just one aspect of this. People are free to depledge, but it is awkward.</p>
<p>I really don’t care if freshmen drink, do drugs, don’t go to class, etc,but at the very least they shouldn’t be systematically pressured to do so. That’s why I was happy to see FOC instituted.</p>
<p>I likewise don’t see how the administration treats freshmen like children. The only policies that I think arguably treat freshmen like children are the freshmen credit limit and P/NR. A couple of days simply does not seem like adequate time to make housing decisions. Orientation is long enough as it is.</p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.)</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Maybe my living group is an exception but housemasters, GRTs, and RLADs play little role in managing my entry’s affairs. Maybe this also varies by dorm but students in my entry also played a considerable role in GRT selection. One of the things my entry was looking was more involvement from the GRT…
Some of the other arguments for on-campus dining depended more on needing a critical mass to make it profitable and I’m not sure which were more important. I think the problems with the adjustment lottery are largely driven by lack of student interest which makes the process break down to a certain degree (the introduction of binding RBA is also a factor).
Maybe there are issues elsewhere on campus about this but I feel like in my living group this is not really an issue for us.</p>
<p>@collegealum314 - I don’t find that argument compelling. It sounds like it’s either (1) MIT forcing itself to act as your parent, or (2) fraternity brothers with no real weight acting like parents, but which any adult can ignore.</p>
<p>People de facto move into their fraternities as frosh anyway. FOC is not going to fix the fraternities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Concerning #2, if you ignore mandatory activities (and sometimes drinking rituals are mandatory), then you have to depledge. This means picking up and moving in the middle of the semester and alienating everyone you know. And part of the way the fraternities are sold to the freshmen is by telling them that social skills are important for business or medicine. In fact, I talked to the director of medical school admissions that Harvard and he said that they liked to see fraternity membership. That means that whatever BS the frat brothers throw at you is now essentially a part of the curriculum.</p>
<p>Pledging creates an unequal power relationship between brothers and pledges that have negative consequences. I would have less objection if freshmen joined fraternities but were immediately full members.</p>
<p>^ collegealum314, your argument is roughly “freshmen’s abilities must be limited in this way in order to protect them from fraternities”. That is how a child is treated.</p>
<p>You may argue FOC is a good limitation (which is a completely separate argument), but your point for how this is treating a freshman like an adult is completely opposite of the arguments you’re making.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I totally disagree.</p>
<p>Number one, they rush people into decisions they wouldn’t normally make. As I said, we had two days to make this decision. This process was designed to support the fraternity system. And MIT goes to great lengths to sell it to the students, sometimes going as far to say it is important for career development.</p>
<p>Number two, it puts them in a no-win situation. Depledging a fraternity, as I said, is awkward. Freshmen can do it, but as I said it’s awkward and unpleasant to pick up and actually physically move in the middle of the semester. And by then, you have put up with fair amount of BS before you decide it is worth it to disassociate yourself with everyone you know on campus. </p>
<p>I guess adults should be able to make their own decisions, but who would freshmen ask to form opinions on frats? How would an entering freshmen have any idea what would be involved, especially since MIT goes to great lengths to tell them that the frat system is different than at other schools, where it might be stereotypical. I guess you would ask MIT students, except there was a gag order that barred MIT students from saying anything bad about another living group. If it is found out that you said something bad about a frat, your living group gets penalized. I would hardly say that is how you treat adults.</p>
<p>Frus13,
My son attended CPW in 2011 and is now a second year student.
He flew out on a separate flight from us and made it successfully to check in and to his housing assignment - all by himself. I was worried and nervous the entire time! Did not know if he made it or not!
His housing assignment was a fraternity off campus in Brookline (2 miles away) - OH MY.
(as side note) His girlfriend flew to CPW alone from across the country - she grew up in a very small town. She found her way to campus, met another girl at CPW who is now her room mate and best friend. This would probably not happened if she or my son were with their parents. </p>
<p>Yes, there are greeters. There are maps. There are more scheduled activities than they have time to do - that is MIT! IF you love it, then that is where you belong. IF not, then it is good to know early 
They want the kids to get a real sense of what it is like to live and learn at MIT.</p>
<p>Again, I was worried the entire time he was at CPW! I saw him from across the campus (the only time I saw him!) and he was carrying ice and helping the fraternity set up for a BBQ. It was amazing to see him thrive and to see a visible sense of belonging. </p>
<p>IF parents attend, there is a separate program for them. Their program does not at all overlap with the kids. This is deliberate and , I think, ingenious! </p>
<p>So , Fraternities do not serve alcohol or imbibe themselves the entire weekend. They suffer a stiff fine if they do and from what I have seen/heard they follow the rule.<br>
The MIT students are as engaged in CPW as the staff is - this is their big show:) </p>
<p>Please feel free to private message me - I can give you my phone number if you need to talk! This is the first step —</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think the rules are that you can’t talk about living groups at all, whether it’s negative or positive, during the pre-orientation and orientation programs. My counselors in my FPOP refused to even tell me what living group they were a part of.</p>
<p>collegealum314 - Again, these are restrictions. You may think they are for good reasons (they may be!). That doesn’t mean that they aren’t restrictions, and therefore treating adults as less capable in making decisions.</p>
<p>I don’t see how restricting choice in certain situations implies treating people like children. This may largely boil down to philosophical differences on the nature of state power (MIT is effectively a state. If you think treating students like adults means the maximum possible amount of freedom to make decisions I’m going to have to seriously disagree.</p>
<p>I think adulthood is about more freedom, and taking responsibility for the outcomes of the choices you make with this new freedom. If we’re arguing different definitions here, I’d love to hear yours.</p>
<p>
What? 10char</p>