mit faculty newsletter, vol. xx no. 5, may/june 2008web.mit.edu/fnl/volume/205/fnl205.pdf ·...

in this issue we offer three pieces on MIT finances (beginning onpage 6); an article expressing concern over a plan by the U.S. Secretary ofDefense to support military-related research in the university (page 14); and an article reflecting on nominations and elections at MIT (page 16).

MITFacultyNewsletter

Vol. XX No. 5May/June 2008

http://web.mit.edu/fnl

MassachusettsInstitute ofTechnology

continued on page 24

Lydia Snover

MIT Faculty Survey:It’s About Time

EditorialFinancingUndergraduateEducation

A S T H E C O S T F O R AT T E N D I N G

college continues to skyrocket, the burdenof funding deserving students is beingshared by both the students’ families aswell as the university. Exacerbated by theweakened U.S. economy, traditionalstudent funding methods often areproving insufficient in the short term andlacking an extended view that wouldimprove them over the long term.

MIT finances are a key theme of thisissue of the Newsletter. Articles include“Endowment Spending Policy at MIT”(page 6); “A New Approach to MIT’sFinancial Planning” (page 8); and “APrimer on Indirect Costs” (page 10).Continuing with that theme, in this edito-rial we offer a perspective on the currentfinancial climate for undergraduate stu-dents and some thoughts on how toimprove things in the future.

“ T H E O N LY R E A S O N F O R T I M E ,”

said Albert Einstein,“is so that everythingdoesn’t happen at once.” At MIT, ourfaculty seem to be challenging Einstein’sobservation by trying to do everything atonce, at least according to the results ofthe 2008 Faculty Survey.

Time (or rather lack of it) is a majorsource of stress among MIT faculty. Thelack of time to think and reflect and thelack of time for non-work activities aretwo of the top five stress-producers (seeM.I.T. Numbers, back page). In respond-ing to this quality of life survey, facultycomments included:

• “Time has become too scarce: time tothink and write; time to spend with stu-dents; time to explore.”

• “Too little time, too many responsibili-ties (for students and faculty alike).

Berwick, Lee, andOrlin Elected to FNLEditorial Board

R E S U LTS OF TH E F I R ST Institute-wide election by faculty are in, and thenewly-elected members of the FacultyNewsletter Editorial Board are Prof.Robert Berwick (EECS), Assoc. Prof.Helen Elaine Lee (Writing andHumanistic Studies), and Prof. JamesOrlin (Sloan School).

Elections were held electronically (allfaculty and professors emeriti were eligi-ble to vote) and more than 20 percent ofthe eligible faculty participated. Votingtook place between May 1 and May 7.

Following new procedures outlined inthe Policies and Procedures of the MITFaculty Newsletter, members of theEditorial Board are now elected by a voteof the faculty, replacing the volunteermethod of member selection.

The new Board members will be offi-cially welcomed at the FNL EditorialBoard meeting later this spring.

continued on page 3

Vol. XX No. 5 May/June 2008

2

The MIT FacultyNewsletterEditorial Board

Alice AmsdenUrban Studies & Planning

John BelcherPhysics

Nazli ChoucriPolitical Science

Erik DemaineElectrical Engineering & Computer Science

Olivier de WeckAeronautics & Astronautics/Engineering Systems

*Ernst G. FrankelMechanical Engineering

*Stephen C. GravesManagement Science/Engineering Systems

Jean E. JacksonAnthropology

Gordon KaufmanManagement Science/Statistics

Jonathan King (Secretary)Biology

Stephen J. LippardChemistry

David H. MarksCivil & Environmental Engineering

*Fred Moavenzadeh (Chair)Civil & Environmental Engineering/Engineering Systems

Ronald PrinnEarth, Atmospheric & Planetary Sciences

David ThorburnLiterature

*George VergheseElectrical Engineering & Computer Science

Rosalind H. WilliamsScience, Technology, & Society/Writing

David LewisManaging Editor

*Editorial Sub-Committee for this issue

AddressMIT Faculty NewsletterBldg. 11-268Cambridge, MA 02139

Websitehttp://web.mit.edu/fnl

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

Subscriptions$15/year on campus$20/year off campus

01 MIT Faculty Survey:It’s About TimeLydia Snover

01 Berwick, Lee, and Orlin Elected to FNL Editorial Board

Editorial 01 Financing Undergraduate Education

From The 04 Reconsidering the Value of Service to MITFaculty Chair Bish Sanyal

05 Confidentiality in Faculty Recruitment, Promotion, and Tenure ReviewsL. Rafael Reif, Bish Sanyal

06 Endowment Spending Policy at MITSeth Alexander, Ahron Herring

08 A New Approach to MIT’s Financial PlanningL. Rafael Reif, Terry Stone

10 A Primer on Indirect CostsClaude R. Canizares

13 Changes in Engineering EducationErnst G. Frankel

14 Anthropologists Express Concern OverGovernment Plan to Support Military-Related Research in UniversitiesJean E. Jackson

16 Reflections on Nominations and Elections for Faculty Officers and Committees at MITMichel DeGraff

19 Provost Announces Faculty Renewal Program

20 Initiative on Faculty Race and Diversity: Research Team and Effort LaunchedPaula Hammond

MITPoetry 21 The Man I Killed; LiseDavid Thorburn

22 Creating a Culture of Communication: Assessing the Implementation of the Undergraduate Communication RequirementSamuel Allen, Tania Baker

25 The Vision ThingAlison Alden

Letters 26 The Spellings Commission Backs OffLori Breslow

Letters 27 Who Should Be Allowed to Speak at Faculty Meetings?Ceasar L. McDowell

M.I.T. Numbers 28 from the 2008 Faculty Survey: Sources of Stress

contents

Photo credit: Page 1, Wikimedia Commons

MIT Faculty NewsletterMay/June 2008

3

Since World War II, MIT and most ofour peer universities have followed acommon path toward funding under-graduate education. Initially, the largestrevenue source was tuition paid by thestudent and his or her family. As timepassed, private universities developedadditional resources through fundraisingfrom benefactors, which yielded a flow ofannual expendable gifts as well as theannual payout from ever-increasing uni-versity endowments. But even theserevenue-generating sources are provinginsufficient for raising the funds to enablethe university to support the ever-increas-ing costs of undergraduate education.

Indeed, consider the current picture atMIT. Over the last 10 years we haveincreased our tuition and fees at anaverage annual rate of 4.2%; at the sametime the financial aid budget hasincreased at an average annual rate of9.1%. One consequence is that for stu-dents who qualify for MIT financial aid,the net tuition in real dollars has actuallyfallen by 15% over the last 10 years[President Susan Hockfield, letter to theMIT Community, February 29, 2008].This is a truly remarkable accomplish-ment, demonstrating MIT’s commitmentto assuring access for all of our excep-tional students. But is this sustainable?Can we continue to increase our financialaid budget at this rate? And do we need todo even more in light of the much moregenerous financial aid that Harvard andother universities are able to offer familiesin the $100K to $200K income bracket?

Even with these dramatic increases inthe financial aid budget, we still knowthat for many families the cost to send achild to MIT is too much. Each year manystudents choose to go elsewhere due tothe financial burden that their familieswould need to assume for an MIT educa-tion. Other families and students take onmore debt so that the student can attendMIT, frequently requiring the student tobegin repaying enormous sums upongraduation.

These challenges are by no means spe-cific to MIT. The rise of the costs of highereducation over the past few years and theaccompanying rise of tuition have beenwell above the general inflation that theeconomy as a whole has faced. The risehas placed an increasing burden on fami-lies to support the educational expenses oftheir children. As noted by PresidentHockfield [President Susan Hockfield,letter to the MIT Community, February29, 2008], many of our “affordable” publicuniversities have had to raise their fees ateven greater rates due to reduced statefunding.

Over the past few decades a variety ofmeans have been developed to reduce theburden of education on the families ofstudents. These have included in generalthe elimination of the ability to pay as acriterion for admission. Many schools alsopromise aid packages that meet the “fullneed” of the student. But the need deter-mination has often been predicated uponunrealistic assumptions about the studentand his/her family’s ability to pay. As aconsequence, a large portion of this needis often to be met by a combination ofwork-study and loans, which greatly con-strain the student’s flexibility duringschool and post graduation.

An Old Idea for Financing anEducationMore than 50 years ago, economist MiltonFriedman argued for income-contingentloans as a way for financing higher educa-tion. The basic idea is that the repaymentof a student’s loan is contingent on thestudent’s post-graduation income. Forinstance, in exchange for a loan, thestudent commits to paying a given per-centage of his/her annual gross income fora set number of years. This concept hassurfaced in a number of different forms.In 1967, a White House panel chaired byMIT Professor Jerrold Zacharias proposedthe creation of an EducationalOpportunity Bank. Although neveradopted, the idea was that a student wouldrepay on the order of 1% of gross annualincome each year for 30 years for each$3000 of loans. In 1971, Yale actually

introduced on an experimental basis aTuition Postponement Option; upongraduation a student paid 0.4% of incomefor each $1000 of loans for 35 years.Nearly 4000 undergraduates participatedin this program between 1971 and 1978.More recently Great Britain introduced anincome-contingent student loan programcalled Pay As You Earn. Student loanrepayments are 9% of any income inexcess of an annual income threshold of£15,000 (~ $30,000), and repaymentscontinue until the loan is paid off.

Perhaps this idea deserves revisiting.Such loans would help to shift the finan-cial burden from the parents to thestudent, who receives the value of the edu-cation. Making the repayment contingenton income would allow students moreflexibility in making their post-gradua-tion choices; for instance, a student couldtake a low-paying community serviceposition or continue into graduate schoolwithout an overwhelming repaymentobligation. Furthermore, the repaymentfraction could vary with income, as with aprogressive tax rate, or vary with timesince graduation, to reflect different stagesof one’s career. The system might alsoassist the Institute by allowing it toincrease tuition closer to real costs, withthe expectation that students would useincome-contingent loans. In this way wemight move closer to a system by whichmore and more of the Institute’s revenuesare tied to the income streams of the grad-uates, which arguably reflect the valueadded from the education.

Of course, in developing such a plan, thedevil is in the details. An implementationplan would need to address many issues:how to secure the initial capital needed tolaunch such a program? what type of provi-sions to permit one to buy out from therepayment scheme? how to manage thepotential problem from adverse selection?how to manage the collections?

Nevertheless, in light of the challengesof financing undergraduate education,new ideas are needed. We welcome othersuggestions.

Editorial Sub-Committee

Financing Undergraduate Educationcontinued from page 1

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XX No. 5

4

Bish SanyalFrom The Faculty ChairReconsidering the Value of Service to MIT

H AV E YO U S E E N T H E 2008 MITFaculty Quality of Life Survey? Orperhaps you are still somewhat unhappythat the survey was so long, and you don’ttrust the findings of such surveys, anyway.When the spring semester ends, andbefore you get into your summer writingschedule, glance through the survey oncebefore you toss it out with the paperworkaccumulated on your desk over the pastnine months. You may notice what Inoticed; or, you may read the surveytotally differently.

For example, I read that 80.6% of MITfaculty are either satisfied or very satisfiedwith being a faculty member at MIT; butthen, I was reminded by a colleague that16% of the faculty are either dissatisfied orvery dissatisfied [see page 23 of this issueof the Faculty Newsletter]. And, 3.5% offaculty have not made up their mind asyet: They are in the column of “neithersatisfied, nor dissatisfied”! “Who are thesefaculty and why they are still sitting on thefence?” I ask myself. The survey does notprovide any clue regarding the complexityof such undecided minds, but their pres-ence is visible on most tables, barring afew where the faculty seems to have a veryclear opinion one way or the other. Onesuch table is on page 29 of the survey,which documents what the MIT facultythink their peers value in the tenureprocess [see page 24 of this issue of theFaculty Newsletter]. According to thattable, 95% of the faculty thinkresearch/scholarly work is highly valued;91.4% think that assessment by our peersoutside of MIT is highly valued; and85.3% think professional reputation ishighly valued. In contrast, only 9.1%think collegiality is highly valued, and,more importantly – at least for me, the

Chair of the Faculty who is expected tomanage MIT’s faculty governance system– only 1.5% of the faculty think service toMIT is highly valued; and 52.5% – that ismore than half of the faculty – thinkservice to MIT is either valued slightly ornot at all!

How do such perceptions of what isvalued by the faculty affect MIT’s facultygovernance system? For one, this mightexplain why the faculty does not partici-pate more widely in the various standingcommittees, and why it is so difficult torecruit even senior faculty to chair suchcommittees. The NominationsCommittee has raised this concern manytimes before, pleading for more volun-teers to staff the various committees, butthe rate of faculty participation hasremained low, reinforcing the results ofthe Survey that faculty perceive that it istheir professional reputation which reallymatters. Consequently, many faculty areunwilling to volunteer their time andenergy for MIT’s faculty governancesystem.

Which raises one intriguing question:Why do a small number of faculty con-tinue to participate in the faculty gover-nance system, volunteering their time andenergy for tasks which are not regardedhighly by their colleagues? One pre-dictable response would be that thefaculty who participate must be servingtheir self-interest in some way. A crudeversion of this hypothesis is that facultywho are unable to enhance their profes-sional reputation through research/schol-arly work, may consider service to MIT asthe only way to feel as if they are con-tributing to academia. A more instrumen-tal version of the same logic would be thatfaculty volunteering is a strategy to ulti-

mately secure a position in the academicadministration, as if those facultymembers have nothing else to offerthrough their research or teaching forwhich they had received tenure earlier.

Could there be an alternative explana-tion as to why a small number of MITfaculty volunteer their time and energy forthe faculty governance system? Is it plausi-ble that there could be some facultymembers whose concerns are not limitedto how they can further their self-interest?Is it plausible that some faculty memberswant to belong to a learning communityby participating in its governance?Whoever designed MIT’s faculty gover-nance system must have assumed thatMIT faculty could be both first-rate schol-ars and scientists and also contribute toMIT’s learning community, not onlythrough publishing which enhancedMIT’s reputation as a leading researchuniversity, but by also contributing to itsgovernance system. These two ways ofcontributing to the MIT community –research/scholarly work and participatingin MIT’s faculty governance system –need not be seen as an either/or proposi-tion: After all, for our professional reputa-tion to flourish, we need a well governedinstitutional setting to conduct researchand teach the brilliant students who assistin that research. In that sense, the smallgroup of faculty who continue to volun-teer for faculty governance-related work,even though such work is not respected bytheir peers, actually contributes to knowl-edge generation in a significant way: Theyhelp to create the institutional settingswhose stability and resilience we take forgranted, to the extent that we barely noticeits significance – as is evident from the2008 Faculty Survey.


5

How should we acknowledge the con-tributions of the faculty who contributeto MIT’s faculty governance system?Each academic year, at the end of thespring term, the President and the Chairof the Faculty host a reception at GrayHouse to thank the faculty, students, andstaff who participate in the faculty gover-nance system. Since this reception is heldin mid-May, the garden at Gray Houseprovides a beautiful setting for faculty tomingle and exchange thoughts about yetanother academic year coming to an end.Although this event does provide a senseof respect to the faculty who contributeto the faculty governance system, it hasvery little impact on the perception ofthe faculty-at-large regarding the valueof governance-related work. Which hasled me to think that such work must beprovided more visibility. The facultyneed to notice and appreciate the contri-butions of those colleagues who helpmaintain the institutional infrastructureupon which professional reputations areultimately built.

There are at least three ways to makethe contribution of those who participatein the faculty governance system morevisible. First, we could have the standingcommittees periodically present sum-

maries of their deliberations at themonthly Institute faculty meetings. Thecurrent practice is to have only theCommittee on Discipline present anannual report at a faculty meeting in thespring semester. We could build on thatpractice by requiring other committeechairs to present summaries of their com-mittee activities. This will not increase theworkload of the committee chairs, as theyprepare such reports in written formalready – reports which are currentlycompiled by the Faculty Chair for thePresident and other senior members ofthe administration.

A second way to provide more visibil-ity to the work of the faculty governancecommittees is to publish their annualreports – perhaps one or two at a time – inthe Faculty Newsletter (FNL). To make itinteresting to the readers of the FNL, thecommittee chairs could be interviewed byNewsletter Editorial Board members whocould ask questions regarding the signifi-cance of the various committees’ work forresearch, teaching, and community build-ing. Such interviews could focus on con-troversial issues, which always draw thefaculty’s attention.

A third way to change the perceptionof low respectability of committee-related

work is to provide financial incentives forsuch work. True, the voluntary quality ofthe committee work should be respectedand cherished, but it can be combinedwith some financial rewards for at leastthe chairs of the various committees. Afterall, let’s face facts: Incentive structures doshape organizational cultures. If our goalis to change the perception of the facultyregarding the worth of governance-related committee work, why not demon-strate that the Institute values suchcontributions by financially rewarding thefaculty who shoulder the burden of suchwork? It’s my hunch that if the Institutewere to implement such a policy, the per-centage of faculty who consider them-selves “either satisfied or very satisfied”would increase; and I wonder if such apolicy would also have an effect on thosefaculty who are still undecided?! If publi-cized well, a policy that acknowledges thecontribution of those who make MIT avibrant learning community will certainlyhave some impact even on those faculty(30.3%) who are currently “neither satis-fied nor dissatisfied” by committee andadministrative responsibilities.

Bish Sanyal is a Professor of Urban Planningand Faculty Chair ([email protected]).

MIT’S POLICIES AND PROCEDURES includes provisions designed to ensure that candidates for appointment, promotion,and tenure receive a thorough and fair review of their qualifications and accomplishments. Implicit throughout these provi-sions is the need for appropriate confidentiality of sensitive information. Among other things, P&P specifically says, “Anessential component of the evaluation process at MIT is the solicitation of written assessments from persons familiar withthe individual’s character, research and teaching capabilities, and academic qualifications. In order to assure the mostcandid and useful evaluations, MIT has traditionally accorded such assessments the highest degree of confidentiality.”

Honoring these policies is an obligation of everyone at MIT, but especially of faculty members. MIT requires all facultymembers who participate in faculty recruitment and in promotion and tenure reviews, and all those faculty and staff who mayotherwise come to know confidential information, to safeguard that information, including the identity of authors of suchassessments and their specific content. Not only is a breach of confidentiality a serious violation of MIT policy, but withoutconscientious diligence, we will eventually find that this essential component of our process is unavailable or unreliable.

L. Rafael Reif, ProvostBish Sanyal, Faculty Chair

Confidentiality in Faculty Recruitment, Promotion, and Tenure Reviews


6

Seth AlexanderAhron Herring

Endowment Spending Policy at MIT

THE MIT INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT

Company, or MITIMCo, coordinates theinvestment operations of the Institute.The department has the responsibility forthe prudent stewardship of MIT’s long-term financial assets to ensure that theysupport the work of both current andfuture generations of scholars.

Principal among the investment assetssupervised by MITIMCo are the endowedfunds of the Institute. The many individualfunds, whether for departmental support,scholarships, or otherwise, are collectivelyreferred to as the Endowment, and areinvested in a common investment poolreferred to as Pool A, a shared investmentvehicle similar to a mutual fund. Besidesthe endowed funds in Pool A, the staff atMITIMCo also manages the investmentassets of MIT’s defined benefit pensionfund, the Basic Retirement Plan, as well as anumber of other significant pools ofcapital, including the Retiree WelfareBenefit Trust, the Life Income Fund giftprogram, endowed funds that invest sepa-rately from Pool A, and a number of oper-ating funds of the Institute.

Management of MIT’s EndowmentIn managing the Endowment, MIT keepstwo primary goals in mind: providing asignificant and stable flow of funds to theoperating budget, and maintaining thelong-term purchasing power of the prin-cipal. The first provides resources fortoday’s generation of scholars, while thesecond ensures that MIT will be able todeliver adequate resources to future gen-erations of scholars.

To achieve its goals, MIT’s investmentsmust generate high real rates of return.

Unfortunately, high rates of return bytheir very nature often come with signifi-cant volatility. To reduce portfolio volatil-ity without sacrificing return potential,MIT diversifies its portfolio by investing

in high returning strategies and assetclasses that are uncorrelated.

Over the last decade, MIT has signifi-cantly improved the diversification char-acteristics of the portfolio. While in thelate 1990s two-thirds of MIT’s invest-ments were in U.S. stocks and bonds,today’s portfolio has only 20% in theseasset classes, with the rest allocated toinvestments in alternative assets such asinternational equities, real assets, mar-ketable alternatives (hedge funds), realestate, and private equity (see chart, nextpage).

Spending PolicyEndowment spending policy determinesthe annual flow of funds from theEndowment to the operating budget. Awell designed spending policy takes for itsconceptual framework the two principalgoals of endowment management: pro-viding a significant and stable flow offunds to the operating budget over theshort-term to provide resources to thisgeneration of scholars, while at the sametime maintaining the purchasing power ofthe endowment over the long term, thus

ensuring MIT will be able to provide ade-quate resources to future generations ofscholars.

Unfortunately, achieving both thesegoals requires MIT to make trade-offs.

Satisfying today’s scholars argues for con-sistent increases in spending unrelated toshort-term Endowment performance toallow for steadfast programmatic supporton an inflation adjusted basis. In severebear markets, however, such a policywould result in disaster, as consistentspending increases would dramatically(and perhaps permanently) erode thepurchasing power of the Endowment. It isalso true that excellent Endowment per-formance could cause problems if spend-ing is not linked to changes inEndowment value. One can imagine thelegitimate complaints from unhappycampus constituents who hear aboutgreat financial performance but areunable to enjoy its benefits.

Satisfying future generations of schol-ars, on the other hand, argues for spend-ing that fluctuates directly withEndowment market value changes. Undera policy following this considerationexclusively, declines in Endowment valuewould be immediately followed bydeclines in spending, preventing erosionin long-term purchasing power and pro-tecting resources for future generations.

In managing the Endowment, MIT keeps two primarygoals in mind: providing a significant and stable flowof funds to the operating budget, and maintaining thelong-term purchasing power of the principal.

Unfortunately, this policy results in signif-icant and disruptive volatility in theannual flow of funds to the operatingbudget and thus does not provide well forthe current generation of scholars.

To balance the needs of all generationsof scholars, MIT’s spending policy shouldboth be responsive to changes inEndowment value and minimize year-over-year fluctuations in spending. Theideal spending policy acts as a shockabsorber, keeping short-term spendingrelatively stable but gradually allowingchanges in Endowment values to filterinto changes in spending. A properlyfunctioning shock absorber allows MIT topursue investment strategies that generatehigh returns over the long term withoutunduly worrying about the short-termimpact on the operating budget and

allows the scholars of MIT to pursue edu-cational and research work withoutunduly worrying about fluctuations infinancial markets.

Until recently, MIT employed a spend-ing rule that buffered spending volatilityby averaging changes in Endowmentvalue over a three-year period and by tar-geting a distribution rate that variedbetween 4.75% and 5.5% of that average.While that rule served well for many years,its ability to buffer the operating budgetfrom volatility in financial markets wasovercome in the market decline of theearly 2000s.

As a result, MIT has changed its spend-ing policy to that of a Tobin spending rule.Named for James Tobin, recipient of the1981 Nobel Prize in Economics, a Tobinspending rule sets the annual distribution

in a particular year through a quantitativeformula that has a “stability” term – theprior year’s spending adjusted for infla-tion – and a “market” term – the long-term sustainable rate of distribution timesthe market value of the Endowment. Byselecting the weighting between these twoterms, the Institute can determine thepace at which variations in market valueare incorporated into spending. A heavierweighting towards the market value termprovides greater responsiveness to rising –but also falling – markets. Conversely,weighting the stability term more heavilyincreases the buffering effect, sustainingthe spending rate in the face of marketdeclines, but slowing the response inmarket rallies. The new rule is shownbelow. Over time, MIT may adjust the


7

MIT Pool A Annualized ReturnsPeriods Ending June 30, 2007

1 Year 5 Years 10 YearsMIT Pool A 22.1% 16.0% 15.3%Cambridge Median 19.5% 12.9% 9.6%Difference 2.7% 3.1% 5.7%

The combination of an increasingly well-diversified portfolio coupled with thestrong performance of MIT’s investment managers has enabled Pool A toperform very well on both an absolute and relative basis.

continued on next page

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

1998A 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Private Equity

Marketable Alt.

Real Estate

Real Assets

Int’l Equity

U.S. Equity

Fixed Income

MIT Pool A Asset AllocationFiscal Years 1998 Actual, 1999-2008 Policy

L. Rafael ReifTerry Stone

A New Approach to MIT’s Financial Planning

I N R ECE NT YEAR S, TH E PROVOST

and the Executive Vice President’s teamshave been working with faculty leadershipand the administration of the academicunits to develop financial planningprocesses and policies which providegreater and more predictable support forthe needs of the Institute. Based on this

ongoing work, a new Financial Frame-work has recently been adopted and dis-cussed with faculty, department heads,Academic Council, the ExecutiveCommittee, and a full meeting of theCorporation.

The Financial Framework provides afinancial planning platform for the

Provost’s development of the annualGeneral Institute Budget (GIB).Importantly, the Financial Frameworksets the course for achieving a balancedGIB in 2009. In addition, the Frameworkprovides the basis for informed future dis-cussions about addressing the longer-term capital funding needs of MIT.


8

inputs to best suit the Institute’s needs. Weexpect the adjustments to be infrequent toallow for thoughtful budgetary planning.

Evaluating the effectiveness of a spend-ing policy requires that we measure theinteraction of the chosen investmentportfolio and spending rule over time.Monte Carlo simulation is well suited toproviding these metrics. For the particularpolicy portfolio and spending rule underconsideration, a Monte Carlo analysisprojects the expected distribution of pos-sible future Endowment return andspending outcomes, and measures thepercentage that fail to meet our dualobjectives. The short-term stabilitymeasure employed by the Institute is thelikelihood that market declines wouldtranslate into a decrease in spending of10% or more within any three-yearperiod, termed a Short Term SpendingDrop, or STSD. Similarly, over the 50-yearhorizon of the analysis, we are concernedabout the deterioration in the purchasing

power of the Endowment by more than25%, termed Long Term Spending Drop,or LTSD. These metrics give us someinsight as to the likely performance of theportfolio-spending rule combination.

The chart above shows how the spend-ing rule employed by MIT over the lastdecade looked in LTSD-STSD terms.Notice that as portfolio diversificationimproved between 1997 and 2006 – provid-ing greater return per unit of risk – the like-lihood of both LTSD and STSD declined.

The chart further illustrates that theadoption of a Tobin spending rule can

have a significant LTSD-STSD impact.We moved to the Tobin rule to reducethe historic volatility in the flow offunds to the operating budget. Theanalysis suggests that we have achievedthis objective while “harvesting” theequivalent of only a few years ofimproved portfolio diversification.

Endowment Spending PolicyAlexander and Herring, from preceding page

Seth Alexander is President of the MITInvestment Management Company([email protected]);Ahron Herring is Senior Associate forInvestment Research at the MIT InvestmentManagement Company ([email protected]).

Distribution =

80% x (Distribution in Prior Year, Increased by Inflation)

+

20% x (5.1% x Market Value of Endowment)

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

MIT – Old Rule

Tobin 80%-20% @5.10%

Like

lihoo

d of

a s

pend

ing

decl

ine

of 1

0% o

r m

ore

with

in a

ny 3

-yea

r pe

riod

Likelihood of real purchasing power declining by 25% or more over 50 years

2006

1997


9

Due to investment returns exceeding20% in recent years, Endowment payouthas become a greater contributor toInstitute funding. We estimate thatsupport from Pool A will constitute19.2% of GIB funding and 10.3% oftotal revenues in 2008; hence the impor-tance of a greater degree of stabilityfrom this source for the GIB and fordesignated fund holders. A central com-ponent of this Financial Framework is

the adoption of the new Endowmentspending policy described in the pre-ceding article by MIT InvestmentCompany President Seth Alexander (seepage 6). This payout approach, calledthe Tobin rule, is designed to provide aless volatile year-over-year pattern inEndowment funding to unit holdersand to the GIB.

In 2009, MIT will increase the Pool Apayout rates by 31%. This payout increasefollows similar payout growth in 2008.These funds will not be subject to rebal-ancing. [Briefly, rebalancing is the “zero-sum” strategy MIT implemented in FY08to increase the Institute’s long-termfinancial flexibility. It consisted of theelimination of the additional Endowmentdistribution by increasing the votedEndowment distribution by an equiva-lent amount. Whenever possible andallowable, the additional funds that aca-demic units received in FY08 from theincreased voted distribution payout wasexchanged with General Institute Budgetfunds. As a result, the aggregate funding(GIB and endowment distribution) to

each academic unit in FY08 was at leastthe same as before. The significantincrease in Endowment distribution theacademic units will enjoy in FY09 will notundergo this rebalancing process and willadd to the units’ annual resources. Therebalancing strategy was only carried outin FY08. Please see “Financial Foundationof MIT’s Future” in the MIT FacultyNewsletter, Vol. XIX No. 2, November/December 2006 for greater detail.]

The result of the 2009 payout will be$521M in distribution from Pool A. Wewill inaugurate this new policy at apayout level in the 5% range. In futureyears, the principal driver of year-over-year change in payout amount will be theHigher Education Inflation Index: HEPIinflation will determine 80% of thepayout change. A lesser determinant willbe the change in the value of theEndowment: 20% of the payout amountwill be set at 5.1% of the Endowmentvalue – whether greater or less than theprevious year’s level. This payout policy isdescribed in detail in Seth Alexander’sarticle.

The rebalancing effort in 2008 pro-vided another key building block instrengthening the financial foundation ofthe Institute. The exchange of around$70M of funding between the academicunits and the General Institute Budgetwas facilitated by the 31% Endowmentpayout increase in 2008. It is important tonote that rebalancing did not affectresearch related funds, nor awards orfunds for education.

These two key steps involvingEndowment payout – rebalancing in 2008and adoption of the Tobin rule in 2009 –release significantly greater levels ofEndowment returns for support ofInstitute endeavors. In addition, otherfunding policies and practices were exam-ined and updated to create greater budg-etary flexibility. For example, the costs ofservicing Institute borrowing are nowestimated more precisely and can be pru-dently reduced.

In both 2008 and 2009, recurring pro-grams or needs that had been reduced orcovered with one-time allotments areincorporated into the GIB (e.g.,Technology Review). The restoration of$5M of previously reduced CRSP(Committee for the Review of SpacePlanning) funding in 2008 will be main-tained in the 2009 GIB. In addition, theneed to strengthen faculty and studentcompetitiveness has been recognized inincreased allocations for support offaculty mortgages and in increasedstudent financial aid. The 2009 GIB willprovide $4.3M of incremental researchassistant funding as the RA tuitionsubsidy moves from 45% to 50%. Also,$2.0M in additional funding will be avail-able to cover overhead (under-recovery)on foundation grants. Both of these deci-sions demonstrate a belief in the impor-tance of research growth to MIT’smission.

Over the next few weeks, the Provost,in consultation with the deans, will final-ize what will be the first balanced budgetfor the Institute in recent years. And, overthe rest of the semester, the deans will beengaged in a visioning discussion withthe Provost and the President about theirpriorities for the Schools and for MIT.The Financial Framework will be animportant element in gauging the feasi-bility and timing for implementing thosevisions.

L. Rafael Reif is Provost ([email protected]);Terry Stone is the Executive Vice Presidentand Treasurer ([email protected]).

In 2009, MIT will increase the Pool A payout ratesby 31%. This payout increase follows similarpayout growth in 2008. . . .These two key stepsinvolving Endowment payout – rebalancing in2008 and adoption of the Tobin rule in 2009 –release significantly greater levels of Endowmentreturns for support of Institute endeavors.


10

Claude R. CanizaresA Primer on Indirect Costs

A M O N G U N I V E R S I T Y FAC U LT Y,

indirect costs or overhead has about thesame appeal as taxation among politicalcandidates. So it seemed appropriate,soon after April 15 in an election year, forme to offer some information about indi-rect costs, where they come from and howthey are computed.

Indirect CostsThe rules under which the federal govern-ment reimburses universities like MIT forthe costs of sponsored research are gov-erned by Circular A21 from the Office ofManagement and Budget, “CostPrinciples for Educational Institutions”[www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a021/a021.html]. The principles apply to“grants, contracts and other agreements”and “are designed to provide that theFederal Government bear its fair share oftotal costs.” A different set of rules appliesto for-profit companies (a 2000 RANDstudy [Goldman, C. Williams, T., Payingfor University Research Facilities, RAND,2000] concluded that university overheadis lower than that of industry). The policyof A21 is to recognize and encourage theunique way each institution chooses toconduct research.

A21 distinguishes direct costs (facultysummer salaries, RA stipends, equipment,lab supplies, etc.) from costs associatedwith facilities and administration (F&A),also called indirect costs or overhead. F&Acosts (operation and maintenance ofbuildings, capital depreciation, depart-mental and central administration, etc.)cannot be readily and specifically attrib-uted to a given activity (e.g., instruction

vs. research), nor to a specific sponsoredproject. There are strict categories ofallowed F&A costs and rules for allocatinga fraction of these to organized research, incontrast, say, to instruction or other insti-tutional activities.

Studies [Ibid; Report of Working Groupon Cost of Doing Business, Council onGovernment Relations, 2003] have shownthat the cost allocation rules generallyfavor the sponsors over the institutions,who end up absorbing a fraction of theexpenses plausibly associated with organ-ized research. One clear example, whichaffects many institutions, is an arbitrarycap set on the reimbursement of adminis-tration costs (the “A” of F&A; MIT’s A ratehas historically fallen below the capanyway). That cap has not prevented thegovernment from imposing a continuallyincreasing load of regulatory, compliance,and reporting requirements on thegrantee institutions.

The organized research categoryincludes all research activities, whateverthe funding source, that “are separatelybudgeted and accounted for.” Anyresearch effort with a budget, statement ofwork and/or deliverables, must beincluded in organized research. The fair

share principle then allocates F&A costs toeach and every organized research activ-ity, regardless of the source of funding. Inother words, the federal governmentinsists that each sponsor of organizedresearch, including the university itself,

pays its appropriate fraction of the F&Acosts, or rather that the government paysno more than its appropriate fraction(this can result in the phenomenon ofunder-recovery described below).

The single metric for allocating “fairshares” to various award sponsors ismoney. More specifically, it is the directexpenditures covered by that award less afew specific items (RA tuition, larger sub-contracts, and capital equipment), yield-ing modified total direct costs (MTDC).Because indirect costs are assessed on atransaction-by-transaction basis for everyrelevant MTDC expenditure, there is amisconception that overhead is meant tocover the “back office” costs associatedwith that transaction. Instead, it operatesmore like the Massachusetts sales tax.

The allocation of indirect costsrequires a long process of detailedaccounting following the rules of A21(this process, indeed everything describedin this article, is frequently audited within

Because indirect costs are assessed on a transaction-by-transaction basis for every relevant MTDCexpenditure, there is a misconception that overhead ismeant to cover the “back office” costs associated withthat transaction. Instead, it operates more like theMassachusetts sales tax.


11

MIT and by federal and independentauditors). Every relevant expense isaccounted for, put in the appropriate costcategory, or cost pool, and then allocated

(the result fills a fat notebook of spread-sheets every year). The allocation of afraction of a given cost pool to the cate-gory of organized research vs. other activ-ity categories is computed using a specificmetric that can be readily determined forthat category, such as square footage (forcost pools associated with space) or rela-tive expenditures (say, for departmentaladministration).

The total MTDC and indirect costexpenditures are computed exactly afterthe close of each MIT fiscal year. Ratesfor current and future years are basedon detailed estimates and projections.For MIT FY2007, which closed on June30, 2007, the total direct costs ofresearch (TDC) was $408M and, afterappropriate deductions, MTDC was$253M. (These and all of the numbersin this article refer to on-campus

research – the off-campus rate is calcu-lated independently).

The total of all indirect expenditurecost pools for MIT FY2007 was $456M, of

which $180M (40%) was attributed toorganized research (the other 60% is paidwith general Institute funds). Of the$180M, $131M (73%) are costs related tofacilities, of which $73M is for operationsand maintenance including utilities. Theadministrative indirect costs attributed toorganized research are $49M (27%). This,in turn, is roughly equally dividedbetween central administration, includingadministration of sponsored programs,and administration of departments, labs,and centers (see chart).

The F&A RateThe F&A rate for a given year is computedby dividing the amount of indirect costsattributable to organized research by thetotal MTDC,(e.g., for FY07,$180M/$253M).Fluctuations in MIT’s actual F&A rate cancome from changes in both the numera-

tor (costs) and denominator (MTDC).Over the past 10 years facilities costs havedoubled, primarily due to rising energycosts and the expenses associated withnew buildings and major renovations. Incontrast, administrative costs grew by26% over 10 years, six points fewer thanthe growth in the Consumer Price Indexfor that period. MTDC also increasedthrough the first part of this period, butthen stagnated for the past five years,reflecting the stagnation in federalresearch funding. The combinationreduced the actual F&A rate in the earlyyears of this decade, but then drove asteady increase from FY2002 to FY2007.

Computed retroactively for MITFY2007, the actual F&A rate was 71.1%.This exceeds the 65% rate that was billedto sponsors during FY2007, which hadbeen negotiated early in 2006 with ourcognizant federal oversight agency, theOffice of Naval Research (ONR). Ourbilled rate for FY2008 is 67% and the pro-visional rate for FY2009 is 68%. In total,indirect costs represent about 30 cents ofevery research dollar. Thanks in part tosome changes in depreciation accountingand anticipated MTDC growth, the realF&A rate is expected to decrease andcome more into line with the billed rate.

MIT is one of a small number of uni-versities that can carry forward to futureyears the accumulated difference betweenthe actual and billed recovery. This allowsus to make moderate changes in the billedF&A rate that smoothes over the morerapid fluctuations in the actual rate. Overthe years, the carry-forward has alternatedbetween being positive and negative.

Under-recoveryMany foundations severely limit theamount of indirect costs they are willingto pay. Because the federal governmentunderstandably insists that it will not paymore than its “fair share,” MIT is requiredto supplement such foundation awards tocover full F&A costs at the billed rate. Inother words, when MIT gets an awardwithout full recovery, desirable as thatmay be for many other reasons, it causes


Building Operationsand Maintenance

43%

Building andEquipment

Depreciation17%

Interest8%

General andAdministrative

10%

Department, Lab, andCenter Administration

13%

SponsoredPrograms

4%

Library 5%

Facilities73%

Administration27%

Administrative Indirect Costs (FY2007)


12

us to “lose” F&A revenue whether or notthe activity actually incurs extra indirectcosts. As a simplified illustration, assumeour MTDC and F&A costs were $200Mand $100M, respectively, and all awardshad full recovery at the computed rate of100/200=50%. Now repeat the scenariobut add one additional grant fromFoundation X that pays $2.0M in MTDC,does not increase our actual indirectexpenditures (this can only hold on themargins, of course), but pays zero F&Arecovery. Because the total MTDC is now$202M the rate we can charge fully-paying sponsors falls to 100/202=49.5%,so we now recover only $99M from thosesponsors. MIT must make up for the lost$1M from its own general funds. Onaverage, of course, additional awards willincrease indirect expenditures and willalso affect the allocations of the costpools, but the fact of under-recoveryremains. In effect, MIT must provide$1M in cost-sharing to accept $2M fromFoundation X.

Because under-recovery is a real cost,MIT policy requires that it be allocated toone or more faculty, department, School,or central budget. That means under-recovery support will inevitably competewith other priorities, including studentfinancial aid, faculty start-up costs, reno-vations, and other educational or researchinitiatives. In recent years, the Provost hasallocated more resources for under-recov-ery support, as have department headsand deans. In FY07, MIT spent over $5Mto cost-share under-recovery.

Comparing to our peers Although most universities are overseenby the Department of Health and HumanServices rather than ONR, as we are, bothagencies apply the exact same rules speci-fied in A21. The one distinction is MIT’sability to carry forward shortfalls or over-payments in F&A to future years (A21allows this but most institutions haveagreed instead to accept a single, predeter-mined rate with no carry-forward).

Institutions do differ on how they talkabout F&A recovery and sometimesemploy language that might cause confu-sion. For example, while A21 mandatesthat universities can only recover costsactually incurred by the institution, someuniversities talk of “returning” a fractionof their recovery revenue to a unit or even

a PI. In some cases, the unit (e.g., amedical school) paid the F&A costs, so theallocation is still reimbursement. In othercases, this is really a strategy for allocatinggeneral funds to a unit in proportion to itsresearch activity. Such strategies are easierto implement in some state institutions,for example, where a fraction of indirectexpenditures might be covered by sepa-rate budgets that do not require reim-bursement, making the recovery look likenew revenue.

Regarding awards from foundations,every institution has to cost-share theF&A shortfall exactly as we do. UnlikeMIT, however, most of our peers chooseto absorb the additional costs either cen-trally, or at the School level withoutexplicit budgeting. Like MIT, most of ourpeers recognize under-recovery as anincreasing drain on their general funds,and some are moving to set limits onhow much they will accept. All of us aretrying to educate foundation leadersabout the reality of indirect costs, andsome of us have policies for direct charg-ing some F&A items, like the operationof facilities.

One thing to bear in mind is that, incomparison with peer institutions,MIT’s total revenues from research area larger fraction of our on-campus

annual operating budget, about 40%compared to ~30% for Stanford andUC Berkeley, and ~20% for Harvard (in2006; excluding hospitals). The F&Arecovery represents more than 10% ofMIT’s campus operating budget and isnearly equal to the net revenue fromundergraduate and graduate tuition

combined. So MIT has somewhat lessleverage for applying general funds tooffset shortfalls in F&A than do some ofour peers.

The F&A rates of all universities evolveover time, with the episodic building ofnew buildings and facilities and the ebband flow of large and small research activ-ities. The combination of circumstancesnoted above have currently placed MIT’srate among the highest of our peers,something we are working hard toaddress. Luckily, other costs of research,like the employee benefits rate, are amongthe lowest, and we have just increased theRA tuition subsidy by five points.

ConclusionAs a long-standing PI supporting aresearch group in the face of decliningNASA budgets, I well understand thepressure that our F&A rate places onfaculty and research staff. The centraladministration has worked hard tocontrol costs, make critical invest-ments that will enhance research, andincrease allocations for under-recov-ery. We welcome your comments andsuggestions.

A Primer on Indirect CostsCanizares, from preceding page

Because under-recovery is a real cost, MIT policyrequires that it be allocated to one or more faculty,department, School, or central budget. That meansunder-recovery support will inevitably compete withother priorities, including student financial aid, facultystart-up costs, renovations, and other educational orresearch initiatives.

Claude Canizares is Vice President forResearch and Associate Provost ([email protected]).


13

Ernst G. FrankelChanges in Engineering Education

The cost of sacrificing fundamentals

E N G I N E E R I N G E D U CAT I O N I N

America has changed dramatically duringrecent years. Not only has the number ofgraduates in traditional engineering disci-plines such as mechanical, civil, electrical,chemical, and aeronautical engineeringdeclined, but in most of the premierAmerican universities engineering curric-ula now concentrate on and encouragelargely the study of engineering science.As a result, there are declining offerings inengineering subjects dealing with infra-structure, the environment, and relatedissues, and greater concentration on hightechnology subjects, largely supportingincreasingly complex scientific develop-ments. While the latter is important, itshould not be at the expense of more tra-ditional engineering.

Rapidly developing economies such asChina and India, as well as other indus-trial countries in Europe and Asia, con-tinue to encourage and advance theteaching of engineering. Both China andIndia, respectively, graduate six and eighttimes as many traditional engineers asdoes the United States. Other industrialcountries at minimum maintain theiroutput, while America suffers an increas-ingly serious decline in the number ofengineering graduates and a lack of well-educated engineers.

While until quite recently Americanengineering firms dominated in globalinfrastructure projects and the develop-ment of new design and engineering solu-tions, they are now becoming minorparticipants and are quite often not eveninvited to propose and bid for importantprojects. Earlier last century we built struc-tures such as the Empire State Building in

fewer than 18 months, a feat which couldnot possibly be repeated today. Americanengineering used to be the global gold stan-dard in infrastructure engineering and con-struction, while now the premier examplesof major engineering projects are primarilydeveloped abroad.

America increasingly lags not only inengineering research, development, anddesign, but also in methods of survey,construction materials handling, materi-als fabrication, site development, andmore, again particularly in infrastructureengineering.

The results have caused Americanroads, rail networks, electric power,ports, airports, and other essential infra-structure to not only remain in ill-main-tained states, but also to be quite oftenbadly designed and constructed. Thereare many examples which parallel theshameful so-called Big Dig project inBoston, and there are now few majorU.S. engineering projects that measureup to world standards, something thatnot only adversely affects our economy,but also our standing in the world. Forexample, much of the Katrina andsimilar disasters could have been pre-vented by more competent engineering.For too long, we have somehow failed togive the proper respect, recognition, andresources to engineering education, andnow suffer the consequences which mayaffect not only our reputation but ulti-mately our economy and standard ofliving.

Engineering is the most essential ofhuman disciplines. From early on it wasthe way humankind lifted themselves upfrom other creatures. It provides the

wherewithal for all human physicaladvances and is as much – if not more –of an intellectual challenge as the sciencesand other subjects that advance humanstandards. History has many exampleswhere the decline of civilizations paral-leled the lack of importance given toengineering. The Greeks, Romans,Chinese, and others built their civiliza-tions largely on the foundations of engi-neering competence and advances. Theirpower, status, and standards of livingrapidly declined as soon as they failed tomaintain their superior engineering com-petence and developments. I would hopethat we are able to learn from history, andnot repeat it.

Engineering education should teachthe effective application and use of scien-tific principles to the solution of real-world problems and the development ofmaterials, tools, facilities, appliances, shel-ters, foods, and services to meet humanneeds and advance human living condi-tions, opportunities, and standards. Itshould probably be broadened to includeengineering and project management, inaddition to wider, more comprehensivecourses in the application of science andtechnology to the solution to real-worldproblems – so as to assure that graduateshit the ground running, particularly aftercompleting graduate studies. MIT has forlong been the world leader in the applica-tion of engineering education, and shouldfollow its success by furthering its study inthis direction.

Ernst G. Frankel is a Professor Emeritus in theDepartment of Mechanical Engineering([email protected]).


14

Jean E. JacksonAnthropologists Express Concern Over Government Plan to Support Military-Related Research in Universities

LAST SU M M E R, FOR M E R M IT pro-fessor Hugh Gusterson, nine otheranthropologists, and I co-founded theNetwork of Concerned Anthropologists(NCA), with the goal of examining thePentagon’s new policy of hiring social sci-entists for newly expanded types of mili-tary work – which goes far beyondconventional classroom teaching and thelike. The Pentagon is aggressively recruit-ing social scientists for programs like theHuman Terrain Systems, which embedssocial scientists in combat teams in placeslike Iraq and Afghanistan. NCA askedanthropologists to sign a pledge not to docovert work or work in occupied territo-ries:concerned.anthropologists.googlepages.com/home.

These new policies have attracted theattention of anthropology professionalassociations and others in related disci-plines. In the summer of 2006, theAmerican Anthropological Associationestablished an Ad Hoc Commission onthe Engagement of Anthropology in U.S.Security and Intelligence Communities.The Commission’s charge was to developmodes of dialogue with security, intelli-gence, and military agencies, in order tocommunicate the AAA’s perspectives onethics and in order to better understandthose agencies’ interest in anthropology.The Commission produced a preliminaryreport in November 2007 (available atwww.aaanet.org). Last November theexecutive board of the AAA formally dis-couraged its members from participatingin HTS. (Contact me for sources on HTS.)

NCA is continuing to monitor activi-ties related to the role of anthropologistsand the military. The Minerva ConsortiaProject, as recently outlined by Secretaryof Defense Robert Gates, would fund uni-versity consortia to do military-relatedresearch in a significantly expandedfashion, sponsoring research in the socialsciences and humanities. Gates’ speechwas given to presidents of leading researchuniversities in a closed meeting. Spacelimitations prevent a comprehensive dis-cussion of the initiative; a Chronicle ofHigher Education article on the meetingcan be found at: chronicle.com/news/article/4316/us-defense-secretary-asks-universities-for-new-cooperation.

Upon hearing about the Pentagon’splans to fund university consortia, theNCA prepared the statement below. Wefeel that the Minerva initiative shouldnot only concern social science scholarsand professionals, both within andoutside academia, but should be dis-cussed by all faculty members in largeresearch universities.

* * * * *

Some Concerns About theMinerva Consortia Project

I N A S P E E C H O N April 14, 2008(www.defenselink.mil/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1228) Secretary of DefenseRobert Gates unveiled Pentagon plans tofund university consortia to do 4 kinds ofwork:

1) Create an archive of open-source docu-ments in “Chinese military and tech-nology studies.”

2) Exploit documents captured in Iraq for“The Iraqi and Terrorist PerspectivesProjects.”

3) Research the relationship between ter-rorism and religion, especially Islam.

4) Engage disciplines such as history,anthropology, sociology and evolution-ary psychology to produce new fields thatmight be as important as game theoryand Kremlinology were in the cold war.

Gates promised that the new consortiawould work in accord with academicfreedom and would be open to “diversepoints of view.”

While these plans are at an early stageand will doubtless continue to evolve inways we cannot predict, based onSecretary Gates’ speech the Network ofConcerned Anthropologists has theseinitial questions and concerns:

1) The U.S. university system is alreadyhighly militarized, that is, many univer-sities take in a large proportion of theirresearch funding from military sources.This is problematic for four reasons:

a. The fields so supported are distortedby focus on issues of utility to warmaking. Whole fields of studyhypertrophy and others shrink or


15

are never developed as researchersare drawn from one field into theother, Pentagon-desired ones.Nuclear and other weapons researchrelated areas grow, at the expense ofenvironmental research, forexample. Moreover, theory, method-ology, and research goals in suchfields as physics, computer science,and engineering after decades ofmilitary funding now operate onassumptions that knowledge aboutforce is paramount.

b. These research foci begin to struc-ture what gets taught to students andwhat research projects studentsthemselves see as the best options fortheir own work. A brain drain fromother research directions occurs.

c. The dependence on single sources offunding with their own agenda tendsto reduce intellectual autonomy inways that go beyond the selection ofsubject matter for research.

d. The University becomes an instru-ment rather than a critic of war-making, and spaces for criticaldiscussion of militarism within theuniversity shrink.

2) While Secretary Gates indicated in hisspeech that research conducted throughthese consortia would not be classified,we wonder if it will be open to all facultyand students regardless of nationality.Will Chinese and Syrian graduate stu-dents, for example, be welcome toconduct research through these consor-tia? Will researchers with critical researchon their CVs or histories of unacceptablepolitical activity be discriminated againstin the funding process?

3) Important questions arise as to whatlevel of research is being commis-sioned. In the case of the Chinese andIraqi archives in particular, is the planto fund high order research questionsor to outsource to low-wage under-

graduate or graduate students or otheracademics mundane tasks of data col-lection, sorting and analysis – in otherwords, low-level intelligence work – ina similar process to the outsourcing ofother military work to private contrac-tors? Is the reason this work is not to beoutsourced to private contractorseither or both that those contractorscharge more than the universities willand that the university gives legitimacyand credibility to the results in a waythat contractors do not?

4) Who will make funding decisions andon the basis of what criteria? Whenprivate foundations or governmentagencies (such as the National ScienceFoundation) fund academic research,they rely heavily on a network of aca-demic peer reviewers and on panels ofacademic experts to adjudicate propos-als according to strictly academic crite-ria. How does the Pentagon plan toevaluate applications for funding?What will be the role of military offi-cers and/or Pentagon civilian officialsin the evaluation of applications? Howwill the program’s openness to “diversepoints of view” be assured?

5) Why are these research needs beingidentified by the Pentagon as the mostimportant ones? The research ques-tions themselves contribute to creatingmore national and human insecurityby trafficking in the construction of aChinese enemy image and of a connec-tion between Islam and violence. Inaddition, we ask why evolutionary psy-chology, a field seen by many academ-ics as disreputable pseudoscience, isbeing singled out for support.

6) A funding source introduces subtle butpowerful biases into research: we nowknow that academic research funded bythe pharmaceutical industry is morelikely to find drugs safe and reliablethan research funded through NIH,and research funded by the chemicalindustry is more likely to find new

compounds safe than independentresearch. Research funded by thePentagon rather than through theNational Science Foundation or theNational Endowment of theHumanities is likely to show similar ormore extreme differences. ThePentagon is an agency that lacks thehistorical commitment to more opendebate and the freer pursuit of knowl-edge associated with, for example, NSFand NIH and many foundations, anduniversity funds themselves.

7) In his speech, Secretary Gates appeals touniversities to relax admissions criteriafor military veterans, to allow ROTC toviolate campus non-discriminationcodes (barring discrimination on thebasis of sexual orientation), to offeronline instruction to military personnelnot on campus, and to fast-track militarystudents for graduation by giving themacademic credit for military experiences.This amounts to remaking the universityaround the needs of the military andgiving military students special statuswithin the university. It also asks the uni-versity to subsidize and legitimate themilitary education needs of thePentagon. Studies of a parallel process inU.S. high schools, the JROTC program,show that training high school studentsto prepare them for enlistment is adver-tised as a contribution to both nationalsecurity and to the schools’ budgets,when in fact it uses local school districtresources, sometimes in amounts thatexceed a half million dollars. If one addsto the Pentagon’s formal budget theappropriations for the Wars in Iraq andAfghanistan, the cost of nuclear weapons,and other military costs budgetedthrough other agencies, the U.S. militarybudget is over $800 billion. Surely thePentagon does not need educationalinstitutions to provide further subsidies.

Also see: www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/04/16/minerva.

Jean E. Jackson is a Professor ofAnthropology ([email protected]).


16

Michel DeGraffReflections on Nominations and Electionsfor Faculty Officers and Committees at MIT

T H E O F F I C E R S O F T H E FAC U LT Y

and the Standing Faculty Committeesconstitute the core of faculty governanceat MIT. These positions and structures arethe main venue for faculty to conductInstitute business, to promulgate therules, policies, and procedures that governMIT and shape its future. The Committeeon Nominations, which I’ve been servingon for the past two years, is central to gov-ernance at MIT. Every year, at the Aprilfaculty meeting, it nominates a slate ofcandidates for Officers of the Faculty, andfor the membership of all StandingFaculty Committees, to be considered fora vote by the faculty at its May meeting.Any flaw in the structure and operationsof the Nominations Committee can ripplethrough MIT’s entire governance.

The Committee on Nominations:History, Structure, Mandate, Rules,and “Standard Practices”The candidates on the NominationsCommittee’s slate usually run for electiontotally unopposed. In no sense can thesecandidates be seen as having been elected.In effect, the Committee on Nominationsappoints the Officers of the Faculty and theelected membership of all the otherStanding Faculty Committees. As far as Ican tell, only once was the process for alter-native nominations, as outlined in Rulesand Regulations of the Faculty, everinvoked. In 2005, a group of underrepre-sented minority faculty contested the slatesubmitted by the Committee onNominations at the April faculty meeting.That challenge was motivated by the per-ception that the Nominations Committee’sslate lacked diversity, and all three alternate

nominees were from the minority facultyranks. This challenge resulted in the elec-tion of two underrepresented minorityfaculty to the membership of StandingFaculty Committees – one on the Faculty

Policy Committee, the other on theCommittee for Academic Performance.

The Committee on Nominations is theonly Standing Committee whosemembers are determined exclusively bythe President, a practice going back to1907. There have been a few proposalsover the years to change the way theCommittee on Nominations is organized,giving to the Chair of the Faculty or to thefaculty-at-large, rather than to thePresident, the responsibility for selectingpotential members. According to some ofthese proposals, the faculty-at-large wouldplay a more significant role in choosingthe Officers of the Faculty and in decidingthe membership of its Standing FacultyCommittees, including the NominationsCommittee. In one such proposal, whichwas attached to the April 1951 slate, theNominations Committee explained thebenefits of “competitive election”for com-mittee membership. The fact that theFaculty Newsletter has now successfullyrun an Institute-wide election where thenumber of nominees exceeded the

number of slots to be filled shows thatsuch competitive elections can be seam-lessly accomplished, using technologydeveloped right here at MIT. As it turnsout, the number of voters for the Faculty

Newsletter Editorial Board exceeded bymore than four times the number of thoseusually present at the May faculty meetingwhere Officers of the Faculty andStanding Committee members areelected.

In a 2004 article in the Faculty Newsletter(Vol. XVII No. 1, September/ October2004), Professor Rafael Bras, who was thenChair of the Faculty, described a proposalby the Faculty Policy Committee wherebythe outgoing Chair of the Faculty wouldselect the members of the Committee onNominations. In response, Professors LotteBailyn, Stephen Graves, and Kim Vandiver,three former Chairs of the Faculty, chose todiffuse the power of appointment by pro-posing that “the president and outgoingchair work together to select the nominat-ing committee” (MIT Faculty Newsletter,Vol. XVII No. 2, November/December2004). But another former Chair of theFaculty, Professor Steve Lerman, endorsedProfessor Bras’ proposal to move theappointment of the NominationsCommittee away from the administration:

The candidates on the Nominations Committee’s slateusually run for election totally unopposed. In no sensecan these candidates be seen as having been elected. Ineffect, the Committee on Nominations appoints theOfficers of the Faculty and the elected membership ofall the other Standing Faculty Committees.


17

“If nothing else, having theNominations Committee formally inde-pendent of the administration wouldenhance the perception that the leaders ofthe governance system are representativesof the faculty.” (MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XVII No. 3, January/February 2005.)

Yet, the President still appoints theCommittee on Nominations and itschair. Therefore, the Committee mustwork carefully to ensure that the nomi-nation process proceeds without undueinfluence from the Office of thePresident or from others from theadministration. Any faculty memberwho has served on Institute-level com-mittees can readily appreciate howextremely dedicated and helpful thesupport staff of these committees usuallyis. But the staff support for theNominations Committee comes directlyfrom the Office of the President. The linebetween providing support and exertingundue influence is often blurred – forexample, through comments and sugges-tions that the support staff makes aboutthe nomination process (including com-ments about particular nominees andsuggestions regarding proceduraldetails), and through meeting recordsthat they take and distribute selectively.

This year, the Nominations Committeewas subjected to notions of “standardpractices”and “committee rules” from theadministration, many of which theCommittee had not been apprised ofbefore or during its deliberations. Not oneof these practices and rules could befound in Rules and Regulations of theFaculty. Much of this lore about “prac-tices” and “rules” had the effect of curtail-ing the Committee’s efforts to make thenomination process more transparentand inclusive.

The only rules for the nominationprocess, as stated in Rules and Regulationsof the Faculty, are:

“a. The Committee shall nominate thefollowing in the appropriate years: aChair-elect, an Associate Chair, and aSecretary of the Faculty; and shall alsonominate candidates for the elected mem-bership of the Standing Committees.

b. The Committee shall circulate thelist of nominees to all members of theFaculty not later than the April meeting ofthe Faculty.

c. The Committee shall have power tofill any vacancies that may occur duringthe year in the offices of Chair, Chair-elect, Associate Chair, and Secretary, andin the elected membership of theStanding Committees.”

Rules and Regulations of the Facultydoes not specify how the NominationsCommittee is to arrive at the names ofnominees, nor how many names shouldbe put forth for consideration for any

given slot. The Committee itself mustcome up with the most appropriate modeof nominee selection in order to create alist of candidates who can best serve theInstitute’s interests and goals as Officers ofthe Faculty and members of the StandingFaculty Committees.

There needs to be a more systematicway to develop a slate of potential candi-dates and to go beyond the NominationsCommittee’s natural but limited sourcesof names from networks of friends andcolleagues. The Committee does rely on adatabase of answers to a faculty-widecommittee-preference questionnaire thatis circulated and maintained by the Officeof the President. But this questionnaireneeds to be revised by the NominationsCommittee, with options for individualfaculty to suggest others, besides them-selves, for membership on StandingFaculty Committees and for positions asOfficers of the Faculty. Such optionswould make the nomination processmore inclusive.

The Committee on Nominationsshould not rely on information labeled as“off the record,” especially when “off therecord” comments may effectively excludepotential nominees by means of hearsay

or confidential faculty-personnel issues.Such comments should not go beyondthat nominee’s personnel review commit-tee, especially since the potential nomineemay not even be privy to many of thesecomments.

The Alternative Nomination ProcessIs the aforementioned alternative nomi-nation process, as outlined in Rules andRegulations of the Faculty, a reasonableway to bring about a representative list ofnominees for Officers of the Faculty andStanding Committee members? Indeed,the alternative nomination process, wheninvoked, entails an electoral contest

between nominees for particular slots, asit did in 2005 with the election of twounderrepresented minority faculty to theStanding Faculty Committees. Yet, thestructure and timeline of this alternativeprocess are stacked against the alternativenominees and their nominators. Witnessthe following clauses:

“Nominations alternative to those cir-culated by the Committee onNominations may be made either at theApril meeting of the Faculty or in writing tothe Secretary of the Faculty by theWednesday following the April Facultymeeting, provided in all cases that theconsent of the nominee has been obtained.For each candidate for any contested com-mittee, information on the departmentalaffiliation and prior Institute serviceshould be made available to the faculty atleast two weeks prior to the May Facultymeeting. Candidates for contested commit-tees may optionally submit a short state-ment to be circulated to the Faculty at thesame time.” (emphases added).

In other words, in cases when there isdissatisfaction with the NominationsCommittee’s slate when it’s put forward atthe April meeting, alternate nominees and


There needs to be a more systematic way to develop aslate of potential candidates and to go beyond theNominations Committee’s natural but limited sources ofnames from networks of friends and colleagues.


18

their nominators have at most one weekafter that April meeting to decide andprepare to run for elections in May, and atmost two weeks before the May meetingto provide additional information regard-ing Institute service (the latter require-ment was added after the April 2005alternative nominations). In contrast, theNominations Committee has about sevenmonths to look for nominees and prepareits slate for the April meeting, and it neednot provide any additional informationabout any of its nominees that are notcontested.

It seems to me important that thefaculty be informed of the qualifications(e.g., prior Institute service) of eachfaculty on the nominations slate, whetheror not the Nominations Committee’s slateis contested. Yet, it is only when the alter-native nomination process is invoked thatthe Nominations Committee mustprovide additional information about itsnominees – information that in any casemay help the faculty cast their votes in aresponsible manner.

The above asymmetries do notencourage the use of the alternative nom-ination process.

If the Nominations Committee were tosolicit nominations – for both StandingFaculty Committees and Officers of theFaculty – from the faculty-at-large early inthe nomination cycle and include thosenominations in their April slate alongsidethe Committee’s own nominations, theentire faculty would have much more sig-nificant input into the regular nominationprocess. Such a procedure would incorpo-rate into the mainstream of faculty gover-nance the major objective of thealternative nomination process, whileremoving the latter’s structural handicaps.This would also make both the regular andalternative nomination processes morelegitimate and representative, thusdecreasing the risk of making alternatenominees – actually, any nominee – lookcontroversial as they are voted upon and asthey fulfill their appointments if elected.

The idea of having the faculty-at-largesuggest nominees early in the nominationcycle so that all duly nominated candidates(from both the Nominations Committeeand the faculty) be put on the same slategoes back to a suggestion made byProfessor Bras as Chair of the Faculty at theNovember 2005 faculty meeting. This pro-posal has never been implemented.

At any rate, MIT is still far from anyfair and transparent process that would

allow the Officers of the Faculty and theelected members of Standing Committeesto broadly represent the faculty-at-large.

Nomination of Officers of the FacultyThe Chair of the Faculty serves, ex officio,as chair of the Faculty Policy Committee,determines the leadership of eachStanding Committee (except for theCommittee on Nominations), plansfaculty meetings with the administrationand other faculty officers, and sits onAcademic Council and on variousStanding and Special Committees. TheChair of the Faculty, the Associate Chairof the Faculty, and the Secretary of theFaculty all must be able to represent andadvocate for the faculty as a whole, in allits diversity and complexity, and toremain relatively independent of theadministration, while being able to workwith it. Therefore, the nomination of theOfficers of the Faculty is perhaps the mostimportant task of the Committee onNominations.

The ad hoc procedures used to nomi-nate members of the Standing FacultyCommittees are inadequate for thatpurpose, but they are even more inade-quate for the task of selecting the Officersof the Faculty. As a member of theCommittee on Nominations, I have cometo a similar view to that of the EditorialBoard of the Faculty Newsletter, namely:

“Officers of the Faculty should beopenly nominated and elected by thefaculty, in a process that allows candidateswith differing views and priorities to runfor the office on a public platform.” (MITFaculty Newsletter, Vol. XX No. 4,March/April 2008.)

This proposal is similar in spirit to theFaculty Policy Committee’s opinion, asreported in the aforementioned FacultyNewsletter article by Professor Bras in

2004, that it is the faculty as a whole whoshould provide nominations for StandingCommittees and for the Chair of theFaculty position.

Pending the implementation of suchproposals, the Nominations Committeealready has the license to find and nomi-nate candidates for Officers of the Facultybased on their qualifications, priorservice, preferences, and so on. TheCommittee must be careful not to fill theOfficers of the Faculty positions as step-ping-stones to positions into the upperadministration.

In one recent case, the Chair of theFaculty resigned in the middle of her termto become Associate Provost, leaving thesmall group of three faculty officersgutted. The Committee on Nominationsappointed her replacement as Chair of theFaculty, following the Rules andRegulations of the Faculty, without goingthrough any semblance of an election.This appointment, in turn, gave theselected faculty member two simultane-ous and conflicting roles over several crit-ical months: Chair of the Faculty andchair of a major tenure grievance com-mittee. The grievance in question impli-cated the academic unit of the then-chairof the Nominations Committee. An openelection of the Chair of the Faculty at thattime may have uncovered these issues,which affected both faculty governance

Reflections on ElectionsDeGraff, from preceding page

Half a century later, our main source of input from thefaculty regarding the nomination process still comesfrom a preference questionnaire that is basically anoutdated form seeking self-nominations for the StandingFaculty Committees.


19

and the handling of the drawn-out griev-ance case.

So, for many reasons, there is an extraneed for the nomination of the Chair ofthe Faculty to be protected as much aspossible from direct or indirect influencefrom the administration.

Here is yet another instance of undueinfluence by the administration on theCommittee on Nominations. The Office ofthe President has pushed the view, as estab-lished practice, that the nominees forAssociate Chair and Secretary of the Faculty,though submitted by the Committee onNominations, are to be handpicked by theChair of the Faculty, rather than independ-ently chosen by the NominationsCommittee. This view is not supported bythe procedure and authority outlined inRules and Regulations of the Faculty.

There’s more, still related to this year’snomination cycle: In January, theNominations Committee moved to makeour selection procedures more sensitive tothe interests of a diverse and complexfaculty, and to give the nomination processmore legitimacy – through more trans-parency and more fairness. We stoppedthis effort, however, after the chair of theNominations Committee consulted withthe Office of the President, with othermembers of the administration, and withpast chairs of the Committee onNominations. We were planning to solicit

input from the faculty-at-large about can-didates for the Chair of the Faculty, butwere told that such a “change of proce-dure” did not conform with “establishedpractice” and would require prior discus-sion at an Institute-wide faculty meeting.In my opinion, such input from these andother undisclosed sources undermined theindependence and the integrity of thenomination process. Besides, such a direc-tive finds no basis in Rules and Regulationsof the Faculty.

As far as I can tell, when the first facultycommittee-preference questionnaire wasintroduced in the late 1950s, it was notpreviously discussed at any facultymeeting. After the Committee onNominations discussed the advantagesand disadvantages of such a question-naire, it enthusiastically approved the pro-cedure as one way to ensure wider facultyparticipation in governance. It was withinthe mandate of the Committee onNominations, in accordance with Rulesand Regulations of the Faculty, to mold thenomination process to achieve its goal ofmaximizing faculty input into the choiceof nominees.

Half a century later, our main sourceof input from the faculty regarding thenomination process still comes from apreference questionnaire that is basicallyan outdated form seeking self-nomina-tions for the Standing Faculty Com-

mittees. This questionnaire only providesloose guidance to the nominationprocess. There regularly are cases offaculty who are not offered the nomina-tions they prefer, as well as cases of facultywho are offered nominations for whichthey didn't state any preference. As for theOfficers of the Faculty, there currently isno established mechanism whatsoeverfor broader and systematic faculty inputwith respect to determining candidatesfor these positions. Yet these positions areof utmost importance for representingthe faculty in issues that are central toInstitute business.

One piece of good news is that theCommittee on Nominations now seemscommitted to seriously examining theissues raised in this article, to learningmore about the history of governance atMIT, and to improving the nominationand election process, including themechanisms whereby the NominationsCommittee is appointed and structuredwithin MIT’s overall governance system.In a related vein, the proposal of aFaculty Senate in the previous FacultyNewsletter deserves ample considerationas one way to help increase the trans-parency and integrity of our entiresystem of governance.

Michel DeGraff is an Associate Professor ofLinguistics ([email protected]).

Provost Announces Faculty RenewalProgramEditor’s Note: As we went to press, Provost L.Rafael Reif announced in an e-mail to allfaculty the initiation of a Faculty RenewalProgram. We excerpt from that e-mail below.

I AM PLEAS E D TO AN NOU NCE thatthe Executive Committee of theCorporation has approved the establish-ment of a Faculty Renewal Program atMIT. Participation in the program is com-pletely voluntary and enables eligiblesenior faculty members to retire with achoice of retirement incentives.

Below are key facts about the program:

Eligibility Tenured faculty who are age 68 and aboveby June 30, 2008 and have accumulated atleast 10 years of MIT service at the timethat they retire will be eligible to partici-pate in the program.

Incentives Eligible faculty may choose one of the fol-lowing two options:

1. A financial incentive upon retire-

ment equivalent in value to one academicyear salary.

2. Release from regular classroomteaching responsibilities (but with normalresearch, advising, and administrativeobligations) during the final year leadingto retirement, while continuing to receivefull pay and benefits.

A detailed description of the plan willbe mailed to eligible faculty and be postedon the Faculty Renewal Website:web.mit.edu/facultyrenewal/.


20

Paula HammondInitiative on Faculty Race and Diversity:Research Team and Effort Launched

TH E I N ITIATIVE ON FACU LTY RACE

and Diversity has been very active over thepast academic year. This effort seeks toinvestigate the experiences of minorityfaculty at MIT and identify issues inherentto MIT and to the academic communitythat impact faculty recruitment, develop-ment, and retention. It will generate a setof recommendations that address coreissues dealing with equity and diversityamongst the faculty. This process willtake place in stages, beginning with aplanning stage, followed by an extensivequalitative and quantitative study ofminority faculty in all five Schools, thedevelopment of recommendations andsolutions, and the implementation ofthose recommendations.

After creating the initial generaloutline last summer for the major under-taking of the research, the fall term wasspent addressing the details of the study.Discussions of the Initiative’s efforts tookplace at an Institute faculty meeting and atseveral Minority Faculty Caucus meetingsduring this time, including discussion ofthe means and methods used to under-stand the minority faculty experience atMIT. An Advisory Board was selectedconsisting of a diverse group of profes-sionals with a broad range of experiencesin the management of diversity issues inacademia, industry, and the public sector.The Board includes those who have con-ducted similar studies at other universi-ties, prominent social and physicalscientists and engineers with direct expe-rience with these issues, and those withbusiness experience who can help toinform on matters that have been ofsimilar concern in industry.

A number of Board members haveMIT backgrounds as alumni of the

Institute, including two currentCorporation members who will help tobring the issues and discussion broughtout by the Initiative to the Corporation.On the other hand, several members havehad no direct experience with MIT, andbring new perspectives from state andprivate universities and organizations indifferent regions of the country. ThisBoard acts as an independent advisorybody that both interacts directly with theInitiative team and is also able to commu-nicate concerns or address issues directlywith the Provost and President. TheAdvisory Board provides critical adviceand insights to the Initiative team withregard to both the study and large-scaleefforts of the Initiative.

Questions were developed, discussed,and added to the 2008 Faculty Quality ofLife Survey that was administered to thegeneral faculty in January throughFebruary. The survey response rate washigh – 69% – and the response rate forAfrican American and Hispanic facultywas high as well, at 80% and 61%, respec-tively. The Initiative research team is cur-rently analyzing the results of the survey,which will be a critical component of theInitiative’s study.

A full research team has been assem-bled to address the quantitative and qual-itative research. The team includesresearch analyst Dr. Mandy Smith, andtwo newly hired research fellows, Dr.Siomara Valladares and Dr. Carol Wright.Dr. Valladares and Dr. Wright have cometo MIT after an extensive search process,to execute the qualitative aspects of theresearch effort. These two researchersbring past interview and qualitativeresearch experience in the area of diversityand education at both public and private

institutions. Biographies of each of themembers of the research team can befound on the Initiative Website,web.mit.edu/raceinitiative. The researchteam has created the protocols necessaryfor in-depth interviews, and is currentlyundertaking the first pilots. Interviews ofminority faculty will take place during thesummer and fall terms.

Five minority faculty forums wereheld from February through April, withthe fifth added to accommodate facultywho had expressed interest, but wereunable to attend on the other dates.These discussions were very fruitful andilluminating, helping to pinpoint keythematic points among junior and seniorfaculty, as well as formulating ideas onhow to approach some of the barriers inthe recruitment and retention of minor-ity faculty. Notes from these forums arebeing compiled by the Initiative, and willbe used to emphasize important areas toaddress in the recommendations andsolutions phase of the study. Some of theideas will be shared and discussed withthe Associate Provosts for Faculty Equity,as well as deans and other administra-tors, as the Initiative prepares to examinethe results from the study and seek solu-tions that can be implemented mostreadily. During this process, input willalso be sought from the MIT communityin faculty meetings, as well as from othercaucus groups and administrators oncampus during the upcoming academicyear.

We welcome comments on any and allaspects of the Initiative.

Paula Hammond is a Professor of ChemicalEngineering and Chair of the Initiative on FacultyRace and Diversity ([email protected]).


21

LISE

Seeing the MGM lion roarLise complains she's seen this show before.

My father-in-law's live-in caretaker,Haitian, tout douleur,

She knows Seventh Day Adventist loreThe perfidy of men, how to cure

Oppressive itching. Her Cooking doesn't please him any more

But he likes her lilting French, her hairAnd gentle hands, her living soapy spoor.

MIT Poetry

David Thorburn leaves the editorial board of the FacultyNewsletter with this issue but has agreed to continue as poetryeditor. He is Professor of Literature and Director of the MITCommunications Forum. The above poems were first published inThe Atlantic ("Lise") and in Slate ("The Man I Killed") and arereprinted by permission.

by David Thorburn

THE MAN I KILLED

was in his early 30s, rosaceous,pocky, the Checker on a Newark pier. He said

I'll be respectedby New Jersey turdslike you reporters

and these Hoboken wankersstill wearing bog shit.Don't you get it?

I said No pictures.Later, off the wharfthe camera guy

used a telephoto lensas I pointed, for my byline story,Wildcat Strikers

Shut Port Newark.The next week they found him floating near a buoy

dead in Bayonne harborin a mess of bootleg whiskeyand my story in the paper.


22

Samuel AllenTania Baker

Creating a Culture of Communication:Assessing the Implementation of theUndergraduate Communication Requirement

AT T H E E N D O F M A R C H , theSubcommittee on the CommunicationRequirement (SOCR) began to presentthe findings and recommendations fromthe assessment of the implementation ofthe undergraduate CommunicationRequirement (CR). In the May/June 2006issue of the Faculty Newsletter, the currentSOCR chair, Suzanne Flynn, announcedthe launch of Phase One of the assess-ment. The assessment study is now com-plete, and a full final report will be postedto the Communication RequirementWebsite in May (web.mit.edu/commreq).

SOCR was charged by the facultywith assessing the implementation of theCR. This assessment study, launched infall 2005, was not designed or intendedto measure student communicationskills per se, but rather the implementa-tion of the new CR. The assessment alsosought to obtain information about theexperience of the communication-intensive (CI) classes from both facultyand students.

Three survey instruments designed byMIT’s Teaching and Learning Laboratory(TLL) were used to collect data: theCommunication Requirement ExperienceSurvey or CRES (administered to all MITundergraduates in December 2006); asenior survey (administered to the Classof 2006 in May 2006); and a faculty survey(administered in May 2006). The reportalso draws on data gathered from individ-ual interviews and moderated roundtablediscussions. TLL and MIT’s Office of theProvost/Institutional Research performedthe data analysis. Preparation of theassessment report was a collaborativeeffort between staff in TLL (report body)

and members of SOCR (discussion andrecommendations).

Beginning with the Class of 2005, thenew CR replaced a narrower writingrequirement that asked students todemonstrate competency in writing attwo levels. Under the current CR, all MITundergraduates must fulfill a Communi-cation Requirement (CR) by completing aprogram of four CI subjects that integratesubstantial instruction and practice inwriting and oral communication. Two ofthe required CI subjects are chosen from agroup of designated humanities, arts, andsocial sciences subjects (CI-Hs) andprovide students with generally usefulskills in expository writing and speakingin the context of the subject’s focus. Theother two required CI subjects are takenin the students’ major departments (CI-Msubjects) and prepare them for effectivecommunication in their discipline. As aconsequence of this structure, a widespectrum of communication-intensivesubjects is offered in 34 majors across allfive Schools throughout the Institute.Currently, there are approximately 121CI-H subjects and 134 CI-M subjectsencompassing a number of formats,including laboratory classes, seminars,senior theses, and independent researchprojects.

The assessment found that MIT stu-dents and faculty place a high value oncommunication skills and expertise, andstudents recognize their CR experiences ascontributing to the development of theseskills. Students and faculty generally agreethat the four CI-subject structure of theCR is satisfactory. Furthermore, facultyare supportive of incorporating commu-

nication instruction and practice as partof their CI-M subjects. Faculty and stu-dents expressed little concern that thisinstruction is included at the expense ofdiscipline-specific content. Studentsreport that disciplinary content and com-munication experiences are generally wellintegrated in their CI-M subjects. Theyalso report that CI activities facilitatelearning in the disciplines, and seniorsparticularly value their CI-M experiences.The one caveat to these reassuring find-ings is that some students find that the CRunduly constrains their choice of subjects.

We found that MIT students clearlyperceive a benefit to their instruction incommunication skills. More than two-thirds of seniors reported in the seniorsurvey that their communication skillsimproved over their four years at MIT.Within the CR, students placed the highestvalue on writing instruction in the CI-Hsand on instruction on oral presentationsin the CI-Ms. Within these findings wewere surprised to find that the studentswho enter MIT with weaker writing skillsand who were required to take a CI-HW(CI-H subjects with particular emphasison writing) retained “writing process”habits and continued to value peer andinstructor and/or tutor feedback onwritten work as they proceeded throughtheir undergraduate years. This findingmerits further study by SOCR.

There is a broad range of instructionalsupport across the CI subjects, e.g.,writing instructors from Writing Acrossthe Curriculum, departmental or School-based specialists, and CI-H WritingTutors. In all, 29 percent of CI-H subjectsand 50 percent of CI-M subjects receive


23

additional instructional support. Morethan 70 percent of the faculty respondentsagreed that using instructors and tutors isan effective way to improve studentwriting. However, students and facultyreported different levels of satisfactionwith these collaborative teaching efforts.Faculty who reported high satisfactionalso reported being well matched with aninstructor or tutor. In contrast, no singleissue emerged in the responses fromfaculty who were less satisfied. It is impor-tant to note that SOCR and TLL did notsurvey this cohort of teaching staff for thecurrent report. SOCR plans to studyteaching collaborations between facultyand other teaching staff to identify whatmodels promote effective collaboration.

The findings from the assessmentpresent SOCR and the Institute with chal-lenges and opportunities for the CR in the

next phase of its development. As a resultof this assessment, SOCR would like toemphasize the importance of these rec-ommendations:

• Maintain the paced, four-subject struc-ture of the CR.

• Move toward criteria for designation ofCI subjects that focus more on educa-tional objectives and may allow facultymore flexibility in designing CI subjectsand integrating CI content.

• Inventory best practices for teachingcommunication skills and share thisinformation with CI instructors and theMIT community.

The 1995 Report of the CUPSubcommittee on the Writing Require-

ment indicated that,“[t]he present cultureat MIT does not encourage attention tocommunication skills.” The CR assess-ment documents significant improve-ments in the culture of communicationhere at MIT. We are pleased to recom-mend that the key components of theexisting CR be retained and that areasidentified for improvement be addressed.With this strong foundation in place andthis assessment as a benchmark andguide, SOCR and the MIT communityshould work to continue to improve theCR experience, faculty support, andstudent learning.

Samuel Allen is a Professor in the Departmentof Materials Science and Engineering([email protected]);Tania Baker is a Professor in the Departmentof Biology ([email protected]).

M.I.T. Numbersfrom the 2008 Faculty Survey

VeryDissatisfied

SomewhatDissatisfied

Neutral SomewhatSatisfied

VerySatisfied

Being a Faculty Member at MIT

Life Outside MIT

Integration of Work and Personal/Family Life

Satisfaction with . . .

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

*“Not Applicable” counted as missing


24

‘Drinking from a fire hose’ is a nicephrase, but I don’t think anyone actuallydoes drink from a fire hose.”

• “Pace is too high (and this is comingfrom someone that likes a fast pace)resulting in too little time to reflect andthink deeply about problems.”

In early 2008, MIT faculty and otherinstructional staff were invited to respondto this survey which asked about a broadrange of issues including workload, workand personal stressors, pedagogy, work

climate – especially within academic units– mentoring, and the tenure and promo-tion process. A majority of MIT faculty(69%) responded to the survey.

The survey incorporated a core set ofquestions that are also being used insimilar surveys at other research universi-ties including Harvard, Yale,Northwestern University, WashingtonUniversity in St. Louis, and BostonUniversity. Comparative data will be avail-able in the near future, and MIT facultyresponses will also be compared withresults from a similar survey administeredin 2004.

Overall results reveal that MIT facultyare quite satisfied with their life at the

Institute, as they are with their home livesas well. The problem arises when they tryto integrate their work and personal lives(see chart, p.23).

A key element of the survey were a setof questions about tenure and promotion.As can be seen from the charts below,there are sometimes significant differ-ences between faculty perceptions ofitems valued in the tenure process andwhat they feel about the appropriatenessof the value placed.

Additional results are available at web.mit.edu/ir/surveys/ faculty2008.html

It’s About TimeSnover, from page 1

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

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

Research/scholarly work

Teaching contributions

Departmental service

Service to MIT

Professional reputation

Collegiality

Fit with department’s mission

Outside assessment

Obtaining grants/funding

Research/scholarly work

Teaching contributions

Departmental service

Service to MIT

Professional reputation

Collegiality

Fit with department’s mission

Outside assessment

Obtaining grants/funding

Valued Slightlyor Not at All

SomewhatValued

HighlyValued

VeryUndervalued

SomewhatUndervalued

ValuedAppropriately

SomewhatOvervalued

VeryOvervalued

Appropriateness of Value in Tenure Process

Extent Items are Valued in Tenure Process

Lydia Snover is Director of InstitutionalResearch ([email protected]).

*“Don’t Know” and “Not Applicable”

counted as missing

*“Don’t Know” and “Not Applicable”

counted as missing


25

Alison AldenThe Vision Thing

The Vice President for Human Resources offers somethoughts about the Institute now and in the future

I HAVE B E E N AT M IT a full year now,enough time to experience and appreciatethe full depth of your, the faculty’s, com-mitment to MIT’s world-class teachingand research. You may wonder, what is thelink between that and the head of HumanResources? In my view, we all live in theMIT work space. If our employees – whoare crucial to keeping the wheels movingin your departments – are trained,engaged, and valued, we all benefit andMIT’s mission can be further attained. Myvision is to have a world-class work com-munity that parallels and supports thelarger MIT mission.

Today, our work community has manystrengths, but there are always opportuni-ties for improvement. Diversity amongthe faculty ranks continues to be a chal-lenge. Having the resources to attractjunior faculty remains a key goal.Providing support for faculty who transi-tion to administrative roles is another areathat needs more attention. Retainingexcellent administrative and support staffis critical. Providing support in your roleas managers could make your life easier.

With a year under my belt, I will con-tinue to reach out to broad groups acrossthe campus, the better to understand theirneeds. HR has progressed beyond the “per-sonnel office” to a group that is buildingrelationships with faculty, deans, depart-ment heads, and assistant deans. Our focusis on improving service, solving problemsthrough strategic program developmentand consulting, and responding to com-munity feedback. I am happy to sharesome of these tangible efforts.

We have enhanced our benefitsprogram based on feedback from facultyand staff. In line with maintaining our

family-friendly structure, a new AdoptionAssistance Program is now available atMIT. We are also beginning to look atways to extend our childcare benefits,another issue important to faculty. LastJanuary, we addressed rising health carecosts by offering new coverage tiers, andwe are currently exploring a lower-costhealth plan for 2009. We are also investi-gating homeowner and car insurance tobe offered at bulk premium rates. Finally,we have increased our benefits communi-cation so you receive the information in atimely manner, through multiple means.Our goal is to facilitate your decision-making so you can move quickly to yourwork at hand.

Going beyond benefits, we are focusingon remaining competitive for faculty andstaff salaries. To do this, we periodicallyreview market data to help us both retainand attract the top talent.

Another issue HR is tackling is fillingjobs quickly, with the highest quality can-didates. By better coordinating candidateinformation among different areas, wehave reduced the number of open posi-tions and placed staff more promptly. We

are increasingly collaborating with facultyin the hunt for executive directors, admin-istrative officers, and program coordina-

tors. We have also focused on hiringadministrative assistants in the DLCs –another position pivotal to a smoothrunning workplace. By pre-qualifyingcandidates, the number of open jobs isdown by 50 percent.

Lastly, as you know, administrativeofficers (AOs) are invaluable in support-ing your research. To show our commit-ment to their professional development,we have piloted an AO Users Group. TheAO Development Program, which willbegin next fall, has evolved from this pilotprogram. The Program will target supportand administrative staff who are inter-ested in becoming an AO – with the goalof building our AO pipeline and therebystrengthening departments across theInstitute.

I look forward to discussing how weare building a vibrant and diverse workcommunity in upcoming issues of theFaculty Newsletter. In the interim, feelfree to e-mail me with any questions orcomments.

Diversity among the faculty ranks continues to be achallenge. Having the resources to attract junior facultyremains a key goal.

Allson Alden is Vice President for HumanResources ([email protected]).


To The Faculty Newsletter:

I R E A D W I T H I N T E R E S T ProfessorJonathan King’s article on the SpellingsCommission and the issue of standard-ized testing (MIT Faculty Newsletter,March/April 2008). I’ve been followingthe Spellings Commission – and thefallout – closely as one of the main func-tions of the Teaching and LearningLaboratory is to help faculty assess theeffectiveness of their pedagogical and cur-ricular innovations (without the use ofstandardized tests, however). My sense isthat Secretary Spellings has backed offfrom the concept of standardized tests.For example, the Chronicle of HigherEducation (2/1/08) quoted her in a speechto the National Press Club in December assaying, “All colleges should be allowed todescribe their own unique missions” andbe judged against that. She went on to say,“That is totally within the jurisdiction ofeach institution.”

Dean Daniel Hastings, along with andother staff members in the Dean forUndergraduate Education’s office and theOffice of Institutional Research, has beeninvolved in the assessment issue both as itaffects MIT and nationally. For example,Dean Hastings was MIT’s representativeto a task force of the National Associationof Land Grant Universities and Colleges(NASLGUC), which created theVoluntary System of Accountability(VSA). A university that agrees to abide bythe VSA, among other things, is requiredto administer one of three standardizedtests. We advised Dean Hastings not toagree to the VSA because of the require-ment to use a standardized test. In addi-tion, Dean Hastings is the chair of aConsortium on Financing in HigherEducation (COFHE) working group thatis writing a white paper on assessment.

With that said, we have agreed to par-ticipate in an experiment to administer

the Collegiate Learning Assessment(CLA) to a small number of our studentsas part of a FIPSE (Fund for theImprovement of Post SecondaryEducation) research project to see whatdata the CLA generates. We have also con-sented to pilot two new instruments beingdeveloped by the National Academy ofEngineering (NAE) that are similar to theNational Survey of Student Engagement,but specifically for engineering students.(The NAE would also like us to pilot afaculty version.) However, we will notagree to any content-based standardizedtests for the reasons Professor King men-tions in his article.

I hope this provides the readers of theFaculty Newsletter with additional infor-mation on the issue of standardizedtesting and assessment.

Lori BreslowDirector, Teaching and Learning Laboratory

The Spellings Commission Backs Off

letters

Lerman Now Dean for Graduate Education

P R O F. S T E V E L E R M A N has had achange of title. As of March 31, 2008, theDean for Graduate Students (Prof.Lerman) is the Dean for GraduateEducation. The office reporting to theDean is now known as the Office of the

Dean for Graduate Education, or DGE,formerly known as the Graduate StudentsOffice, or GSO.

According to Provost Phil Clay, thesenew titles do not signal any change in thebreadth of involvement of the office nor

in its goals. Rather, the changes are conso-nant with titles in sister institutions andparallel those for the Dean forUndergraduate Education and the Officeof the Dean for Undergraduate Education(DUE) here at MIT.

26


27

To The Faculty Newsletter:

I AM WR ITI NG TO COM M E NT on theamendment to the motion presented atthe April faculty meeting that would allowspeaking privileges to professors emeriti.In reviewing the proposed amendment Iwondered why this opportunity is onlybeing granted to Professors Emeritifaculty and not expanded to others suchas Adjunct, Senior Lecturers, or Professorsof Practice.

I was informed by colleagues that onereason for not granting speaking oppor-tunities was concern that in broadeningthe definition of who can speak there is arisk of having others ask for the sameprivilege and leaving the faculty without areasonable framework for deciding whoshould or should not be granted speakingprivileges.

I believe there is another way to look atthis issue. For me the primary question isas follows: Why would any group think itsbest interest is served by limiting whichmembers can provide the group withinformation and knowledge?

During my eight years at MIT I havenoticed an increased emphasis on behalfof the Institute to teach students theimportance of inclusion and the necessityof listening to and learning from thosewho hold different experiences, world-views, and ideologies. How then can wejustify a policy that says that the samemembers of the faculty who are entrustedwith providing for the education of stu-dents and the advancement of knowledgeshould not be allowed to voice their expe-rience at faculty meetings just becausethey are not part of the “regular” faculty?

There is nothing in the passage fromadjunct or part-time to associate of fullprofessor with tenure that alone makesone wiser. Nor does it make one the soleholder of information or knowledge thatshould inform the rules that the faculty ofthis institution follow in fulfilling theirresponsibilities in research, education,and service. Quite the contrary. The col-lective body of faculty at MIT has anextensive range of experiences that is rel-evant in defining policy in the Instituteand needs to be seen as such. By enablingany rule that silences any part of our col-lective knowledge we are limiting our-selves and turning our backs on our mostprecious value: knowledge.

Currently, I am on partial leave fromMIT running an organization calledDropping Knowledge. The goal of theorganization is to support free and openexchange of knowledge especially amongthose whose voices are often neglected orpurposefully silenced. The premise in ourwork is that the world improves becausepeople are able to raise their voices andname their experiences in the world andto ask questions as to why something is so.I think this is an apt perspective for us toconsider. Just as we lead in research andteaching innovation, we can also effectchange in how decisions are made. We canbelieve that an open exchange of ideas and

full engagement with each other is neces-sary for us to discern the best road totravel.

Towards that end I wish to offer afriendly amendment to extending speak-ing privileges to Professors Emeriti. Itwould read as follows:

“That all individuals who are entrustedwith the privilege and honor to engage inthe education of students also be grantedspeaking privileges at faculty meetingsregardless of rank or duration of service.”

Should the same privileges beexpanded to include voting? I don’t know,but when we open the floor to all faculty

we will have to discuss who and what rep-resentative structure makes discussionsand sets rule on behalf of the entirefaculty.

I hope that in this case we canmake new history for MIT andconnect ourselves to the globalhistory of the struggle for voice andinclusion.

Ceasar L. McDowellProfessor of the Practice of CommunityDevelopmentDepartment of Urban Studies andPlanning

Who Should Be Allowed to Speak at Faculty Meetings?

letters

For me the primary question is as follows: Why wouldany group think its best interest is served by limitingwhich members can provide the group with informationand knowledge?


M.I.T. Numbersfrom the 2008 Faculty Survey

Sec

ure

fund

ing

for

rese

arch

Sch

olar

ly p

rodu

ctiv

ity

Lack

of t

ime

to th

ink

and

refle

ct

Lack

of t

ime

for

non-

wor

k ac

tiviti

es

Man

agin

g a

rese

arch

gro

up o

r gr

ant

(e..g

., fin

ance

s, p

erso

nnel

)C

omm

ittee

and

/or

adm

inis

trat

ive

resp

onsi

bilit

ies

Rev

iew

/pro

mot

ion

proc

ess

Dep

artm

enta

l or

cam

pus

polit

ics

Chi

ldca

re

Teac

hing

res

pons

ibili

ties

Man

agin

g ho

useh

old

resp

onsi

bilit

ies

Inab

ility

to p

ursu

e ou

tsid

e in

tere

sts

or a

voca

tions

Cos

t of l

ivin

g

Car

e of

som

eone

who

is il

l, di

sabl

ed,

agin

g, a

nd/o

r in

nee

d of

spe

cial

ser

vice

s

Adv

isin

g re

spon

sibi

litie

s

Tim

ing

of d

epar

tmen

tal m

eetin

gs a

nd fu

nctio

ns

Bia

s/di

scrim

inat

ion/

unfa

irnes

s in

pro

cedu

res

Your

hea

lth

Not

at a

llS

omew

hat

Ext

ensi

ve

0%20

%4

0%6

0%8

0%10

0%

Sou

rces

of

Str

ess

Ove

r P

ast

12 M

onth

s(s

orte

d in

des

cend

ing

orde

r by

%E

xten

sive

)

* “N

ot A

pplic

able

” co

unte

d as

mis

sing

mit faculty newsletter, vol. xx no. 5, may/june 2008web.mit.edu/fnl/volume/205/fnl205.pdf ·...

Documents