Tension with the MIT administration

Colleges and Universities A-Z Massachusetts Institute of Technology
1

<p>Almost every week, the MIT student newspaper, The Tech, reports a new controversy, such as prosecution for hacking, opaque deliberations on dining, dissatisfaction with Technology Enabled Active Learning (TEAL), or the clumsy handling of Star Simpson’s arrest for wearing an LED hoodie at the airport. When I was an MIT student during the Vietnam war era, many of us thought the administration was inept but not evil. I sense that the mood is considerably more tense now.</p>

<p>An opinion piece, “This is MIT? Lack of Transparency Undermines Community,” originally published on October 3, 2008, ran again in The Tech today.</p>

<p><a href=“http://tech.mit.edu/V128/N66/present.html[/url]”>http://tech.mit.edu/V128/N66/present.html</a></p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I think it is noteworthy that The Tech has published this piece twice.</p>

<p>An insightful opinion, published on September 30, 2008, “The State of the Institute Hacker, How The Administration Has Disrespected This Campus Institution” asked, “Why does MIT put on display all the hacking memorabilia when they would prosecute anyone in the act of putting together those very hacks?” To which I add: Why do MIT admissions presentations extol the virtues of hacking?</p>

<p><a href=“http://tech.mit.edu/V128/N43/ranade.html[/url]”>http://tech.mit.edu/V128/N43/ranade.html</a></p>

<p>Current students and recent alumni: </p>

<li>How do you feel about the level of tension?</li>
<li>What is your reaction to the “vibe” expressed above?</li>
<li>Is a move afoot to revamp the vaunted MIT culture?</li>
</ol>

2

<p>I think my general opinion, which I think is shared by many other alums my age, is that the administration would be really happy to turn MIT into some nice, nonthreatening Ivy clone. They don't understand and don't appreciate the uniqueness of MIT's culture.</p>

<p>I only felt the tension intermittently, although I didn't have many dealings with shadowy admin figures. I don't have much love for the MIT administration, though. I don't disagree with the first piece in the Tech, but I only felt the negative influence of the administration when they made bad decisions -- on a day to day basis, MIT was still MIT.</p>

3

<p>With the exception of possibly hacking, I'm not entirely sure that the tension is all that different than it has been in years past. This is obviously a very difficult assessment to make, since I only have experience with the current time and vague knowledge of the past, but it has been my impression that MIT students have tended to resist change in all areas.</p>

<p>For example, I have certainly heard of many alums who have claimed that the current curriculum and GIRs are a sad substitute for the courseload they were required to take. Current students are angry about the "dumbing down" of 8.01/8.02 with TEAL, and some of the proposed GIR changes. I am a current student, and I do in fact feel that way, but I wonder if with a little perspective those things will turn out to be only the normal and necessary changes the school makes as time continues marching forward, and in 30 years WE will be those crusty alums lamenting the new curriculum.</p>

<p>I suspect similar things could be said about dining, housing, etc. Dining and housing have changed considerably over the years. I certainly agree that the administration is often guilty of soliciting student input and then completely ignoring it, or making important decisions before students even know a decision is being made, but again I wonder if this is all that different from past years, and from the conflict that I'm sure arose the last time dining was changed considerably.</p>

<p>It's almost like it's not MIT without "back in the day" stories.</p>

<p>On the subject of hacking I think things are definitely quite a bit more hostile, and I wish I knew why just as much as the next person.</p>

<p>I'm not sure what to make of the difference in tone, however. Although it might be worth noting that the Tech is completely in bed with the "Campaign for Students" (the group that staged the Lobby 7 tool-in) who are certainly the most vocal of the critics, so perhaps the lens through which you're seeing the situation is not quite as objective as you might think.</p>

<p>Actually, the more I think about the whole situation, the less I know what to make of it...hopefully my comments were somewhat coherent and relevant...</p>

4

<p>
[quote]
With the exception of possibly hacking, I'm not entirely sure that the tension is all that different than it has been in years past.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This.</p>

<p>Tension between MIT students and administrators is not new. Currently there's an upswing in the extent to which the students are organized (to which all I can say is, about time), which appears to be a cyclical phenomenon, but I'm not sure the tension is worse. Sometimes it is simply a low-level paranoia that administrators are planning something bad, other times there is something specific and known going on (the housing debates of the late '80s and late '90s, the attempt to convert EC and Senior Haus into grad dorms in 1994, the attempt at mandatory meal plans a year or two before I arrived).</p>

<p>
[quote]
To which I add: Why do MIT admissions presentations extol the virtues of hacking?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>MIT Admissions is...not representative of MIT administrators as a group. They like hacks and hackers. One mistake that students sometimes make is thinking of the administration as a uniform body with a single opinion, and this is why I've used the wording "administrators" rather than "the administration" in this comment. </p>

<p>With hacking...something has definitely changed since I first showed up in the fall of 2003 (and since the times of my slightly older alum friends who were around in the late '90s), and not for the better. The change has been gradual more than stepwise. I don't think it's quite as doom-and-gloom as some people make it out to be - it's not like everyone caught hacking gets prosecuted, or like hacking has been entirely shut down - but something is wrong. I've heard a lot of hypotheses about it from students, and a couple of justifications from administrators...one that I've definitely heard from admins is the "post-9/11 world" one, and I'd be willing to believe that's part of it, but not the whole story. Personally, I think it makes some admins very uncomfortable that they have no control over hacking subculture, as it's underground. They can control housing and dining and curricula and student groups and parties, which are all official, through regulation, but they can't control hacking itself, they can only change Institute/hacking relations.</p>

<p>Also keep in mind that when admins come to MIT from other places, they often have a model where the place that they came from is how things are "supposed" to be, and sometimes they have trouble adapting. Hockfield, for instance, has had bees in her bonnet about dining since she showed up, because her model of how dining is supposed to work looks like Yale's system, which is nothing like MIT's.</p>

5

<p>
[Quote]

To which I add: Why do MIT admissions presentations extol the virtues of hacking?

[/Quote]
</p>

<p>It sells the product rather well.</p>

6

<p>Those student op-eds are about the whiniest things ever. They complain about the lack of transparency, and about a lack of clear rules, but they are as vague and squishy as one could possibly imagine.</p>

<p>The problem is a really important one: How do you preserve and protect a unique local culture in a world where general social norms are increasingly dominant? I imagine that everyone in the MIT administration recognizes the value of the hacking tradition, and they probably think they are giving it its due. (They may be right, too.) But how do you balance that against the certainty -- and it is a certainty -- that MIT would face millions of dollars of liability when someone (or someone's property) gets injured in a hack, some law or rule got broken in the process, and MIT has a history of winking at such violations? That MIT could lose federal research contracts because of failure to use "best practices" on the security front?</p>

<p>If you were MIT's general counsel -- who, by the way, comes from the corporate world -- what would you advise the Institute to do? How exactly would you strike the balance, and how would it be different from the way they are striking it now?</p>

7

<p>
[quote]
How exactly would you strike the balance, and how would it be different from the way they are striking it now?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, the fines that existed in 2003 seemed to be all right. But okay, fine, people had legit concerns, like poor students disproportionately being affected, and a $50 fine being trivial to wealthier students. So that was replaced with the system of punishment-by-community-service, which also seemed to be all right, and had widespread approval from admins of various levels when it was put in.</p>

<p>I haven't met many students who believe that hackers who get caught shouldn't be punished at all - that MIT should "wink" at them as you put it - and I don't think I've met <em>any</em> hackers who believe it.</p>

8

<p>JHS: "That MIT could lose federal research contracts because of failure to use "best practices" on the security front?"</p>

<p>I think that now you're getting a bit out of hand. The government's massive gears and wheels don't care if a student dies in some freak accident. MIT is first and foremost a research institution. It would be very hard for the government's many arms to suddenly completely ignore MIT. We have too many good people (many of them professional researchers who could care less if kids are running around in the basement as long they don't break stuff [and the hacker code of ethics forbids breaking stuff]).</p>

9

<p>Just wondering... is the Tech open to censorship by MIT (not that it would happen often)? Or is it independent?</p>

10

<p>The hacking issue is not black and white. Sure you want to preserve this element of campus culture, but today it's also a complicated risk management issue. Apart from the personal tragedy involved, what happens, for example, if someone falls off the dome or worse, something falls off the dome and on to a passerby. If the university has knowledge that these types of things are going on, which it does, then it must take reasonable steps to prevent them, or make them safe, and if it doesnt then it can be held liable for the negligent or reckless conduct of the hackers. I am sure that the university's insurance carrier has raised concerns, required written policies and/or upped the premium as a result. The safety and integrity of the work going on in the labs would appear to be a big issue too.</p>

<p>Doesnt CalTech deal with this issue somewhat differently by requiring that the hackers adhere to some kind of code of conduct and "register" their hacks in advance in some way? Probably for the reasons stated above.</p>

11

<p>Mia: you're absolutely right, but that doesn't change the sudden change in attitude. All of your points were just as valid 20 years ago as they are now. Gravity is constant in time. =)</p>

12

<p>@dean5150 - The Tech is an independent publication. The administration provides no financial support and cannot censor content.</p>

13

<p>Wow. Thank you all for the insightful comments. A few thoughts/questions in response:</p>

<p>@molliebatmit: "the administration would be really happy to turn MIT into some nice, nonthreatening Ivy clone" – This hypothesis seems a good fit to the observed behavior.</p>

<p>"on a day to day basis, MIT was still MIT" – I hoped this would remain true. Institutional inertia at MIT has always been strong. Do you think inertia will prevail?</p>

<p>@LauraN: "the "dumbing down" of 8.01/8.02 with TEAL" – From what I can tell, the TEAL objective was to change the instructional format from lecture/recitation to what I call "studio learning." I've read that some students dislike the new format, but others say the transition was poorly executed and the content dumbed down. Is the issue primarily format, execution, content, something else, or some of each?</p>

<p>"lens through which you're seeing the situation is not quite as objective as you might think" – Student opinions expressed in The Tech seem one-sided (and, according to @JHS, vague) and I anticipated the responses on this forum would be better balanced. And I'm delighted to see they are.</p>

<p>"Campaign for Students" – As @jessiehl notes, student organizing is on the rise. Do you think this reflects resistance to what changes the administration is pursuing, or how the process for change is being carried out, or other factors?</p>

<p><a href="http://campaignforstudents.com/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://campaignforstudents.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>@jessiehl: "MIT Admissions is...not representative of MIT administrators as a group. They like hacks and hackers." - So do I. That the administration does not function as "as a uniform body with a single opinion" makes sense to me and is true in any large organization. As an alternative, many complex organizations strive to present "one face to the customer." (Student = Customer.)</p>

<p>"when admins come to MIT from other places, they often have a model where the place that they came from is how things are 'supposed' to be" – I think this hits the nail on the head.</p>

<p>@JHS: "If you were MIT's general counsel ... what would you advise the Institute to do?" - This is an excellent thought experiment that reveals tensions inside the administration. I'm sure the legal thought process about hacking involves risk management, liability, and insurance considerations. The Campus Police view no doubt has evolved in the post-9/11 world, as police organizations have gained power. On the other hand, hacking offers the benefit to Admissions cited by @WendyMouse: "It sells the product rather well." Not to mention that hacking is fun for students. Should MIT do more to reconcile these views?</p>

<p>I recall that the MIT legal staff was small when I was a student. Recently the Institute hired a general counsel with an impressive resume <a href="http://web.mit.edu/ogc/gc/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://web.mit.edu/ogc/gc/&lt;/a>. And the "Office of the General Counsel" has grown to 10 lawyers and 8 staff. What do you think is the significance of this?</p>

14

<p>@ hacking + administration
Although I am just a lowly prefrosh reading this post, I am not surprised that the administration/administrators are cracking down on hackers. Living in NYC, i felt a HUGE shift in New York's attitude/paranoia towards kids doing somewhat strange things after September 11th. People are easily freaked out over nothing, and there are many more general restrictions on harmless things. With Boston being a city somewhat like NY, I'm not surprised that MIT is a little less enthusiastic about having its students climbing on buildings and such, given the current state of our country. </p>

<p>just a thought to consider...</p>

15

<p>I don't think it's just 9/11. I think 9/11 was a convenient excuse, but problems with hacking seem to have gotten significantly worse in the relatively recent past. It's also not just higher-level administration, but higher-level administration as well as something like glee for punishing hackers from the campus police.</p>

16

<p>
[quote]
I don't think it's just 9/11. I think 9/11 was a convenient excuse, but problems with hacking seem to have gotten significantly worse in the relatively recent past.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah. I mean, 9/11 predates my time at MIT by two years, but much of the shift in hacker/Institute relations has happened since I've been around.</p>

<p>
[quote]
It's also not just higher-level administration, but higher-level administration as well as something like glee for punishing hackers from the campus police.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes. Yes. This*. And no, I don't know what's going on there...there are a lot of people who would like to, believe me.</p>

<p>*I should emphasize that it's not uniform among the campus police, nor does it seem to be a matter of police policy.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I've read that some students dislike the new format, but others say the transition was poorly executed and the content dumbed down. Is the issue primarily format, execution, content, something else, or some of each?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think it's a combination of poor execution and something else.</p>

<p>Personally, I liked the format and thought I got a lot out of it. But not everyone does! One thing that is bothering people is the lack of choice...if they <em>want</em> the traditional format, they have to go into the accelerated sequence to get it, and not everyone who does better with the traditional format is talented enough at physics to be a good candidate for 8.012/8.022. I've heard a number of people say that they would be fine with TEAL if it were left for the people who wanted it (as it was with 8.01 when I was a frosh, before they made it the default).</p>

<p>Poor execution is definitely a problem, though. You have to teach differently to be an effective teacher in a TEAL system, and a lot of profs don't know how to do that or aren't willing to. A really bad prof hurts worse in the TEAL system because there's no recitation instructor to compensate. Because it's a relatively new system (compared with the traditional format, which has been around for decades), there are still kinks to be worked out in the sense of whether some particular lesson is at the right level of difficulty or getting the material across usefully.</p>

<p>mia: This was why I proposed the system of punishment by community service back in the day - it was inspired by a risk management model that seemed to be effective at both deterring total anarchy and pleasing higher authorities in other contexts (the IFC judiciary body uses it on fraternities, the Cambridge Licensing Commission has used it to punish living groups that behave recklessly).</p>

17

<p>"It's also not just higher-level administration, but higher-level administration as well as something like glee for punishing hackers from the campus police."</p>

<p>Let me get this straight. On the one hand the school publicly celebrates the hacking - photo displays of Great Hacks of the Past and all that. They use the hacking culture to sell the school. But on the other hand they are vigorously suppressing the hacks and punishing the hackers? That's kind of schizo.</p>

18

<p>Yeah, that's the problem students have with it, too.</p>

19

<p>As for TEAL...well, there are a lot of problems with it. Mostly I think most people object to the idea that it's some new, revolutionary method of teaching. In a way I think we reject it because it's so highly praised. It's sort of shoved down your throat as this example of how cool MIT is because they spent millions of dollars on these classrooms which are effectively only different from lecture halls in that they have round tables instead of rows of seats. It's sort of...hokey...and we don't like that. In terms of grading, there are now 3 million assignments that are each worth 2 points, and you're often awarded 1/2 for writing your name on the page. I obviously exaggerate, but in general I am skeptical of these statistics about how the passing percentage is higher with TEAL, since I think it's mostly a function of the grading. I obviously have no way of knowing if the content has been "dumbed down" from previous years, only having taken it once. =)</p>

<p>As for student organization, I suspect it's mostly a result of the hacking issues, which have in fact been more volatile in recent years. The organized students almost exclusively represent demographics that are often associated with hacking, and I wonder if other issues are just a side project. I don't mean that those students don't legitimately care about them, but I would venture a guess that the primary reason for organizing was for hacking issues, and then once organized, they discovered a whole range of topics they could address. I don't even think this was a conscious thought process. It only occurs to me because the Campaign for Students has been very heavily run by EC, when students in Baker, for example, are just as upset about the dining plans being discussed because they're already losing money under the current system, yet they are not terribly involved. This is only a half-formed theory which I came up with while writing this post, so please be kind to it. =)</p>

20

<p>
[quote]
I don't mean that those students don't legitimately care about them, but I would venture a guess that the primary reason for organizing was for hacking issues, and then once organized, they discovered a whole range of topics they could address.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think you're onto something, but I wouldn't go that far. I think that there's a subset of involved people who were already hoping to do something on all those other issues, but that the hacking issue is indeed the reason that the group has managed to take off. I tried to organize a group not unlike CFS briefly going into senior year (with the momentum coming from dorm rush/housing issues), but it didn't go anywhere, because it simply didn't have a critical mass of people to do anything. Institute/hacker relations were coming off a local maximum at that point, and people weren't alarmed yet, and dorm rush/housing was in the same problematic-but-viable state that it had been in for years, so there wasn't anything that people were reacting to enough to get that critical mass.</p>

<p>
[quote]
On the one hand the school publicly celebrates the hacking - photo displays of Great Hacks of the Past and all that. They use the hacking culture to sell the school. But on the other hand they are vigorously suppressing the hacks and punishing the hackers? That's kind of schizo.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Again, keep in mind that these aren't the same people...the administration is not a unified body, and the people who use hacking culture to sell the school also tend to be hacker-sympathetic. However, it does become a problem for everyone when the left and the right hand are not even close to being in sync.</p>

<p>The real problem is that the delicate balance between admins, hackers, and campus police that existed for years has gotten out of whack, and nobody seems to be quite sure why. The "schizo" attitude is just adding insult to injury...I wouldn't call it the crux of the problem.</p>