mit faculty newsletter, vol. xxix no. 1, september/october...

in this issue we offer commentary on the Faculty and Staff Quality of LifeSurvey (below and page 22); a report on MIT’s overall international activities, “GlobalMIT” (below) and “The MIT Haiti-Initiative” (page 14); and two articles on AccessMIT (pages 16 and 18).

MITFacultyNewsletter

Vol. XXIX No. 1September/October 2016

http://web.mit.edu/fnl

MassachusettsInstitute ofTechnology

continued on page 9

MIT Asked, WeAnswered: The 2016Faculty Quality ofLife Survey

Global MIT

continued on page 4

I N S E P T E M B E R , P R E S I D E N T I A L

candidates Donald Trump, HillaryRodham Clinton, and Jill Stein returnedtheir responses to a set of 20 key sciencepolicy issues (Libertarian Party candidateGary Johnson did not respond). Thequestionnaire was prepared by a nationalscience consortium, ScienceDebate.org,that included the American Associationfor the Advancement of Science and theNational Academy of Sciences.

The issues included were: Innovation;Research; Climate Change; Biodiversity; TheInternet; Mental Health; Energy; Education;Public Health; Water; Nuclear Power; Food;Global Challenges; Regulations; Vaccination;Space; Opioids; Ocean Health; Immigration,and Scientific Integrity. Unfortunately,Nuclear Weapons was not among the issuespresented. The full responses can be found atsciencedebate.org/20answers.

EditorialPresidentialCandidates Weigh InOn Science PolicyIssues

continued on page 3

2016 Presidential Candidates

R. K. Lester

W E LC O M E BAC K F R O M W H AT wehope has been an invigorating summer,and all best wishes for the new academicyear.

The three of us have spent time overthe summer diving into the results fromthe 2016 Faculty Quality of Life Survey.The outcome of the survey provides awealth of information and insights aboutthe perspectives of the MIT Faculty on awide variety of questions. Elsewhere inthis issue of the Faculty Newsletter,Institutional Research (IR) has provideda synopsis of some of the highlights [seepage 22]. These are only a small fractionof the data. Much more data, as well asdata from earlier MIT surveys, can befound on the IR Website (web.mit.edu/ir/surveys/index.html), including in par-ticular the highlights from the 2016survey.

TH E M IT COM M U N ITY I S magnifi-cently but unselfconsciously multina-tional. With 42% of our faculty, 43% ofour graduate students, and 65% of ourpost-docs hailing from countries otherthan the U.S., and 151 countries repre-sented on our campus, MIT is truly “ofthe world.”

We are also, increasingly, in the world.Today MIT faculty and students areworking in more than 75 countries, and50% of this year’s graduating seniorsreported having had at least one interna-tional educational experience, up from23% in the class of 2006 (see Figure 1,page 9). For some students this meant tra-ditional study-abroad programs at otheruniversities. For many more it meantpractical internships and experientiallearning opportunities, often preceded bycountry-specific cultural and historical

Krishna Rajagopal, Leslie Kolodziejski,Christopher Capozzola

2

Vol. XXIX No. 1 September/October 2016

*Aron BernsteinPhysics

Robert BerwickElectrical Engineering & Computer Science

Manduhai BuyandelgerAnthropology

*Nazli ChoucriPolitical Science

Christopher CumminsChemistry

Woodie FlowersMechanical Engineering

Ernst G. FrankelMechanical Engineering

*Jonathan King (Chair) Biology

Helen Elaine LeeWriting and Humanistic Studies

Stephen J. Lippard (Treasurer)Chemistry

Seth LloydMechanical Engineering

Fred MoavenzadehCivil & Environmental Engineering/Engineering Systems

Ruth Perry (Vice Chair)Literature Section

Nasser RabbatArchitecture

Patrick Henry WinstonElectrical Engineering & Computer Science

David LewisManaging Editor

*Editorial Subcommittee for this issue

AddressMIT Faculty NewsletterBldg. 10-335Cambridge, MA 02139

Websitehttp://web.mit.edu/fnl

Telephone 617-253-7303Fax 617-253-0458E-mail [email protected]

Subscriptions$15/year on campus$25/year off campus

01 Global MITR. K. Lester

01 MIT Asked, We Answered: The 2016 Faculty Quality of Life SurveyKrishna Rajagopal, Leslie Kolodziejski, Christopher Capozzola

Editorial 01 Presidential Candidates Weigh In On Science Policy Issues

14 The MIT-Haiti Initiative: An International EngagementHaynes Miller

16 MIT Adminstration “Walking the Talk” on Transit Commuter BenefitsFrederick P. Salvucci

18 Access MIT Provides Flexible Commuting Optionsand an Opportunity for Meaningful Personal ActionLes Norford

20 An Update on Gender Imbalance in MIT Admissions Maker PortfoliosChris Peterson, Hal Abelson

21 Teaching this fall? You should know . . .

22 Highlights from the 2016 Faculty and StaffQuality of Life SurveyInstitutional Research

26 MITAC: New Ticket Office OffersDiscounted Tickets to Many ActivitiesDiane Betz Tavitian

27 Nominate a Colleague as a MacVicar Faculty Fellow

27 Request for Preliminary Proposals for Innovative Curricular Projects

M.I.T. Numbers 28 from the 2016 Faculty and Staff Quality of Life Survey

contentsThe MIT FacultyNewsletterEditorial Board

Photo credits: Page1: uselectionday2016.com; 6: Christopher Harting.

MIT Faculty NewsletterSeptember/October 2016

3

Reflecting her experience in both theCongressional and Executive branches ofthe government, Clinton’s responsesexhibit much more specificity in terms ofprogrammatic proposals. Among theclearer differences between Trump andClinton were in the responses to the threatof climate change. Trump stated that“There is still much that needs to be inves-tigated in the field of ‘climate change.’”However, his follow-up downplayed theissue and suggested that the nation’s“limited financial resources” would bebetter spent making sure people haveclean water, eliminating diseases such asmalaria, or developing energy sources thatreduce dependence on fossil fuels.

Clinton’s view was that “When itcomes to climate change, the science iscrystal clear. Climate change is an urgentthreat and a defining challenge of ourtime and its impacts are already being feltat home and around the world.” She con-tinued with identification of intermediategoals she would pursue, including gener-ating half the nation’s electricity fromclean energy sources.

Dr. Jill Stein, the Green Party candi-date, had the strongest, most detailedresponse on this front: “Climate change isthe greatest existential threat that human-ity has ever faced.” She called for a WWII-style national mobilization to respond tothe danger, with the implication that a“Green New Deal” could create millionsof new jobs in sustainable energy andenergy conservation. The Clintonresponse on the Energy issue also calledfor major new investments in sustainableenergy and energy conservation.

Both Trump and Clinton supportedmaintaining nuclear power in the nation’senergy source mix.

On the Public Health Issue, Clintonproposed creation of a “Public Health

Rapid Response Fund,” with consistent,year-to-year budgets, to better enable theCenters for Disease Control, the U.S.Department of Health and HumanServices, the Federal EmergencyManagement Agency, state and localpublic health departments, hospitalsystems, and other federal agencies toquickly and aggressively respond to majorpublic health crises and pandemics.”

Trump, much more restrained,responded that “In a time of limitedresources, one must ensure that the nationis getting the greatest bang for the buck.We cannot simply throw money at theseinstitutions and assume that the nationwill be well served. What we ought tofocus on is assessing where we need to beas a nation and then applying resources tothose areas where we need the most work.Our efforts to support research and publichealth initiatives will have to be balancedwith other demands for scarce resources.”

Trump and Clinton identified anumber of programmatic initiatives thatwould require Congressional budgetauthorization. However, they will all beconstrained by the reality that the singlelargest component of the discretionaryCongressional budget is Pentagon spend-ing, some 55% of the total $1.15 trillion,about $625 billion dollars last year(https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/discretionary_spending_pie%2C_2015_enacted.png). This excludesMedicare and Social Security, which arefederal Trust Funds. It is this enormousexpenditure which constricts investmentin every other sector of the federal budgetaddressing social and economic needs ofAmericans – housing, transportation,healthcare, education, biomedicalresearch, environmental protection, infra-structure, and sustainable energy develop-ment, to name a few. Yet both DonaldTrump and Hillary Clinton are silent onthis largest payout of taxpayer’s dollars. Infact, Trump’s campaign speeches claim

the military is underfunded and called forwaiving the Congressional “sequester”that currently limits increases in thePentagon budget, and rebuilding the mili-tary through even more federal spending.

It would be very useful in this electionyear to have a good national debate aboutthe balance between our domestic andmilitary spending and the proper balancebetween them. This should include theissues of education and research as invest-ments for our future. In this connection,we should keep Eisenhower’s admoni-tions that a strong economy is essential fora strong defense. We should debate theneed for the modernization of manyweapons systems that are currently beingproposed. Indeed, many observers of themilitary budget have concluded that weare spending too much and that this isreducing our security. Senator Markeyand Representative Blumenauer intro-duced bicameral legislation that wouldcut $100 billion from the nuclear weaponsbudget over the next decade(www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/sen-markey-and-rep-blumenauer-introduce-bicameral-legislation-to-cut-100-billion-from-wasteful-nuclear-weapons-budget).

Last, but not least, we return to thequestion of nuclear weapons that surpris-ingly was not on the list of questions.What is their proper role in our defense?Do we have the right number or toomany, as well as their proper deploymentand alert status, for our defense needs?Trump also asserts that he may want touse nuclear weapons in the Middle Eastand elsewhere. Clinton has mostlyfocused on Trump’s temperament to bedetrimental to his being commander inchief, but has not enunciated her vision oftheir proper role. These are critical issuesfor our future.

Editorial Subcommittee

Presidential Candidatescontinued from page 1

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XXIX No. 1

4

This survey is conducted every fouryears. In 2012, Chair of the FacultySamuel Allen summarized the results byobserving that members of the Facultywere “happy but stressed,” noting that the“generally high measures of faculty satis-faction . . . are very encouraging” but that“at the same time, a significant numberof faculty report feeling overwhelmedeither often or very often,” “find theworkload either heavy or too heavy,” and“find the integration of work with per-sonal/family life to be a challenge.” In allthese respects, the message from the 2016survey is very similar to that in 2012. Theoverall level of satisfaction with being atMIT is even slightly higher than in 2012,and substantially higher than in 2008. In2016, as in the past, the sense of a Facultythat is stretched thin comes through inmany ways. For example, we note that“lack of time to think and reflect” and“lack of time for friends and family” weretwo of the top three sources of stress infour of MIT’s Schools, and the third andfourth sources of stress in the fifthSchool.

As Officers of the Faculty, we haveaccess to the answers that members of theFaculty gave to the open-ended questionsthat were embedded within the survey, ofcourse without knowing who authoredany answer, as does the Provost. 544faculty members answered one or more ofthese questions, and we have read everyanswer. Doing so was a privilege; the per-spectives we have gained will be of greatvalue, and we want to share some of whatwe have learned with you. The answers totwo of the open-ended questions – wherethe Faculty were asked what we eachwished we could spend (1) more time onand (2) less time on – have been codedand reported on by IR in their synopsis.We cannot summarize everything we haveread, but we see it as our responsibility toshare with you some of the themes thatappeared frequently in the open-endedresponses.

Aspects of the MIT environment thatare uniquely attractiveOne of the questions we were asked was:“We know that many faculty receiveexpressions of interest and offers to workelsewhere. What aspects of the MIT envi-ronment are uniquely attractive relative toother opportunities [we] may have?” 370faculty members answered this questionand, overwhelmingly, the most frequentreplies cited the extremely high quality ofthe undergraduates, graduate students,and postdoctoral associates that come toMIT. With similarly high frequency,faculty cite the quality of their col-leagues – their outstanding scholarshipand their genuine collegiality. Over half ofthe comments indicate that the people ofMIT (students, faculty, staff, administra-tion) are the reason why faculty remainhere. Our culture is treasured by manyfaculty who describe MIT as a place ofproblem solving, a place that seeks toimpact at the highest level importantissues facing the world, a place with aculture of excellence and a culture ofhardworking intellectuals without arro-gance. The location of MIT in the heart ofCambridge – near Boston and as part ofNew England – is also highly valued.Faculty enjoy the opportunity to engagewith surrounding industry and neighbor-ing academic institutions. Faculty treasurethe flexibility to choose their researchdirections, engage in interdisciplinaryresearch, collaborate freely with colleaguesthroughout the Institute, and strive toinnovate in the humanities, sciences andengineering, and in educational endeav-ors. Faculty appreciate excellence and findit at MIT. The following reply from onefaculty colleague sums up why faculty stayat MIT: “1. The sense and spirit in mydepartment – and more broadly across theInstitute – of a shared and student-centeredmission, for excellence in education andresearch, and for impact on society. 2.World-class colleagues and students. 3. Therelative absence of politics in departmentaffairs, and the willingness to experimentand improve. 4. Greater Boston and NewEngland as great places to live.”

Engaging with undergraduates andwith graduate studentsWe were also asked how we like to engagewith undergraduates and with graduatestudents. 304 and 307 respondentsreplied, respectively. The answers to thetwo questions were interestingly, butperhaps not surprisingly, different:

In general, the replies to the questionabout engagement with undergraduatescan be categorized as involving interac-tions as part of one or more of the follow-ing: teaching; research; advising,mentoring, and providing career advice;and social engagements. Approximatelyone-third of the comments indicated thatfaculty obtain a high degree of satisfactionfrom their teaching, both in the classroomand with laboratory subjects. Associatedwith their teaching activity, members ofthe Faculty enjoy interacting with under-graduates in one-on-one meetings duringoffice hours associated with a class or inopen, or drop-in, office hours. Facultyalso indicated great enjoyment in engag-ing with undergraduates as research col-laborators, either in an official UROPcontext or by providing opportunities forresearch discussion. One-quarter of thecomments centered around the opportu-nities for research collaboration withundergraduates. The other two mannersof engagement with undergraduates –advising and mentoring, and social inter-action – were also viewed as important byfaculty, with each mentioned by approxi-mately 20% of the respondents. In thereplies centered around advising andmentoring, faculty indicated that theyenjoy offering advice about career plan-ning and applying to medical school orgraduate school, as well as overall adviceabout navigating MIT and college ingeneral. Participation by faculty in infor-mal social events, and even plannedInstitute events, were viewed as valuableways to engage with undergraduates in ameaningful way. More than 10% of thefaculty who responded specifically sug-gested that lunches or dinners were greatways to build relationships with under-graduates.

Faculty Quality of Life SurveyRajagopal et al., from page 1


5

As anticipated, engagement aroundresearch dominated replies to the ques-tion about graduate students, followedclosely by interest in and activities thatpromote mentoring. Over 40% of thefaculty responding indicated a strongdesire to participate in research collabora-tions with graduate students, as well asenjoying meeting graduate students intypical contexts such as one-on-one meet-ings, lab meetings, formal group meet-ings, and thesis committee meetings.Faculty frequently commented on theenjoyment and satisfaction derived frommentoring graduate students and meetingwith them informally – almost a third ofthe replies. In contrast to ways that facultyengage with undergraduates, the activitiesaffiliated with teaching, including contri-butions to graduate seminars, were citedless frequently – about one-sixth of thereplies. Social activities, including depart-mental functions and parties, retreats, andInstitute-organized events, as well aslunches and dinners, were also men-tioned – again by about one-sixth of thosewho replied – as ways that faculty enjoyengaging with graduate students.

Ways to make MIT even betterThree of the open-ended questions focusedon ways to make improvements to MIT.

The first of these followed up on one ofthe closed-ended questions on the survey:“Do you want to use more technology inyour teaching?” 38% of respondentsanswered in the positive. Those respon-dents were then asked the open-endedquestion: “How can MIT most effectivelysupport you doing so?” 145 facultymembers answered this question, provid-ing a wide range of thoughtful remarks.Perhaps because this was the most sharplyfocused open-ended question, its answersin sum are perhaps the most interesting.Three common themes emerged, in eachcase appearing in various ways in morethan 40 answers.

The first, and by a small margin mostnumerous, theme was the need forimprovements to our classrooms. Manysimply stated this as a general goal. Themost common explicit example given was

the importance of making it easier tocapture lectures on video, includinggreatly increasing the number of class-rooms in which lectures can easily berecorded. Faculty also wrote about theneed for classrooms that can better inte-grate computer and chalkboard use, andsuggested experimenting with replacingthe familiar nine-panel array of chalk-boards by a nine-panel array of pressure-sensitive digital blackboards such that atthe end of a lecture, the content of theboards could be uploaded. Many stressedthe need for classrooms designed forinteractive teaching, for example includ-ing built-in real time polling software tomake the effective use of clickers seamless.

The second theme was the need forenhanced support for the online compo-nents of our teaching. Here the mostcommon suggestion was for greateropportunities and various types ofsupport to develop MITx courses. Manyother examples were also mentioned,including ensuring that online tools fromthe Office of Digital Learning are easilyavailable, and various ideas for enhancingand supporting different digital supple-ments to our on-campus teaching. Theneed for continued advances in the possi-bilities for flipped classrooms, as well asthe emphasis on making it easy to recordlectures – as mentioned above – also fea-tured in many answers.

The third theme was the need for a sub-stantial increase in personnel with expertisein educational technology, including in par-ticular online technology. What comesthrough clearly is that what is needed arepeople with whom faculty can workdirectly to develop online materials, includ-ing edX-style content: contextually savvystaff located nearby, designated to supporteach department, with a mission to source,disseminate, and support relevant tools andtechnological solutions within a depart-ment. In addition, many faculty suggestedenhanced training for graduate TAs, teach-ing them how to use, and support the useof, educational technologies.

The overarching message that comesthrough loud and clear from the 145faculty who answered this question is a

sense of pent-up demand for the teachingspaces, technology, and people needed tocatalyze and realize their visions for howbest to teach MIT’s students.

Two final open-ended questions askedfor key areas that MIT could improve tomake its environment even better, andsought suggestions for specific strategies.335 faculty members offered extensivecomments on a wide range of issues.Nearly a third of respondents mentionedsalary, often calling for comparisons topeer institutions. For many, salary issuesoverlap with housing costs and otherquality-of-life issues related to living inBoston, including commuting time andthe difficulty of finding satisfactory child-care. For many faculty – across Schoolsand ranks – managing work-life balance isa significant stressor and one they wishMIT would do more to address. For many,additional administrative support wouldsmooth their Institute experience. Closeto 20 faculty members urged greaterrecognition for humanities, arts, andsocial sciences and more seamless integra-tion of SHASS into the Institute. Fundingfor research came up repeatedly, withmore than 20 among these respondentsspecifically mentioning a desire for greatersupport for cross-disciplinary research orfor mid-career exploration of a new field— undertakings hard to fund throughtraditional means. Cross-disciplinaryexchange was also a goal sought by thenumerous faculty members who advo-cated a greater sense of community andmore interaction with colleagues,exchanges that they hoped would takeplace in an improved, and more sociable,campus environment. Finally, almost atenth of respondents called for improve-ments to the campus climate for womenand underrepresented minorities, andseveral asked specifically for more trainingopportunities to address gender and racialbias at the Institute.

Female and male faculty responses tospecific closed-ended questionsWe now return to the closed-ended ques-tions that formed the bulk of the survey.

continued on next page


6

On the IR Website, any faculty member cansee the percentage of faculty across all ofMIT who responded in a particular way toeach of the many questions. Along with theProvost, the School Deans andDepartment Heads, and their designees, weas Officers of the Faculty are also able toslice the data in various ways, looking at thedifferences between how tenure-track andtenured faculty answered each question, orcomparing answers from female and male

faculty, or underrepresented minority(URM) and non-URM faculty. (However,none of us can see data for any cell contain-ing fewer than five respondents.)

We decided to use these data to look atthe ways in which the experiences offaculty at MIT, in particular the ways inwhich we each experience our environ-ment and its climate, are similar or differ-ent for male and female faculty. We lookforward to a day when differences bygender are negligible, but each of the threeof us knows that we are not yet at such aday. So, we wanted to see what the data

have to say. We have selected 12 questionsthat all survey respondents were askedthat come at this in different ways, and wehave sliced the data to look at how femaleand male faculty answered each of them.The results are shown in the charts below.We also examined variation by URM andnon-URM status, but our initial analysisdid not yield statistically robust findings.We recommend the continued collectionof quantitative and qualitative dataaround these issues.

Faculty Quality of Life SurveyRajagopal et al., from preceding page

38%

27%

27%

15%

Very often Often Occasionally Never

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Female

Male

During the past year, how o en have you felt overwhelmed by all you had to do?

41%

42%

19%

26%

Verydissatisfied

Somewhatdissatisfied Neutral

Somewhatsatisfied

Verysatisfied

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Female

Male

Please indicate the degree to which you are sa sfied with your ability to integrate the needs of your work with those of your

personal/family life.

37%

36%

44%

48%

Stronglydisagree

Somewhatdisagree Neutral

Somewhatagree

Stronglyagree

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Female

Male

In my workplace everyone is treated with respect.

33%

30%

40%

44%

Stronglydisagree


Somewhatagree

Stronglyagree

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Female

Male

I have a voice in the decision-making that affects the direc!on of my department.

continued on page 8


7

39%

37%

30%

38%

Stronglydisagree


Somewhatagree

Stronglyagree

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Female

Male

I can navigate the unwri en rules concerning how I should conduct myself in my posi!on at MIT.

20%

13%

6%

6%

Stronglydisagree


Somewhatagree

Stronglyagree

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Female

Male

I feel excluded from an informal network in my department.

35%

40%

18%

20%

Stronglydisagree


Somewhatagree

Stronglyagree

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Female

Male

I feel supported when trying to take ac ons/make change.

25%

32%

28%

42%

Stronglydisagree


Somewhatagree

Stronglyagree

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Female

Male

My workplace is free from bias and discrimina on.

56%

89%

37%

9%

8%

2%

Extensive Somewhat Not at all

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Female

Male

Source of Stress: Bias/discrimina on

57%

67%

28%

23%

15%

9%

Extensive Somewhat Not at all

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Female

Male

Source of Stress: Abrasive behavior by colleagues or supervisors

35%

12%

25%

11%

23%

11%

16%

5%

15%

6%

11%

3%

Stronglydisagree


Somewhatagree

Stronglyagree

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Female

Male

Female

Male

Female

Male

2016

2012

2008

I have to work harder than some of my colleagues to be taken seriously.

22%

34%

25%

36%

20%

33%

37%

46%

36%

48%

10%

29%

Stronglydisagree


Somewhatagree

Stronglyagree

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Female

Male

Female

Male

Female

Male

2016

2012

2008

I feel that the climate and opportuni es for female faculty in my department are at least as good as those for male faculty.


8

There are some questions where theresponses from male and female facultyare similar. However, in too many casesthere are substantial differences and, in allsuch cases, the experience of femalefaculty is either more negative or less pos-itive. While male and female respondentsgenerally felt similar about having a voicein decision-making and their ability tonavigate unwritten rules at the Institute,considerable discrepancies emergedaround perceptions of bias and discrimi-nation and the extent to which bias, dis-crimination, and abrasive behavior aresources of stress for male and femalefaculty. We think it is important for all ofus to take a close look at these data, whichindicate that MIT has more work to do,both in understanding these variationsand responding to them. For 7 of the 12questions, there were similar enoughquestions asked in 2008 and 2012 that wecould look for changes over this time

period. In most cases we found consis-tency across the three surveys; we did findchanges over time in two cases, shown inthe charts. We hope that in the 2020survey we will see change – in the direc-tion of fewer differences between theexperience of female and male faculty atMIT, and fewer faculty reporting biasand/or discrimination as a source ofstress.

In sumSlicing the data, for example as we havedone above, or so as to look at the experi-ence of URM faculty members, or inother ways, is helpful in many instancesand we can see a variety of ways in whichDepartment Heads and Deans will be ableto use the data to identify specific oppor-tunities for improvement and ways toaddress them. The three of us will bemeeting with the Deans’ group, chaired bythe Provost, to discuss the outcomes of the2016 survey and, while maintaining confi-dentiality around individual responses,will share our perspectives on the text

replies offered by MIT faculty. In thisway – as well as in others – we will do ourpart to further advise leaders at MIT inways that rely upon the insights we havegained by carefully examining the out-comes and faculty comments.

As faculty officers, we played a smallrole in the development of the 2016 FacultyQuality of Life Survey. We recognize thatthe survey was long, and we are very grate-ful for your time and thoughtful responseto the questions. We welcome any addi-tional thoughts you might have as youperuse the survey outcomes yourself. Welook forward to further enhancing MITwith your guidance and participation.

Faculty Quality of Life SurveyRajagopal et al., from preceding page

Krishna Rajagopal is a Professor of Physics,a MacVicar Faculty Fellow, and Chair of theFaculty ([email protected]);Leslie Kolodziejski is a Professor in theDepartment of Electrical Engineering andComputer Science and Associate Chair of theFaculty ([email protected]);Christopher Capozzola is an AssociateProfessor of History and Secretary of theFaculty ([email protected]).


9

education and language training. A bigpart is played by MISTI, which last yeararranged almost 1000 student placementsin 30 countries (70% for undergraduates)– a fourfold increase in the last 10 years(see Figure 2). Other important contribu-tors to our hands-on international offer-ings include D-Lab, IROP, the PublicService Center, the Tata Center forTechnology and Design, and Sloan’sAction Learning programs. Mens et manusis alive not just in Cambridge but aroundthe world.

Digital learning is helping to expandour international reach. Since its launch in2003, the pioneering OpenCourseWareWebsite has received nearly 200 millionvisits from every country in the world,and 3.5 million learners – 75% of themfrom outside the U.S. – have signed up forMITx courses since 2012.

MIT researchers themselves rangealmost as widely, like EAPS professorsOlivier Jagoutz and Leigh Royden and theirstudents measuring tectonic displacementsin the wilds of the Himalayas, or politicalscientist Fotini Christia braving wilds of adifferent kind to study conflict and cooper-ation in Afghanistan and Yemen, or theteam of MIT physicists contributing toepochal discoveries at the Large HadronCollider on the Franco-Swiss border.

MIT has also been deeply involved inmajor institution-building projects aroundthe world, including the SingaporeUniversity of Technology and Design, theSingapore-MIT Alliance for Research andTechnology (SMART), the Masdar Institutein Abu Dhabi, and Russia’s new SkolkovoInstitute for Science and Technology.Another major MIT program, to helpupgrade engineering research and educa-tion in Portugal, is now in its tenth year.During the last decade, 419 MIT facultymembers – or roughly 40% of the faculty –have participated in at least one of these fivebig projects (see Figure 3, next page). Otherlarge international institution-buildingprojects have been coordinated at theschool or department level, such as the

development of the Asia School of Businessin Malaysia (by the Sloan School) and thecollaboration with King Fahd University ofPetroleum and Minerals in Saudi Arabia(Mechanical Engineering.)

International engagements have beenthe fastest-growing part of MIT’s portfo-lio over the last decade (see Figure 4, nextpage), and further growth is all butcertain. Our students are seeking morehigh-quality opportunities to learn aboutand engage with the world. Our facultyare well aware that research funding is

growing in many countries, even as U.S.support for R&D falters. And MIT itself,at the top of the international universityrankings and widely recognized for itsstrength in combining innovation withresearch and education, is much indemand as a partner by governments anduniversities around the world.International firms are also showingincreasing interest, and now account formore than half of all corporate R&Dfunding on campus.

Global MITLester, from page 1


23.4%

50.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016*

Per

cent

age

of G

radu

ates

Year of Graduation*preliminary

Figure 1. Percentage of MIT Undergraduates Graduating With At Least One International Experience

64 85117 118 142

169 173 171197 216

244

311365

439489

591

664690

835895

992

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Figure 2. MISTI Annual Placements 1996-2016(MISTI year runs from September 1- August 31. 2016 represents the 2015-2016 year.)


10

These trends raise important ques-tions. Collectively, what are we trying todo in the world? What impacts do weseek, and with what priorities? How suc-cessful have we been thus far? How can weensure that our international efforts don’tdeplete but rather sustain and strengthenour Cambridge campus, the “mothership” and source of our excellence, cre-ativity, and energy?

Of course, much of what we do inter-nationally will continue to grow out ofindividual faculty initiatives. That is as itshould be, and a major part of my job asAssociate Provost for international activi-ties is to support individual faculty activi-ties and help ensure that our faculty andstudents can do their best work, whereverthey are in the world.

But some of our international initiativesare larger in scale and require more coordi-nation. Many international research projectsundertaken by our faculty – for example, onclean water, public health, environmentalsustainability, low-carbon energy, andurbanization – have this character, and so doour institution-building projects. There aremany more of these kinds of opportunitiesthan we can accommodate. So we need toset institutional priorities. Another role formy office is to help in this task.

With this in mind I launched a strate-gic review at the beginning of the year,and will complete it by year’s end. As partof this review, our team has been seekingthe views of faculty, staff, students, andadministrators on what MIT has beendoing and what we might do in the future.The team has also been consulting withcolleagues at other universities and withoutside advisors and partners. I myselfhave discussed this subject with morethan 300 members of our community inrecent months. This article is a briefprogress report. My main purpose is toshare with the faculty a few observationsabout certain strategic questions that MITmust address in the international arena,and to invite your comments on theseimportant subjects.

* * * * *

Writing in these pages a few years ago,then-Provost Rafael Reif described MIT’sapproaches to international engagement,and his article remains the most compre-hensive statement of what we are doingand why [MIT Faculty Newsletter, Vol.XXIII No. 3, January/February 2011].When we engage overseas, our goalsinclude:

• providing educational opportunities tohelp prepare our students to becomeglobal leaders;

• applying discoveries, inventions, andinnovations at the frontiers of knowl-edge to help solve the world’s biggestproblems;

• attracting the most talented students,faculty, and staff to MIT from aroundthe world;

Global MITLester, from preceding page

65%11%

9%

9%6% Engineering (271)

Science (47)

Architecture & Planning (38)

SHASS (39)

Sloan (24)

Figure 3. Faculty Participation in Five Major International Programs, by School (2006-2015)*

* SUTD, SMART, Skoltech, Masdar, Portugal

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

$160

$180

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Am

ou

nts

in

Mil

lio

ns

of

do

lla

rs

Sponsored Research Sponsored Funds*Campus Only

Figure 4. International Sponsored Research and Other Sponsored Activity*

[100% = 419 Total Faculty]


11

• enabling our faculty and students toengage with the world’s most out-standing researchers the best scientificcapabilities;

• accelerating and magnifying the impactof our research and educational activities;

• strengthening MIT by diversifying andexpanding our international fundingsources.

It usually isn’t possible to achieve all ofthese goals in a single internationalengagement. But, broadly speaking, thelarger the engagement, the more of themwe might hope to realize.

My review has highlighted three kindsof international activity that seem partic-ularly important to our community andthat to some extent differentiate us fromour peers.

• First, to help prepare our students forproductive, rewarding, and consequentiallives and careers, we are building out aglobal classroom for them. But this isn’t aconventional classroom. We want our stu-dents to learn about the world in the sameway they learn at MIT itself – by doing. SoMIT’s global classroom similarly empha-sizes hands-on learning and practicalproblem solving. MIT may be unique inthe extent to which these experiences havebeen integrated into our undergraduateeducation programs. Today about half ofour students are participating. Perhaps, aswith UROP, we should encourage all ofthem to do so, though a new fundingmodel may be needed to accommodatethe needs of students with fewer financialmeans. (We are simultaneously develop-ing a different kind of global classroom –a low-cost digital or blended classroomfor non-MIT learners all over the worldwho aspire to MIT-quality education.)

• Second, we are a global catalyst ofinnovation. The greatest agents of ourimpact are, of course, our alumni – nowmore than 130,000 strong, many of themliving and working overseas. In addition,governments, universities, and philan-thropists around the world are asking usto contribute directly to their humandevelopment goals, by importing MITpolicies and practices for education,research, innovation, and entrepreneur-

ship, and by inviting us to help them buildentrepreneurial, impact-driven universi-ties modeled after ours.

• Third, we are a global problem-solver.Our entrepreneurial, outward-lookingfaculty will go wherever in the world

important problems are to be found, andwhere their knowledge, insights, methods,and rigor can help to solve them.

But while our individual faculty indeedgo almost everywhere in pursuit of theirintellectual and educational objectives,MIT itself must be more strategic in itsinstitutional engagements. We canenhance our impact by committing tobeing present in a particular place on asignificant scale and for an extendedperiod. But when we do this we also incuropportunity costs both at home and else-where, especially with a faculty of more orless fixed size. A brief and partial tourd’horizon suggests what is at stake:

China. We must expand our engagementsin and with China, for the simple reasonthat Chinese researchers will increasinglybe present at the frontiers of science andtechnology, where MIT faculty and stu-dents must also be. China’s breathtakingeconomic rise over the last two decadeshas been accompanied by an equallyremarkable expansion of its researchinfrastructure. China is now second onlyto the U.S. in total R&D spending,accounting for 20% of the world’s total in2013, compared with 27% in the U.S., andby the end of the decade China may wellbecome the world leader by this metric[National Science Board, Science andEngineering Indicators – 2016, Chapter 4,Research and Development: NationalTrends and International Comparisons].But America’s future relations with Chinaare likely to grow more complicated, withnew potential for conflict as well as coop-

eration. Strategic rivalries will intensify indifferent parts of the world, and economiccompetition will aggravate politicalstrains over trade and technology. At thesame time, cooperation on climate changemitigation, clean energy, environmental

sustainability, and other issues will likelyincrease. We must expand our engage-ment with China, while being preparedfor periods of political confrontation andthe risk of arbitrary government action.We must also recognize that China is notmoving towards an open innovationeconomy any time soon, and that theChinese government will try to maintain atight grip on its scientific and technologi-cal infrastructure. MIT thus faces thechallenge of operating in an asymmetricinformation environment, in which newscientific knowledge, including newknowledge we ourselves help to createthrough our collaborations with Chinesecolleagues, may not flow as freely in Chinaas here. Our longer-standing engagementselsewhere in Asia, including Japan, Korea,Taiwan, and Singapore, are free of most ofthese complications, and will continue tobe important to us even as we considernew possibilities in China.

India. MIT has a long history of deepengagement with India, including suc-cessful post-independence institution-building projects at IIT Kanpur, theIndian Institute of Management inCalcutta, and the Birla Institute forTechnology and Science. Today the TataCenter and the Jameel Poverty Action Lab(JPAL) are both very active there. India’sopenness, democratic government, enor-mous population of young people withaspirations for higher education, deep tra-ditions of scientific excellence, huge devel-opment and modernization challenges,

But while our individual faculty indeed go almosteverywhere in pursuit of their intellectual andeducational objectives, MIT itself must be more strategic in its institutional engagements.



12

and a generally cooperative political rela-tionship with the U.S. make it a naturalfocus for MIT collaborations. So, too, dothe interests of many of our currentfaculty. But bureaucratic and financialhurdles are significant, and progress inbuilding institutional partnerships islikely to be slow.

Europe. MIT’s closest international tieshistorically have been with Europe, andtoday we continue to have important aca-demic, industrial, and government part-nerships with many European countries,including France, Spain, Portugal,Switzerland, Germany, the U.K., Italy, theNetherlands, and Luxembourg. Last yearEuropean firms provided more fundingfor on-campus research at MIT than didAmerican firms. Europe will continue tostruggle with the challenges of integrationand slow economic growth, but it willremain a global leader in higher educationand science, and new opportunities forcollaboration will continue to emerge.

Middle East. MIT has become muchmore active in this region over the pastdecade. The recent sharp decline in theworld oil price is creating serious fiscalproblems for several governments, but itis also driving efforts to accelerate thetransition to less oil-dependent, more-diversified economies. Reforming leadersin the region see MIT’s presence as a valu-able catalyst of technological, economic,and social transformation. The involve-ment of American universities is alsoprized as evidence of broader Americancommitment to the region, and currentuncertainty about the direction of U.S.policy is likely to encourage efforts by gov-ernments in the region to engage with us.So the opportunities for MIT in theregion will grow. But strong resistance tomodernization will persist in some coun-tries, and it seems certain that sectarianconflict will continue to destabilize theregion for many years if not decades tocome.

Africa. Out of all the world’s regions, wehave been least active in Africa. Here it issurely funding constraints that have beenprimarily responsible, rather than anabsence of challenges. Indeed, Africa – theworld’s fastest growing region in recentyears – contains a multitude of importantproblems of great interest to many MIT

faculty and students, including publichealth, water and environmental quality,rapid urbanization, the spread of social,digital, and transportation networks, andaccess to education. To succeed in futureengagements in Africa we will need to finda sustainable funding model. We will alsoneed to identify long-term strategic part-ners who can compensate for gaps in ourown know-how and experience. And, asin other parts of the world, concentratingour efforts in countries with democraticleanings and a strong commitment toeducation and STEM development willincrease the likelihood of success.

Latin America. In Latin America, too, wehave been less active than in other parts ofthe world, and again it is funding con-straints that have been the primaryreason. A major target of opportunity isMexico, whose economy is so tightly inte-grated with ours – especially in importantmanufacturing sectors, where the twocountries will largely sink or swimtogether. More broadly, the U.S. has anenormous stake in the prosperity, security,and political development of the LatinAmerican region, and for MIT there mayalso be a related opportunity tostrengthen our connections to the domes-tic Latino community, which will likelybecome more active in helping to shape

U.S. relations with Latin America.Strengthening our academic and indus-trial partnerships in Mexico and else-where in Latin America can thus help toadvance MIT’s domestic and interna-tional objectives simultaneously.

* * * * *

So where should we be in the world?During a recent discussion of this ques-tion with an MIT advisory committee,one strongly-expressed view was that weshould focus on places and partners thatare excellent in research and strong ininnovation, ideally with strengths com-plementary to ours, from whom we canlearn and with whom we can jointly max-imize our impact. Another view, equallyforcefully expressed, was that we shouldconcentrate on locations where the chal-lenges and needs are greatest, where wecan most effectively pursue our mission ofworking for the betterment ofhumankind. The best answer is likelysome combination of the two, butperhaps with somewhat greater emphasison the latter – including Africa and LatinAmerica – than we have managed untilnow. This, however, will require newfunding models, possibly involvingresource transfers from richer to poorerparts of the world.

Another question: How should weoperate in regions of the world with cul-tural values different from ours – in theGulf, for example, where we’re seen as anagent of social and economic transforma-tion, but where our own students andfaculty may face restrictions on theirability to operate? The fundamental prin-ciple here is clear: our international activ-

Global MITLester, from preceding page

Out of all the world’s regions, we have been least activein Africa. Here it is surely funding constraints that havebeen primarily responsible, rather than an absence ofchallenges. Indeed, Africa – the world’s fastest growingregion in recent years – contains a multitude ofimportant problems of great interest to many MIT facultyand students. . . .


13

ities must be an integral part of what wedo, not something separate. So whereverwe are working in the world, we should beguided by the same core values thatinform life and work on our own campus.

To my knowledge there is no officialrecitation of these values, but I think mostfaculty colleagues would concur with themajority of the following statements:

• We generate, disseminate, and preserveknowledge for the betterment ofhumankind.

• We engage our students in rigorous aca-demic study and introduce them to theexcitement of discovery.

• We collaborate with others to bringknowledge to bear on the world’s greatchallenges.

• We seek excellence in everything we do.

• We encourage intellectual risk-takingand experimentation.

• We insist on:• honesty and integrity in all academic

and personal dealings;• respect for others;• a commitment to diversity;• fairness and equity in the treatment

of all individuals and groups;• faculty autonomy and institutional

independence; and• freedom of expression, communica-

tion, publication, and movement ofpeople.

I believe that if MIT’s name is going tobe used in association with an interna-tional activity we must be confident thatthese values will guide the conduct of thatactivity. So, for example, MIT ought onlyto enter into research or other academicengagements in a society whose culturalnorms appear to us to be biased againstwomen if we are confident that theseactivities will be carried out with norestrictions of any kind on our womenfaculty and students, or on female collab-orators if they are working under MIT

auspices. However, I do not think that weshould require others in that society toadhere to our values as a condition of ourinstitutional engagement. In other words,when we work overseas we should takeevery opportunity to “export” our values.But the right way to do this is to show byour own example how we do things atMIT, not to insist on persuading others todo things our way.

A third topic: If, as seems certain, MIT’sfuture will lie increasingly in the interna-tional arena, what does this mean for ourstatus as an American institution? As afaculty, the most important work that wedo is inherently international. Collab-orating with colleagues to advance the fron-tiers of knowledge; educating andmentoring our excellent students fromaround the world; preparing them for lead-ership: this work can thrive only in a worldin which information and people movefreely and openly. But the notion that wecould exist as a purely global university,jurisdictionally unmoored and owing alle-giance only to the universal laws of scienceand reason, is illusory. Even as our interna-tional engagement grows, we will continueto depend on the American taxpayer formuch of our research funding. No lessimportant, we are the beneficiary ofAmerican laws, regulations, and other publicgoods – including safety and security – thatour government provides. What obligationsdoes this create for us in the internationalarena? Of course, we must always complywith the relevant federal and state laws.Beyond this, when ought we to consider thenational interest, and what exactly wouldthat mean? To be sure, our institutionalpreferences will sometimes differ from thepolicies of the government of the day. Andwhere we disagree with such policies weshould make this clear to our government,so that there are no surprises. But as aninstitution that is both in the world andworldly, we may encounter situations wherecompeting national interests are at stake. Insuch cases I believe that there should be nodoubt, either at home or abroad, that as faras our own actions are concerned we willnever put any other country’s interestsahead of those of the U.S.

* * * * *

Our strategic review encompassesother important questions too. Forexample, under what circumstances, ifany, ought MIT to consider a permanentpresence overseas? (It is worth notingthat we have now been present inSingapore on a substantial scale foralmost two decades. Only at LincolnLaboratory, less than 20 miles fromKendall Square, have we been continu-ously present at an off-campus locationfor longer.) Ought we to consider raisingthe cap on international students inundergraduate admissions? Should weactively seek to increase the internationalinvolvement of faculty from those of ourSchools – especially SHASS and theSchool of Science – that have been lessrepresented in MIT’s internationalengagements to date? Are our on-campusintellectual and administrative capabili-ties adequate to support our internationalgoals? And as we work to strengthen ourown innovation ecosystem based here inCambridge, should we also be engagingjointly with other participants in thatecosystem in our international activities?Should we be looking for opportunitiesnot only to partner with universities else-where, but to build international partner-ships at the ecosystem level – perhapseven a network of some of the world’smost dynamic innovation hubs, eachwith a comparative advantage in a differ-ent area, working together to addresssome of the world’s great challenges – likeclimate change mitigation, or clean water,or physical and cybersecurity?

Many of these topics will requirethoughtful and rigorous consideration byour faculty. I plan to report to the facultyin a few months on what concrete stepswe might take to advance our goals forinternational engagement and how bestto consider and develop these. In themeantime, I welcome your commentsand suggestions.

R. K. Lester is Associate Provost andProfessor of Nuclear Science and Engineering([email protected]).


14

Haynes MillerThe MIT-Haiti Initiative: An International Engagement

I HAD TH E FOLLOWI NG D R EAM theother night. I was getting my 10-year-olddaughter ready for school. School wasimportant: an education was the onlypathway to a better future for her. Sheshowed me her homework from the nightbefore. I thought it was well done, thoughI couldn’t understand most of the words.It was hard to have my child being taughtin German. Of course this was my educa-tional background too, but things fade; Inever really learned to speak the language.On the other hand, I never really learnedto write English either, or read it fluently,since it was not taught in school. Maybe itdidn’t matter, since there was so little liter-ature published in English. And of courseit really wasn’t fair to expect the school toteach – mathematics, say – in English,since all the published textbooks were inGerman. This is the way it’s always been. Itwas always hard for me to express myselfin German, and the school rarely askedmore than rote learning. I’m sure that thisis the case for my daughter as well. Butafter all, most courses are taught in thislanguage. I gave my daughter a hug andsent her on her way.

Luckily, this dream of mine is fictional.But this is exactly the nightmare faced byalmost all Haitian parents today, with theGerman of the dream replaced by Frenchand English by Haitian Creole(“Kreyòl”). All Haitians speak Kreyòl,while less than five percent speak Frenchat home. Both are official languages, butthere are great impediments to usingKreyòl in educational settings. And veryoften the teacher is insecure with his orher own French. A further tragedy is thatmost literate Haitians are insecure about

writing in Kreyòl also, because until quiterecently Kreyòl orthography was rarelytaught in schools. In a sad affirmation ofthe status quo, it is widely held that deepor technical ideas cannot be expressed inthis language.

The use of French as a language ofinstruction in Haiti is inextricably linkedwith a reliance on a conservative teachingmethodology at all levels. It’s often said byteachers that they speak Kreyòl when theywant their students to understand andparticipate, and French when they wantthem to obey and keep quiet.

An ongoing initiative based at MIT ishelping to provide training and resourcesfor higher education that are founded oncontemporary educational theory andactive learning methods, and, as a conse-quence, predicate the use of Kreyòl in theclassroom. My own association with thisinitiative has been among the mostrewarding experiences in my career atMIT, and I think I speak for all the partic-ipants in the project in thanking ProfessorMichel DeGraff for his passionate andvisionary leadership. In this brief article,I’d like to report on this initiative.

A founding symposium was held atMIT in October 2010, at the CambridgeMarriott Hotel. Convened by ProfessorsMichel DeGraff and Thomas Kochan(then Chair of the Faculty) along withVijay Kumar (then Director of the Officeof Educational Innovation andTechnology), it drew a highly distin-guished group of Haitian academicians,including a former prime minister(Michèle Pierre-Louis from the FOKALFoundation in Haiti which co-sponsoredthe symposium), deans from the Faculty

of Sciences at the State University of Haiti,and rectors or presidents from a numberof public and private institutions, as wellas high-tech industry and telecommuni-cations representatives.

The relationships and plans forged bythis conference led to the first MIT-Haitiworkshop, in Port-au-Prince, in March2012. This pilot led to a substantial grantfrom the U.S. National ScienceFoundation, with Michel DeGraff andVijay Kumar as Principal Investigators,which has funded a very active program ofengagement between MIT and Haitianfaculty. The focus has been on fosteringactive learning in Haitian higher educa-tion, supported by technology and the useof Kreyòl.

A main element of this collaborationhas been a series of workshops – eight, sofar. They have reached some 263 Haitianfaculty and administrators, with around100 attending more than one of them.They have a standard format: three or fourdays; lectures in the morning on moderneducational theory, active learningmethods, and lesson design, followed bydisciplinary sessions in the afternoon inwhich active learning strategies are exem-plified, discussed, and then created by theparticipants. Sessions have been con-ducted on biology (highlighting theStarBiochem and StarGenetics tools),mathematics (highlighting the MITMathlets and GeoGebra), statistics, physics(using PhETs and hands-on kits), andchemistry and bio-chemistry. Sometimes apanel of Haitian educators or academicadministrators discusses examples ofeffective teaching strategies or educationalinitiatives. One of the outcomes of these


15

workshops is a convincing demonstrationthat there is no real obstacle to conductingtechnical discussions in Kreyòl. Along theway we have been contributing to the glos-sary of technical terms in the language.

In September 2015, six of the mostcommitted Haitian participants spent twoweeks at MIT. They enjoyed a richprogram of talks and classroom visits, andworked on syllabus enrichment. Whenthey returned to Haiti, five of the sixformed a “Konbit” – a Kreyòl term for anagricultural practice common in Haiti asit was in an earlier era in the U.S., in whichneighbors cooperate to work their variousfields. The Konbit immediately ran aseries of workshops in Haiti, amplifyingthe work of the MIT team. We regard theKonbit initiative as a mark of the comingof age of the MIT-Haiti Initiative.

The MIT-Haiti Initiative has recentlybroken new ground, establishing a collab-oration not just with individual academicsbut rather with an institution. In August2015 we ran a workshop at the Campus

Henri Christophe of the State Universityof Haiti. This is a newly built and veryattractive university campus near a townpicturesquely named Limonade, not farfrom Cap Haïtien in the north of thecountry. Following that workshop, thepresident of this university applied for andwon a grant from the U.S. Embassy inHaiti to fund a further workshop, followedby a week of intensive engagement by theMIT team with the Limonade faculty. Thisvisit occurred in June 2016. We establishedclose relationships with much of thefaculty at this campus, and look forward tocontinuing our involvement with them.We are involved in a proposal to create acenter of pedagogy at that institution, forwhich we would serve as consultants.

The MIT-Haiti Initiative has severalother components. Michel DeGraff has alongstanding relationship with LekòlKominotè Matènwa, a Kreyòl-based K-10school in rural Haiti (on the island ofLagonav). He has conducted researchthere demonstrating a strong correlation

between reading comprehension and theuse of Kreyòl in the classroom. The Konbitvisited this school in February 2016 andconducted a workshop with its faculty.

In June 2014 a large proportion of theleadership of the government of Haiti,including then Prime Minister LaurentLamothe, attended a three-day workshopon leadership and team-building in Port-au-Prince led by Sloan School ProfessorDeborah Ancona. In a speech at the SloanSchool in April 2015, Lamothe gave a pas-sionate account of the importance of theuse of Kreyòl in Haitian schools, and athank you to the MIT-Haiti initiative for“even daring to do what others would noteven think of doing – trying to push theboundaries a little bit.”

More than 200 million children world-wide are being “educated” today in a lan-guage that they don’t speak, and 40% ofthe world’s population (more than 2.3billion people) speak languages that arestill marginalized at school. The MIT-Haiti Initiative is forging a model of theuse of local languages such as Kreyòl asthe primary language of instruction at alleducational levels. We believe that this isnot only desirable from a pedagogical per-spective, but actually necessary for thepsychological and cultural wellbeing andthe socio-economic and politicaladvancement of large sectors of theworld’s population. The Haitian exampleis particularly poignant. In many cases themarginalized local language is spokenonly by a very small group or fragment ofthe population. Haitian Creole on theother hand is spoken by all 10 millionHaitians. It is a unifying language, and assuch it offers a tremendous nationalresource, one so far underutilized.

For more information about the MIT-Haiti Initiative, please visit the Websitehaiti.mit.edu. We welcome your partici-pation in this ongoing internationalengagement.

MIT participants in the MIT-Haiti workshops (with current positions)

Lourdes Alemán, Program Coordinator for Curriculum Innovation, ODLDeborah Ancona, Seeley Distinguished Professor of Management Paul Belony, President, Belony ScientificJonathan Bloom, Computational Biologist, Broad InstituteAlison Brauneis, Associate Director of Instructional Design, StanfordJean-Michel Claus, Javascript ProgrammerMichel DeGraff, Professor of LinguisticsKirky DeLong, Senior Project Manager, ODLCecilia d’Oliveira, Associate Dean of Digital Learning, ODLPeter Dourmashkin, Senior Lecturer, PhysicsRuthly François, International Health Department, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School ofPublic HealthMary Grenham, Administrative Officer, Department of Linguistics & PhilosophyChris Kaiser, Professor of BiologyVijay Kumar, Associate Dean of Digital Learning, ODLJudith Leonard, Administrative Analyst, ODLSuzana Lisanti, Web ProducerHaynes Miller, Professor of MathematicsBrandon Muramatsu, Associate Director of Strategic Education Initiatives, ODLChristopher Naylor, Systems Administrator, Department of Linguistics & PhilosophyRebecca Rosemé Obounou, Program Coordinator, MIT Sloan School of Management Jeremy Orloff, Lecturer, ESG and MathematicsGlenda Stump, Consultant for Educational ResearchElizabeth Vogel Taylor, Lecturer, Concourse and Chemistry

Haynes Miller is a Professor in theDepartment of Mathematics([email protected]).

Editor’s Note: For a Kreyòl translationof this article see: web.mit.edu/fnl/volume/291/miller_kreyol.html.

fnl291_layout 1-5.0 9/22/16 4:05 PM


16

Frederick P. SalvucciMIT Administration “Walking the Talk” onTransit Commuter Benefits

THE ANNOUNCEMENT BY EXECUTIVE

Vice President and Treasurer Israel Ruizthat beginning September 1, MITemployees received free use of transit as abenefit provided by MIT, is a very positiveand very significant example of “thinkingglobally and acting locally.”

About a decade ago, then-PresidentSusan Hockfield held a day-long sympo-sium at Kresge on the energy problem ofthe planet and announced that MITwould not only do excellent research, butwould also “walk the talk” and lead in itsown practice. In the new MIT-subsidizedfree transit benefit action, President RafaelReif and Israel Ruiz have demonstratedthat this was not just a throwaway line in aspeech, but a real commitment to lead byexample. By changing the incentive struc-ture of the commuting benefits it providesto its employees, MIT is setting anexample of how major employers canincentivize a more sustainable publictransit-oriented commuting pattern andfinance the expanded employee benefitsthrough savings realized by not buildingthe increasingly expensive garage parkingspaces required to support auto commut-ing. This is the largest and most ambitiousemployer-led initiative in the region tohelp employees shift their commutingtowards lower impact transit. As an MITresearch associate who has often been crit-ical of MIT policy in the Kendall Squarearea, as well as of MIT’s failure to providemuch more graduate student housing atprices that are affordable, I am delightedto be able to say that this time the admin-istration has really stepped up to the plate.

The process through which the admin-istration adopted this policy is also unique,

and remarkable. Inspired by the afore-mentioned speech of President SusanHockfield, a young Masters degree studentnamed Ursula Hester in the Departmentof Urban Studies and Planning decided to

do her thesis research on the hypothesisthat MIT could afford to improve theincentive to use public transportation foremployees commuting to MIT, by broad-ening employee benefits to provide freeuse of public transit to all employees, whilefinancing the subsidies through savingsfrom not building new parking garages.(Ursula Hester’s thesis: “A transit pass ineveryone’s hand?” implementing UniversalEmployee Transit Pass programs as a strat-egy to increase transit ridership, 2004.)Ursula’s thesis showed that the workinghypothesis is compelling.

The following year another Mastersdegree candidate (Tegin Teich Bennet,now the City of Cambridge TransitPlanner) requested that John Attanucci, aresearch associate in the Transit Lab inCivil and Environmental Engineering(CEE), organize a faculty and studentseminar on how to implement the UrsulaHester thesis concept. In addition to aca-demic participants, Larry Brutti,Operations Manager of the MIT Parking

and Transportation Office, participateddirectly with the students, and providedthe institutional perspective of the MITcommuter benefit program. CEEProfessor Nigel Wilson, leader of the

Transit Lab, also provided his long-termperspective on the MIT commuting bene-fits program. Professor Wilson had servedas a faculty representative on the adminis-tration Transportation and ParkingAdvisory Committee for years, and hadsuccessfully advocated for “levelling theplaying field” between auto and transitcommuter choices, by gradually increas-ing the price of employee parking tocloser to market rate, and by initiating aprogram of MIT subsidies for the MBTAmonthly transit pass, so that MIT employ-ees could have similar pre-tax employerprovided subsidy available for transitcommuting as for parking, while provid-ing more environmentally friendlyoptions for commuting.

The students participating in theseminar identified the opportunity pro-vided by the MBTA introduction of the“smart” CharlieCard to insert aCharlieCard chip in the MIT employees’MIT ID cards, to make using publictransit customer friendly, and to provide

The students participating in the seminar identified theopportunity provided by the MBTA introduction of the“smart” CharlieCard to insert a CharlieCard chip in theMIT employees’ MIT ID cards . . . . With both aCharlieCard chip and an MIT parking chip in the ID, itbecame a “mobility pass.”


17

free occasional use of public transit,encouraging more public transit use.

With both a CharlieCard chip and anMIT parking chip in the ID, it became a“mobility pass.” One participant in theseminar (David Block-Schachter, now theChief Research Scientist at the MBTA) didhis Masters thesis on improving under-standing of the commuting behavior ofMIT employees, based on the employeesurvey which MIT conducts every twoyears pursuant to the U.S. Clean Air Actregulation. The analysis showed signifi-cant variance from day to day within thecommuting pattern of many individualemployees. But the employee benefitprogram then in place did not reflect thisvariability, and actually encouraged anemployee to either always drive, oralways use transit, once the employee hadchosen either a monthly parking or amonthly transit pass. This led to thehypothesis that if all employees had adaily choice of parking for a daily chargeor using public transit “for free,” manymore employees would choose publictransit, reducing the demand for addedparking, and reducing auto congestionand air pollution in the area.

But the MBTA monthly employee passprice structure then in place required MITto pay the monthly price for eachemployee, even those who used the Tinfrequently. If the MBTA would bewilling to use the information now avail-able with the CharlieCard to identifyactual use, and charge MIT for the actualuse, then MIT could afford to provide freetransit to all employees, and finance thecosts through regularly increasing parkingfees and savings from avoiding furtherexpensive construction of parkinggarages.

MIT is not primarily in the transporta-tion business, and prioritizes employeesatisfaction. So intensive focus groupswere then conducted with all MITemployees invited to participate. Thesefocus groups reinforced the conclusionfrom the survey analysis that employeeswould respond favorably to more options,particularly if the incentives were positive

(“carrots” not “sticks”). Experiments wereorganized with the MBTA’s cooperation totest the actual behavior of about 1,000employees with the CharlieCard chipembedded in their identity cards.

Another Master of Science inTransportation thesis, conducted byDianne Kamfonik, identifies the positive

revenue consequence for MBTA resultingfrom employer subsidies of transit passprograms. This information helped todesign a “win-win-win” program wherethe MBTA, MIT employees, and MIT willall gain from a new employee transit passstructure. More recently, a thesis byMatthew Hartnett, uses the availability offine grained data available from theCharlieCard and commuter surveys over aperiod of 10 years to analyze the outcomesof the pilot program, which further veri-fied the incentive to shift mode to transitprovided by the “mobility pass”. Mattheweven identifies what appears to be a slightreduction in automobile ownership byemployees, providing environmental ben-efits from reduction of auto dependencygenerally.

All of this intensive interaction andpilot testing with the MBTA has enjoyedthe strong support of the MBTA, andmost recently, Secretary of TransportationStephanie Pollack. The research wasfunded through the “Cambridge LivingLaboratory” program sponsored by theUniversity Transportation Center transitresearch program and a Federal HighwayAdministration grant overseen by JohnAttanucci of the MIT CEE Transit Lab.But some of the early insights about the

potential role of employers in shapingcommuter preferences goes back to theinsights of MIT Professors Alan Altshulerand Daniel Roos in the 1970s. The poten-tial to replicate and expand on this expert-ise with other major employers willcontinue to be examined by JohnAttanucci and Professor Jinhua Zhao of

DUSP as an example of mutual nudgingof behavior requiring collaboration by theMBTA, major employers, and theiremployees.

In conclusion, this is a really large andsignificant contribution by PresidentRafael Reif and Executive Vice Presidentand Treasurer Israel Ruiz. It places MITin the forefront of progressive employerstaking direct action to improve the envi-ronment, and reduces negative externali-ties associated with driving, whilesecuring the Institute’s core responsibili-ties as a university. The responsibilitynow shifts to the faculty and staff, to“think globally and act locally.” First, bytaking advantage of the new incentivestructure provided by the Institute toshift our travel patterns to drive less anduse public transit more. This case shouldalso inspire all of us to become active andengaged in Institute policy matters, andstick to it, as Professor Nigel Wilson andJohn Attanucci have in this case. Withsound technical analysis and persistence,it is possible to move Institute policytowards socio-economic and environ-mental sustainability.

If the MBTA would be willing to use the information nowavailable with the CharlieCard to identify actual use, andcharge MIT for the actual use, then MIT could afford toprovide free transit to all employees, and finance thecosts through regularly increasing parking fees andsavings from avoiding further expensive construction ofparking garages.

Frederick P. Salvucci is a Senior Lecturer inthe Department of Civil and EnvironmentalEngineering ([email protected]).


18

Les NorfordAccess MIT Provides Flexible CommutingOptions and an Opportunity for MeaningfulPersonal Action

O N J U N E 1 4 , 2 0 1 6 , Executive VicePresident and Treasurer Israel Ruizannounced the inception of Access MIT, anew vision for commuting to and fromMIT. Its initial phase provides more day-to-day commuting choice to faculty, staff,and postdocs on the Cambridge campusand makes a strong effort to align thefinancial and environmental objectives ofindividuals and the Institute. In short, foremployees who park in lots with elec-tronic gates, parking will no longer be anannual sunk cost. Instead these parkerswill pay by the day and have access to zerocost subway and local bus right insidetheir MIT ID cards. Taking public transit,biking, or sharing a ride with a colleagueon days you don’t park becomes thecheapest option, making the savvy finan-cial choice also an environmentallyfriendly one. The Institute benefits as well,because lowering the demand for parkingalso reduces traffic congestion and pro-vides an opportunity to rethink howmuch space we dedicate to parking lots infuture planning efforts.

Details of the program are summa-rized in the table. Faculty, staff, and post-docs who opt-in will enjoy unlimited useof MBTA subway lines and local buses.Faculty and staff who park in gated MITlots will pay a daily cost of $10, or $5 in aneconomy lot – both have a cap to ensurethat parkers do not pay more than theregular annual rate. Those who use com-muter rail, express buses, and ferries willenjoy an increased monthly pass subsidy.Those who park at MBTA stations willreceive a 50 percent subsidy for parkingfees, subject to a monthly cap. Occasional

use of commuter rail and ferry servicesare not yet included, only because currentticketing does not work with the existingchip technology that is embedded in MITIDs.

The Institute Committee forTransportation and Parking, comprisedof faculty, staff, and students, was pleasedto develop the Access MIT initiative afterthe Committee had been charged toboldly redefine commuting at MIT. TheCommittee worked with stakeholders todevelop a vision that prioritized flexibil-ity, urban mobility, and environmentaland community health as part of thecommuting experience. As noted by FredSalvucci in his article in this issue of theFaculty Newsletter (page 16), the work ofthe Department of Civil andEnvironmental Engineering Transit Labfaculty, staff and graduate students hasprovided the foundation for the new suiteof programs. During the developmentstage, the Committee received input fromfocus groups and continues to invitefeedback from members of the Institutecommunity.

Several aspects of the new programmerit brief highlights:

1. Choice. Some members of our commu-nity use cars every day, for a variety ofreasons. Access MIT does not penalizethose who cannot or choose not to findalternatives to driving. The accumulatedcost of daily parking costs will be cappedat an annual total that is based on theannual parking fee still in place forungated lots.

2. Peace of mind. Some parents or otherswith caregiving responsibilities drive tocampus so they can quickly help familymembers if needed. MIT pays for emer-gency rides home for those who walk, bike,ride the T, or take other shared modes.

3. Economics. Parking facilities at MIT areincreasingly expensive. Those with memo-ries of campus in past decades or an eyefor historical photographs know that thedays of ample surface parking on campusare long over. The price the Institutecharges for parking has increased steadilyand significantly over the last decade,though it remains well below the currentmarket rate. The cost to build under-ground parking, as found in large garagesat Stata and Sloan, now runs about$150,000 per space to build. In the future,garages will provide an increasingly largefraction of the total inventory. The totalcapital, interest, and operating cost amor-tized over a 40-year life of a garage parkingspot is over $7,500 per year. The programsthat are part of Access MIT represent afinancial carrot to complement risingparking prices: a cost-saving incentive toconsider taking transit, biking, walking, orcarpooling when possible.

Some might argue that changes to parkingfees discourage driving to work, andtherefore limit the interaction of faculty,staff, and students that is at the heart of abrick-and-mortar institution. Access MIT,however, seeks to encourage this vitalinteraction by providing free bus andsubway rides to the Institute for employ-ees. Further, it provides this same benefit


19

to walkers, bikers, and those who alreadyuse public transportation, encouragingeven short visits to campus on any day ofthe week and at any time.

4. Environment. Getting to campus onfoot, by bike, or on the T benefits the localenvironment and contributes to theInstitute’s goals to reduce greenhouse gasemissions. A gallon of gasoline weighsabout 2.9 kg, 87% of which is carbon. Itscombustion produces 8.9 kg of CO2,which will linger in the atmosphere andoceans for a very long time.

MIT’s Climate Action Plan affirms the needfor scientific discovery but also emphasizesthat technology alone is not sufficient. ThePlan states: “Addressing this global problemwill take deep societal change. That meansthere is a role – and a personal responsibil-ity – for everyone: every nation, everysector, every institution, every firm, everyindividual human being. We aim to helpinform and inspire a broad societal move-ment to find climate solutions. We hopeyou will find your own opportunity, in ourplan or elsewhere, to make a difference.”

Access MIT provides an opportunity formeaningful personal action.

Cars are also a source of traffic conges-tion, noise and (non-carbon) pollution,including NOx and particulates. Airbornepollutants have health consequences, evenwhen concentrations are below thosespecified in EPA’s National Ambient AirQuality Standards. The City ofCambridge in particular will be a betterhome for its residents if Access MITlessens urban traffic.

5. Living Laboratory. Access MIT is acampus-wide experiment. At one point inits development, the Transportation andParking Committee considered a smallerexperiment, which would compare thecommuting choices of two or threecohorts, one of which would have beensubject to existing (and lesser) benefits.Instead, there was a decision to imple-ment the new program for the benefit ofall. The Institute will spend an apprecia-ble amount of money to encourage alter-natives to driving, with the hope(bolstered by evidence of the efficacy of

programs elsewhere, as assessed by theTransit Lab) that these subsidies will leadto lower costs to develop parking infra-structure. The announced goal of therevised parking benefits and costs is toreduce on-campus demand for parking by10 percent in two years. A 10 percentdecrease roughly translates into leavingthe car at home two days per month andsaving parking fees and operatingexpenses for the car. The program will beshaped in coming years by careful study ofshifts in mobility.

6. Interactive data. Student researchers inthe Transit Lab, in collaboration with theParking and Transportation Office,helped develop and pilot an online dash-board to enable the MIT community tobetter manage their commutes.“AccessMyCommute,” which is nowaccessible via an individual’s Atlas com-muting page, allows each of us to trackand plan our commutes, identify otherMIT employees interested in carpoolingin our area, and win prizes for more sus-tainable commutes. In the coming year,the Transit Lab will continue to work withMIT faculty and staff to launch contests,develop new features, and better under-stand what motivates commuter behavior.

MIT has attracted a booming biotechand infotech community in EastCambridge and the assembled intellectualcapital has global importance. AccessMIT represents an evolving vision abouthow faculty, staff, and postdocs can reachcampus – and travel through the Bostonarea – in ways that acknowledge the vital-ity of our dense urban neighborhood andprovide choices of how we contribute toand interact with it. With the participa-tion of the MIT community, the programwill realize its potential to become amodel for other institutions in our sur-rounding area.

Changes to Parking Fees

New in 2016-2017

Parking Rates Parkers in gated lots pay $100 permitfee plus $10/day (capped at$1760/year); $5/day in economy gatedlots (capped at $880/year).

First Time Parking Fee New parkers pay $100 one-time fee toregister their vehicles in addition to $100annual permit fee.

Changes to Public Transit

New in 2016-2017

T Pass (subway/bus) 100% subsidized for employees andpost-docs, commuter pays $0, embedded in MIT employee ID card.

Commuter Rail, Express Bus, and FerryServices

Monthly Passes are 60% subsidized(increase of 10%).

MBTA Station Parking 50% discount up to $100/month.

Summary of New Programs 2016-2017

Les Norford is a Professor of BuildingTechnology, Department of Architecture;Member of the Committee for Transportationand Parking ([email protected]).


20

Chris PetersonHal Abelson

An Update on Gender Imbalance in MIT Admissions Maker Portfolios

LAST NOVE M B E R, WE R ECOR D E D inthese pages (“Gender Imbalance in MITAdmissions Maker Portfolios”) a notabledifference in the rates at which men andwomen submitted Maker Portfolios as sup-plements to their freshman applications.Specifically, we observed that women sub-mitted the Maker Portfolio – and only theMaker Portfolio – at a lower rate than men,and far below the rates that they submit anyother type of supplemental portfolio orapply to MIT overall. We solicited advicefrom readers and took additional steps toincrease the representation of women andthe diversity of projects featured in publicpresentations and portfolio materials.

After another admissions cycle, we regretto report that the patterns have not changed

much. Below is the data for the prospectiveClass of 2019 (entering fall 2015) that wepublished last year, as well as the data for theprospective Class of 2020 (entering fall 2016).

As shown in the figures, the gap betweenthe proportion of men and women who sub-mitted Maker Portfolios closed by .6%, andthe rate at which female applicants submittedMaker Portfolios increased by .6%, shifts thatclosely track the .5% delta in overall applica-tion rates. Indeed, portfolio submission ratesincreased across all portfolios for both menand women. Any improvement is a goodthing, but it’s a bit discouraging that, despiteefforts to better represent the diversity ofpeople and projects we wish to encounter inthe Maker Portfolio, the needle hasn’t movedas much as we would like.

As we approach the next admissions cycle,the Admissions Office is continuing to workon improving representation and recruit-ment, including an initiative, in partnershipwith Maker Media, that will leverage theirintellectual property and community ofMaker Faires with admissions’ database ofprospective students to help encourage morewomen to take up “making” and identify asmakers. However, the persistence of thispattern, despite several years of prior work toimprove representation and reach targetedpopulations, leaves us questioning what otherdynamics may be in play. Our understandingwould probably be improved by additionalqualitative work, including (but not limitedto) interviews with enrolling women who didor did not submit maker portfolios and other

EY2015 All Men Male % of Pool % of All Men Women Female % of Pool % of All Women

Apply to MIT 18,306 12,750 69.6% 100% 5,556 30.4% 100%

Submit Maker Portfolio

1,101 946 85.9% 7.4% 155 14.1% 2.8%

SubmitResearchPortfolio

2,056 1,339 65.1% 10.5% 717 34.9% 12.9%

Submit Music &Theater ArtsPortfolio

1,013 642 63.4% 5.0% 371 36.7% 6.7%

SubmitArt/ArchitecturePortfolio

848 372 43.9% 2.9% 476 56.1% 8.6%

EY2016 All Men Male % of Pool % of All Men Women Female % of Pool % of All Women

Apply to MIT 19,020 13,131 69.1% 100% 5,889 30.9% 100%

Submit Maker Portfolio

1,355 1,156 85.3% 8.8% 199 14.7% 3.4%

SubmitResearchPortfolio

2,259 1,451 64.2% 11.1% 808 35.8% 13.7%

Submit Music &Theater ArtsPortfolio

1,125 660 58.6% 5.0% 465 41.2% 7.9%

SubmitArt/ArchitecturePortfolio

893 396 44.3% 3.0% 497 55.7% 8.4%


21

fieldwork that might trace the web of reasonsthat influence whether and which portfoliosare submitted by applicants. We welcomesuggestions of resources (e.g., people and/or

money) that might support this kind ofresearch to: chris.peterson @mit.edu, cc:[email protected].

Chris Peterson is Assistant Director ofAdmissions ([email protected]);Hal Abelson is a Professor in the Departmentof Electrical Engineering and Computer Science([email protected]).

Teaching this fall? You should know . . .. . . the Faculty regulates examinations and assignments for all subjects.

View the complete regulations at web.mit.edu/ faculty/ teaching/termregs.html. Select requirements are provided below for reference.Contact Faculty Chair Krishna Rajagopal at [email protected] with questions or requests for exceptions.

No required classes, examinations, oral presentations, exercises, or assignments of any kind may be scheduled after the last regularlyscheduled class in a subject, except for final examinations scheduled through the Schedules Office. The last class day for all subjects isWednesday, December 14, 2016.

Undergraduate SubjectsBy the end of the first week of classes, faculty must provide:

• a clear and complete description of the required work, including the number and kinds of assignments• the approximate schedule of tests and due dates for major projects• an indication of whether or not there will be a final examination, and• the grading criteria and procedures to be used

By the end of the third week, faculty must provide a precise schedule of tests and major assignments.

Regularly scheduled academic activity between 7 and 10 pm always takes precedence over evening review sessions or exams/quizzes.Hence:

• Evening review sessions should be optional, and should be described as such. It is good practice to announce them explicitlyas being for those students who do not have classes on the evening in question; some instructors schedule two review ses-sions to provide alternate times.

• In the case of an evening exam/quiz, you must make available an alternate time for any students with such a conflict. (Note: Evening exams/quizzes may be scheduled only on a Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday)

When held outside scheduled class times, tests must:• not exceed two hours in length• begin no earlier than 7:30 pm when held in the evening, and• be scheduled through the Schedules Office

In all undergraduate subjects, there shall be no tests after Friday, December 9, 2016. Unit tests may be scheduled during the final examination period. For each undergraduate subject with a final examination, no other test may be given and no assignment may fall dueafter Friday, December 9, 2016. For each subject without a final examination, at most one assignment may fall due between December 9and the end of the last regularly scheduled class in the subject.

Graduate SubjectsBy the end of the third week, faculty must provide:

• a clear and complete description of the required work, including the number and kinds of assignments• the schedule of tests and due dates for major projects• an indication of whether or not there will be a final examination, and• the grading criteria and procedures to be used

For each graduate subject with a final examination, no other test may be given and no assignment may fall due after Friday, December 9,2016. For each subject without a final examination, at most, either one in-class test may be given, or one assignment, term paper, or oralpresentation may fall due between December 9 and the end of the last regularly scheduled class in the subject.

Student HolidaysThere is a student holiday on Friday, September 23, coinciding with the Fall Career Fair. Monday, October 10 (Columbus Day) andTuesday, October 11 are also student holidays.

Collaboration Policy and Expectations for Academic ConductDue to varying faculty attitudes towards collaboration and diverse cultural values and priorities regarding academic honesty, students are oftenconfused about expectations regarding permissible academic conduct. It is important to clarify, in writing, expectations regarding collaborationand academic conduct at the beginning of each semester. This could include a reference to the MIT Academic Integrity Handbook.


22

Institutional ResearchHighlights from the 2016 Faculty and StaffQuality of Life Survey

TH E COU NCI L ON FAM I LY and Workmonitors the state of family and work lifeat MIT and works to ensure MIT is a placewhere faculty and staff can have fulfillingand productive professional and personallives. As part of its charge, the Councilsponsors the MIT Faculty and StaffQuality of Life Survey. The Office of theProvost and the Chair of the Faculty serveas co-sponsors of the faculty portion ofthe survey.

In mid-January of this year, ProvostMartin Schmidt and Executive VicePresident Israel Ruiz invited MIT facultyand staff to participate in a quality of lifesurvey. The survey was administered bythe Office of Institutional Research. Thepurpose of the survey was to examine thework-life environment for faculty, otherinstructional staff, researchers, postdoc-toral scholars, administrative staff,support staff, and service staff at MITMain Campus and Lincoln Laboratory.Faculty received a similar survey in 2004,2008, and 2012. The survey includedother employee types beginning in 2012.

The survey covered a number oftopics, including satisfaction, workload,work-related stressors, departmentalclimate, mentoring, integration of workand personal/family life, and the tenureand promotion process. It was based inpart on a core survey developed byschools in the Association of AmericanUniversities (AAU).

The survey closed in late February withmore than 7,000 responses. Fifty-sevenpercent of Main Campus staff and 45% ofLincoln Laboratory staff answered the survey.The response rate for faculty was 64%,slightly lower than the 66% rate in 2012.

As with all surveys run by InstitutionalResearch, the survey data are treated asconfidential, and the results are never pre-sented in a way that individual respon-dents can be identified.

Below are some of the broad-levelsurvey results, organized by topic area.The Council on Family and Work ispreparing a more detailed analysis, whichshould be available later this fall.

SatisfactionFaculty and staff appear to be quite satis-fied in their roles at MIT. Ninety percentof survey respondents, overall, said theywere somewhat or very satisfied being anMIT employee. See MIT Numbers (backpage). Ninety-two percent of facultyreported being satisfied. Tenured facultyreported slightly higher satisfaction ratesthan tenure-track faculty. The ratesranged from 89% in Engineering to 97%in Sloan.

The last time this survey was adminis-tered (2012), the same percentage offaculty said they were somewhat or verysatisfied in their overall role as faculty atMIT. However, the percentage of “Verysatisfied” rose from 57% in 2012 to 62%in 2016. See Figure 2.

When asked about their satisfactionwith 22 specific items, faculty rated“Quality of graduate/professional stu-dents,” “Quality of undergraduate stu-dents,” and “Office space” as the top threeitems. The bottom three items were“Support for securing grants,”“Committee and administrative responsi-bilities,” and “Time available for scholarlywork.” [The ranking of items is based onmean score.] Faculty and staff were also

asked, “Please indicate the degree to whichyou are satisfied with your ability to inte-grate the needs of your work with those ofyour personal/family life.” Seventy-sevenpercent of respondents said they weresomewhat or very satisfied on thismeasure. Faculty and postdoctoral schol-ars, however, tended to have lower ratingscompared to other staff types (66% and63%, respectively). See Figure 3. A higherpercentage of tenured faculty said theywere satisfied with their ability to inte-grate work and family life compared totenure-track faculty. In addition, femalefaculty and underrepresented minorityfaculty reported lower levels of satisfac-tion compared to their counterparts.

Workload and StressWhile faculty and staff indicated theywere generally happy in their roles at MIT,they also reported working hard. Onaverage, faculty and postdoctoral scholarsreported working more hours per weekthan other employee types. See Figure 4.

On the survey faculty were asked howthey divided their time among variouswork-related activities. Tenured facultyreported spending more time on adminis-trative responsibilities and less time onscholarship, compared to tenure-trackfaculty. See Figure 5.

Nearly 60% of faculty said their work-load was too heavy or much too heavy,while fewer than 1% said too light ormuch too light. For each of the other stafftypes, a majority answered “about right.”See Figure 6 (page 24).

In tandem with the findings regardingworkload, faculty were more likely thanother groups to report being overwhelmed


23

by all they had to do during the past year.Forty-seven percent of faculty said theyfelt overwhelmed “Often” or “Very Often”,compared to 33% for respondents overall.Tenure-track faculty reported being moreoften overwhelmed, compared to tenuredfaculty. See Figure 7 (next page).

The survey asked faculty to rate theextent to which 33 work-related andnon-work-related items contributed totheir stress over the past year. The topsix sources of stress were: Lack of timeto think and reflect; Securing fundingfor research; Scholarly productivity;Lack of time for friends and family;Managing a research group or grant(e.g., finances, personnel); and Teachingresponsibilities.

ClimateThe survey had a number of questionsabout department/unit climate. Amongthem was one that asked faculty and staffto rate their level of agreement or dis-agreement with: I have a voice in the deci-sion-making that affects the direction ofmy department, lab, or center. Fifty-twopercent of the overall population said theysomewhat or strongly agreed with thisstatement. Seventy-three percent offaculty agreed with the statement, upfrom 70% in 2012. See Figure 8 (nextpage) for a breakdown of faculty results byacademic school.

Below are additional items asked offaculty in this section of the survey. Thefigure next to each statement is the

percent of faculty who answered“Somewhat agree” or “Strongly agree.”

83% – My primary department is a goodfit for me.71% – I have the resources (equipment, train-ing, budget, etc.) I need to do my job well.77% – My department’s procedures arefair and equitable to all.88% – My chair/director/dean creates acollegial and supportive environment.74% – MIT values my research/scholarship.66% – MIT values my teaching.84% – In my workplace everyone istreated with respect.58% – I feel supported when trying totake actions/make change.

31%

35%

30%

32%

62%

57%

51%

47%

Verydissatisfied

Somewhatdissatisfied

Neither dissatisfiednor satisfied

Somewhatsatisfied

Verysatisfied

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2016

2012

2008

2004

43%

41%

41%

38%

40%

37%

40%

40%

37%

10%

30%

25%

40%

22%

44%

39%

43%

45%

Verydissatisfied



Somewhatsatisfied

Verysatisfied

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Tenure-Track Faculty

Tenured Faculty

All Faculty

Other Instruc onal

Postdoc

Research

Admin

Service

Support

Figure 2. Satisfaction with being a faculty member at MIT Figure 3. Satisfaction with ability to integrate the needs of work with personal/family life

Figure 4. Average number of hours ina typical work week

Figure 5. As you think about how you spend your time, what percentage of youraverage work week do you spend on each of the following work-related activities?

Faculty 62Other Instructional 48Postdoc 53Research 46Admin 44Service 42Support 38Overall 46

Tenure-Track TenuredTeaching (including preparing materials for 24% 22%class, lecturing, etc.)Advising undergraduate students 4% 4%Advising graduate students 11% 11%Scholarship, conducting research, creating or 32% 25%performing artistic workOther communication with students outside of class 5% 6%Writing and administering grants 11% 8%Administrative responsibilities and university service 7% 17%Service external to university 5% 6%Other work-related activities, including paid consulting 1% 3%



24

MentoringThe survey asked several questions onmentoring, including one about whetheror not faculty and staff felt as though theyhad received adequate mentoring whilethey were at MIT. More than half of servicestaff chose “Not applicable” for this ques-tion – compared to just 12% of faculty.Faculty were more likely than other groupsto say they had received adequate mentor-ing. The rate for tenure-track faculty was

higher than tenured faculty (70% “Yes”compared to 61%). See Figure 9.

Tenure and PromotionOn the survey faculty were asked if thecriteria for tenure are clearly communi-cated, the extent to which various itemsare valued in the tenure process, and howappropriately those items are valued.

Tenured faculty were more likely than tenure-track faculty to agree that the crite-

ria for tenure were clearly communicated.Faculty reported that research/scholarlywork and professional reputation weremost valued in the tenure process. SeeFigure 10. When asked how appropriatelythe same items were valued in the tenureprocess, more than a third of faculty said“Advising and mentoring” and “Teachingcontributions” were at least somewhatundervalued.

45%

45%

45%

26%

26%

30%

34%

12%

21%

13%

15%

15%

8%

7%

7%

10%

3%

6%

Muchtoo heavy

Tooheavy

Aboutright

Toolight

Muchtoo light

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Tenured Faculty

All Faculty

Other Instruc onal

Postdoc

Research

Admin

Service

Support

Figure 6. Overall, how would you rate your workload?

30%

30%

30%

20%

26%

21%

23%

10%

14%

27%

14%

17%

10%

14%

10%

12%

5%

9%

Very often Often Occasionally Never

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Tenured Faculty

All Faculty

Other Instruc onal

Postdoc

Research

Admin

Service

Support

Figure 7. During the past year, how often have you felt overwhelmed by all you had to do?

43%

28%

31%

30%

31%

31%

28%

40%

47%

50%

40%

43%

Stronglydisagree

Somewhatdisagree

Neither agreenor disagree

Somewhatagree

Stronglyagree

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

SAP

Engineering

SHASS

Science

Sloan

Overall

Figure 8. I have a voice in the decision-making that affects my department, lab, or center

70%

61%

63%

51%

48%

48%

35%

28%

26%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Tenured Faculty

All Faculty

Other Instruc onal

Postdoc

Research

Admin

Support

Service

Yes No Not applicable

Figure 9. While at MIT do you feel you have received adequate mentoring?


25

Open-Ended CommentsOn the survey, faculty were asked severalopen-ended questions, including “Whatdo you wish you could spend more timeon?” and “What do you wish you couldspend less time on?” About half of facultyanswered these questions. Each commentwas read and assigned to one or moreresponse categories.

Nearly three-quarters of faculty saidthey wanted to spend more time onresearch. More than half of faculty saidthey wanted to spend less time on admin-istrative-related duties (e.g., administra-tion, grants, and email). See two chartsbelow.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Research/scholarly work

Professional reputa on

Teaching contribu ons

Advising and mentoring

Service (e.g., commi!ee work)

Valued slightly or not at all Somewhat valued Highly valued

Figure 10. In your experience, to what extent are the following items valued in the tenure process?

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

SAP SHASS Sloan SOE SOS

What do you wish you could spend more me on?

Other Comments

Grants

Teaching

Advising

Thinking

Publishing

Research/Scholarship

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

SAP SHASS Sloan SOE SOS

What do you wish you could spend less me on?

Other Comments

Recommenda ons

Commu ng

Advising

Service

Teaching

Email

Grants

Administra on


26

Diane Betz TavitianMITAC: New Ticket Office OffersDiscounted Tickets to Many Activities

TH E M IT ACTIVIT I E S COM M ITTE E

(MITAC) invites all MIT faculty, and theentire MIT community, to its recentlyinaugurated new “Ticket Office” along theCharles Vest Student Street in the StataCenter. Discounted tickets to numerouscultural and recreational activities can bebought for one’s own use, or as gifts forfamily, friends, and colleagues. The offer-ings are broad and numerous, and thesavings are significant.

MITAC is an employee benefit servicethat was launched in 1983 in Building 20as a pilot program to negotiate discountsto movies, sporting events, museums,theater productions, etc.; to arrangespecial programs and events for the MITcommunity to help build communityand employee morale; and, in general, toprovide employees economical access tomany of the leisure time activities avail-able in the Greater Boston Area. Sincethen, MITAC has grown to the pointwhere in the 2015 calendar year it soldalmost 40,000 tickets to over 5,000 cus-tomers who collectively saved more than$285,000 – a savings to the MIT com-munity of 10% to 60% of the retail valueof tickets. MITAC is guided by both avolunteer program committee, whichorganizes many of the unique specialevents MITAC offers, and a presiden-tially appointed Advisory Council whichprovides guidance on long-term goalsand planning, business practices, andpolicies.

When the Radiation Lab, aka Building20 (“The Magic Incubator”), was torndown in 1998, the MITAC office movedfrom the first floor of Building 20 to the

basement of Walker Memorial, a locationeven harder to find than its original home.

When the Stata Center was opened onthe site of Building 20 in 2004, MITACcame full circle and set up shop near the

Forbes Family Café at the east end of theStudent Street traversing Stata. This loca-tion was much more accessible to cus-tomers and sales increased, but theopen-air desk was less than ideal for cus-tomers and operations.

The new “Ticket Office” is a dedicatedoffice area for MITAC constructed last fallon the site of the open-air MITAC desk.The new area provides enhanced cus-tomer services and the MITAC staff withmore space to do the behind-the-sceneswork needed to run the day-to-day oper-ations, and can be closed up at night.During the day the Ticket Office opensrevealing a ticket counter, as well as racksof activity brochures and literature. Videodisplays on the outer walls describeMITAC’s current offerings 24/7.

Other changes are also coming soonfor MITAC and its customers. TheWebsite is currently being revamped, thenew site is being made mobile-deviceaccessible, and an on-line ticketing servicewill be inaugurated in coming months.

MITAC offers a wide spectrum ofmore than 250 cultural and recreationalevents annually to our community.Regularly discounted tickets include thosefor:

• Boston Bruins & Boston Celtics

• Movies (AMC, Showcase, Regal,Landmark, IMAX, Chunky’s)

• Local attractions (Boston Children’sMuseum, Museum of Science, NewEngland Aquarium, HarvardMuseum of Natural History, PeabodyEssex Museum, Gardner Museum)

• Broadway shows

• Boston Pops

• Boston Symphony Orchestra

• World Music

• Special family events

For more information, subscribe toMITAC’s weekly and monthly electronicnewsletters, and/or visit MITAC online(web.mit.edu/mitac), on campus (StataTicket Office, Tuesday thru Friday, 11am – 4 pm), or at Lincoln Laboratory(A�109, Thursday and Friday, 11 am – 4pm). Questions and activity suggestionscan be sent to: [email protected].

Diane Betz Tavitian is MIT ActivitiesCommittee (MITAC) Coordinator([email protected]).


27

Nominate a Colleague as a MacVicar Faculty Fellow

P R OVO S T M A R T I N S C H M I D T iscalling for nominations of faculty as 2017MacVicar Faculty Fellows.

The MacVicar Faculty FellowsProgram recognizes MIT faculty whohave made exemplary and sustained con-tributions to the teaching and educationof undergraduates at the Institute.Together the Fellows form a smallacademy of scholars committed to excep-tional instruction and innovation in edu-cation.

MacVicar Faculty Fellows are selectedthrough a competitive nominationprocess, appointed for 10-year terms, andreceive $10,000 per year of discretionaryfunds for educational activities, research,travel, and other scholarly expenses.

The MacVicar Program honors the lifeand contributions of the late MargaretMacVicar, Professor of Physical Scienceand Dean for Undergraduate Education.

Nominations should include:

• a primary nomination letter detailingthe contributions of the nominee toundergraduate education,

• three-to-six supporting letters fromfaculty colleagues, including one fromhis or her department head if theprimary letter is not from the depart-ment head,

• three-to-six supporting letters frompresent or former undergraduate stu-

dents, with specific comments about thenominee’s undergraduate teaching,

• the nominee’s curriculum vitae,

• a list of undergraduate subjects, includ-ing the number of students taught, and

• a summary of available student evalua-tion results for the nominee.

Please use the template found atweb.mit.edu/macvicar/evaltemp.xlsx.

For more information, visit web.mit.edu/macvicar or contact the Registrar’s OfficeCurriculum & Faculty Support team atx3-6776 or [email protected].

Nominations are due on Thursday,November 17.

T H E O F F I C E O F T H E D E A N forUndergraduate Education seeks prelimi-nary proposals for faculty-led projects toenhance the educational experience ofMIT undergraduates. Projects can befocused at any level of undergraduateeducation, but priority will be given toprojects that:

• Improve the first-year academic experience

• Enhance the General InstituteRequirements (GIRs)

• Enrich faculty-student interactions in

the residence-based curriculum

• Transcend specific departmental curricula

Proposals that make use of innovativepedagogies or best practices to improvestudent learning and the student experi-ence are encouraged. The d’Arbeloff FundReview Committee is also interested inproposals seeking to improve studentmotivation, confidence, and self-efficacyby providing opportunities to demon-strate technical accomplishments inauthentic contexts.

The d’Arbeloff Fund ReviewCommittee places a high value on assess-ment of educational innovations andencourages sharing of good practices andresults. The process includes a workshopon assessment and submission of finalproject reports by all grant recipients.

For guidelines and more information,visit web.mit.edu/darbeloff or contact theRegistrar’s Office, Curriculum andFaculty Support at x3-6776 or [email protected].

Preliminary proposals, with an esti-mated budget, are due by Friday,September 30.

Request for Preliminary Proposals forInnovative Curricular Projects

The Alex and Brit d’Arbeloff Fund for Excellence in Education


M.I.T. Numbersfrom the 2016 Faculty and Staff Quality of Life Survey

Source: Office of the Provost/Institutional Research

31%

32%

42%

38%

38%

26%

40%

62%

60%

42%

53%

52%

70%

52%

Verydissatisfied



Somewhatsatisfied

Verysatisfied

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Faculty

Other Instruc onal

Postdoc

Research

Admin

Service

Support

Satisfaction with being an employee of MIT

mit faculty newsletter, vol. xxix no. 1, september/october...

Documents