/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\
/ /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\ \
| | | |
| | == ## == | |
| | ===== ## ===== I * N * S * T * I * T * V * T * E | |
| | ====== ## ====== | |
| | || || ## || || MIT's Electronic Journal | |
| | || || ## || || of Student Affairs | |
| | || || ## || || | |
| | ====== ## ====== Volume 7, No. 1 * July 7, 1998 | |
| | | |
| | This issue is http://web.mit.edu/institvte/www/v7n1.html | |
\ \________________________________________________________________/ /
\____________________________________________________________________/
.
TO OUR READERS: INSTITVTE Returns to Regular Publication
NEWSWIRE * SAE Sanctions Explained
* Task Force Student Advisory Committee Releases
Final Report
ANALYSIS * Student Affairs Recommendations Need Analytical Basis
* Suggestions for a Closer MIT Community
* Vassar Street Paved, Amherst Alley Not
.
/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\
( T O O U R R E A D E R S )
\_____________________________________________________________________/
INSTITVTE RETURNS TO REGULAR PUBLICATION
To our readers:
We are pleased to announce the return of INSTITVTE to regular
publication.
We are still looking for an editor who can devote the necessary time
to the weekly publication of INSTITVTE. However, we also feel that
INSTITVTE provided a valuable service to MIT before regular
publication was discontinued, and we would like to see it fill that
niche again. Therefore, we have decided to return INSTITVTE to
regular publication, on a monthly schedule.
The next issue of INSTITVTE will be distributed on Tuesday, August 4.
As fall approaches, we may decide to publish more frequently; in any
case you will receive at least one INSTITVTE a month from now on. We
intend to continue to bring you quality news items and incisive
analyses that you otherwise might not receive. We will also once
again welcome Community Notices as a way to help MIT become a closer
community. As always, we welcome your comments, positive or negative,
on the articles we publish.
Thank you for reading INSTITVTE, and a special thanks to those of our
readers who have taken time to comment on the value of receiving our
publication. We are glad to announce INSTITVTE's return.
Sincerely,
THE STAFF OF INSTITVTE
.
/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\
( N E W S W I R E )
\_____________________________________________________________________/
SAE SANCTIONS EXPLAINED
Provided by Christopher Rezek '99,
IFC Public Relations Chair
EDITOR'S NOTE: The MIT fraternity Sigma Alpha Epsilon (SAE) has
been sanctioned by MIT and by the Interfraternity Council (IFC)
following an April incident in which alcohol was served to a
prospective MIT student at the fraternity.
There seems to have been miscommunication about the nature of the
decisions by the IFC JudComm and ExecComm regarding SAE. This public
letter is intended to provide information, and has been checked for
accuracy with the JudComm Chair, the IFC President, the Chair of the
appeal board, the President of SAE, and the IFC Advisor.
That said, as the author I take responsibility for any errors that
have remained.
Chris Rezek '99
* * * * * * * *
First, to clarify what the decisions were (these are paraphrases, not
the exact wording):
The first decision was released to SAE on May 15, 1998: SAE was found
guilty of a Third Strike violation under the Risk Management Policy
for serving alcohol to a prefrosh.
1. SAE may not house freshmen in Fall 1998, but may rush a non-
residential pledge class.
2. SAE is alcohol-free until October 13, 1998.
3. SAE is levied a fine of $2000.
4. SAE may not overnight freshmen during Rush '98.
5. SAE may not be present at the Residence Midway of Rush '98.
6. If SAE is found guilty of any further inappropriate behavior in the
next year, it is recommended that SAE be suspended or expelled from
the IFC.
* * * * * * * *
The appeals decision was released to SAE on May 21, 1998: SAE was
found guilty of a Second Strike violation under the Risk Management
Policy for serving alcohol to a prefrosh.
These remained unchanged from the JudComm decision:
3. SAE is levied a fine of $2000.
5. SAE may not be present at the Residence Midway of Rush '98.
6. If SAE is found guilty of any further inappropriate behavior in the
next year, it is recommended that SAE be suspended or expelled from
the IFC.
These were added or modified:
2. SAE is alcohol-free until June 11, 1999.
7. SAE shall prepare an apology to the IFC to the satisfaction of
ExecComm, which will be presented at the next President's Council
and will be posted at SAE's rush desk during Rush '98.
8. SAE shall prepare an apology to the Dean of Admissions to the
satisfaction of that Dean.
9. SAE shall organize and fund an alcohol-awareness speaker, to the
satisfaction of ExecComm, and 100% of SAE members must attend.
10. SAE shall organize and fund an IFC-wide social event promoting
inter-FSILG interaction, with the focus on one of the Stars of
Education and attendance by at least one member from 30 different
FSILGs.
These were rescinded:
1. SAE may not house freshmen in Fall 1998, but may rush a non-
residential pledge class.
4. SAE may not overnight freshmen during Rush '98.
* * * * * * * *
Other sanctions have been placed on SAE by bodies outside of the IFC:
The Admissions Office has rescinded all pre-frosh-related
privileges (hosting, telethons, etc.) from SAE until
further notice.
The Dean's Office has also taken action:
"SAE is under suspension while the whole process takes place.
We will have a meeting at the end of June to hear their
proposal for why they should be allowed to house freshmen."
-- Dean for Student Life Margaret Bates
Suspension means that SAE may not hold organized activities, at their
house, annex, or elsewhere. They also are not allowed to hold
meetings, except such as are necessary for the bare functioning of the
organization. This effectively means that they cannot Rush, since
that would be an organized activity, but they could house freshmen
(though the Dean's Office could choose to revoke that privilege if SAE
does not convince them otherwise).
* * * * * * * *
So now the issue of why ExecComm's sentence was different from
JudComm's. As a member of ExecComm, I was part of the group that
created the new decision for SAE, and I believe that my statements
here reflect the sentiments of the group.
We were aware at the time of the appeal of the Admissions Office's
decision, and we had good cause to expect the Dean's Office to take
further action. We also knew that the chapter had been meeting with
its alumni corporation, and that both groups were determined not to
see SAE disappear from MIT.
We wanted to accomplish a couple of goals. One was to ensure that SAE
was aware that it had endangered the entire IFC community, and that,
"as such, no further mistakes will be tolerated." ExecComm is
completely serious about this. The IFC community cannot afford to
have a single house put us all at risk. But at the same time we did
not want to write off SAE; we wanted to give them one last chance to
show us they can improve.
Another goal was to discourage further incidents from happening at
other houses, because to the outside world, one MIT frat is
indistinguishable from the next. We also wanted to increase awareness
of alcohol issues, since we believe that a key part of avoiding
alcohol abuse is education. As the first case under the new "Three
Strikes" policy, we felt it was important to take a stand on what
constituted a strike.
A further goal was to increase interaction within the IFC, and between
SAE and other member houses in particular. This is because we believe
that peer influence is an important part of modifying behavior, and
the examples learned from other houses can help them improve
themselves and prosper.
* * * * * * * *
The change that seems to have cause the most controversy was to drop
Point 1, the revocation of freshmen housing. We did this for two
reasons:
(1) ExecComm felt that it was excessive, considering the
violation. SAE was not certified under the new Risk
Management Policy, so the violation of the policy was
an automatic Second Strike, but we did not think it
severe enough to warrant a Third Strike (which mandates
the loss of freshman housing).
(2) There was a dispute within ExecComm over whether or not
the IFC has the right to revoke freshman housing,
regardless of what the violation had been.
We were sure that we had the power to (1) recommend to the Dean's
Office that SAE lose the privilege to house freshmen, and (2) take
away SAE's Rush.
ExecComm chose not to recommend the revocation of SAE's freshman-
housing privileges in the main because we wanted to give the Dean's
Office more flexibility in making their own decision, since they had
access to more complete information about SAE's situation than we did.
And, as mentioned above, we had also decided that SAE's violation was
only a Second Strike and not a Third.
ExecComm chose not to eliminate SAE's Rush because we believe that SAE
realizes the precariousness of its position and that it should be
given another chance. At the same time, we do not want freshmen to
walk in unawares, so the apology to the IFC community will be posted
so that all freshmen can read it.
ExecComm chose to return overnighting privileges because "the loss of
overnighting privileges could potentially cause Sigma Alpha Epsilon
undue harm in their Rush." We believe that the posted apology and the
absence at the Residence Midway will be enough.
ExecComm is very serious about zero tolerance for any further
violations by SAE. If SAE is found guilty of another incident,
ExecComm will strongly recommend that SAE be suspended or expelled
from the IFC. An FSILG may be suspended or expelled either by a
JudComm decision (which, if appealed to ExecComm, would be upheld), or
by a three-fourths majority of the President's Council.
* * * * * * * *
The IFC Constitution, Bylaws, and Policies can be found at our website:
* * * * * * * *
It is my hope that this clears up any misunderstandings about the
decisions by JudComm and ExecComm. If there are any further questions,
please e-mail the relevant parties, either with questions or with a
proposed time for a phone interview (since we're all busy people and
are not always available on a moment's notice).
JudComm Chair
Katie Hardacre
katieh@mit.edu
IFC President
Duane Dreger
ddreger@mit.edu
IFC VPIA (chair of the appeal board)
Bob Broderick
bbroder@mit.edu
SAE President
Wesley Harrington
wtharri@mit.edu
IFC Advisor
Neal Dorow
dorow@mit.edu
IFC Public Relations Chair
Chris Rezek
crezek@mit.edu
=========================================================================
TASK FORCE STUDENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE RELEASES FINAL REPORT
by Jeremy Sher
On April 22, the Student Advisory Committee to the Presidential Task
Force on Student Life and Learning released its final report, _Putting
Education First_. The 31-page report discusses in detail the idea of
an Educational Triad, consisting of academics, research, and
community, which the Student Advisory Committee introduced in its
May 19, 1997, preliminary report. The final report contains sections
on "Education for Life," MIT's residences, institutional governance,
the Faculty, the curriculum, diversity, and MIT's reputation. To
obtain a copy of _Putting Education First_, write to Anders Hove,
Staff to the Task Force on Student Life and Learning, MIT room 4-117.
.
/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\
( A N A L Y S I S )
\_____________________________________________________________________/
STUDENT AFFAIRS RECOMMENDATIONS NEED ANALYTICAL BASIS
by John Hollywood
Recently, the Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the
Research University released its final report. (The report is
available at .) Our readers
may recall that this document, featured in national broadcasts and
newspapers, made the following claim:
Nevertheless, the research universities have too often
failed, and continue to fail, their undergraduate
populations. Tuition income from undergraduates is one
of the major sources of university income, helping to
support research programs and graduate education, but
the students paying the tuition get, in all too many
cases, less than their money's worth. An undergraduate
at an American research university can receive an
education as good or better than anything available
anywhere in the world, but that is not the normative
experience. Again and again, universities are guilty of
an advertising practice they would condemn in the
commercial world. Recruitment materials display proudly
the world-famous professors, the splendid facilities and
the ground-breaking research that goes on within them,
but thousands of students graduate without ever seeing
the world-famous professors or tasting genuine research.
Some of their instructors are likely to be badly trained
or even untrained teaching assistants who are groping
their way toward a teaching technique; some others may
be tenured drones who deliver set lectures from yellowed
notes, making no effort to engage the bored minds of the
students in front of them.
Many students graduate having accumulated whatever number
of courses is required, but still lacking a coherent body
of knowledge or any inkling as to how one sort of
information might relate to others. And all too often
they graduate without knowing how to think logically,
write clearly, or speak coherently. The university has
given them too little that will be of real value beyond a
credential that will help them get their first jobs. And
with larger and larger numbers of their peers holding the
same paper in their hands, even that credential has lost
much of its potency.
These charges are very serious. They are bolstered by the membership
of the commission making them -- a very prestigious group that
includes the President of SUNY Stony Brook, the President of the
American Council on Education, the Dean of the School of Communication
at the University of Pennsylvania, a Chancellor Emeritus of Berkeley,
and the President of the National Academy of Sciences.
Consequently, we would expect the report to include large numbers of
citations of quality social research, such as the following:
SURVEY ANALYSES: These would include surveys of randomly
selected students, detailing students' dissatisfaction with
parts of their research-university education. Surveys
would include both those conducted for the Boyer
Commission and those previously conducted by the
universities. An example of such a survey would be MIT's
1994 Senior Survey, which asked students to rank how
important they thought certain areas of knowledge were,
versus how much they felt they had learned in those areas.
(Contact Dean Alberta Lipson for more
information about this survey.)
FOCUS GROUP RESULTS: These would be analyses of detailed
discussions with small groups of students to talk about
their educational experiences, and how they felt they could
be improved.
LONGITUDINAL STUDIES: These are studies that track students
over time. They would first find out students's
expectations when they arrived at college, track how well
their expectations were meeting with reality over time, and
conclude with studies of how well the students felt their
college educations had prepared them for their careers and
lives.
EXPERT ANALYSES: These are interviews with people who "know"
research universities, and ways education in them could be
improved.
Unfortunately, references to such research are very hard to find in
the Boyer Report. The Report does not include a single research
citation to support the claims listed above.
(The report does include "Evidence of Change" blurbs that briefly
describe university programs the Boyer Commission felt were in keeping
with its tenets for reforming university education. These blurbs,
however, include no references as to how the Commission found about
these programs, or how the Commission decided that these programs
merited mentioning. It also includes "THE FACTS" charts, which graph
research-university enrollments over time, but say nothing in support
of the Report's claims that research universities are shortchanging
students.)
The methodologies the authors used to draw their conclusions may well
have been excellent. Nonetheless, the fact that such a distinguished
panel ignored logical and statistical methodologies in its report is
alarming. The Boyer report, unfortunately, is just one of a long line
of similar incidents in which careful analysis has not been part of
student-affairs policymaking. Consider the following similar
incidents, all of which occurred at MIT.
* During the "Rush Debate" of Fall 1998, a professor claimed,
although he knew little about the undergraduate residences,
that the houses that would have difficulty getting students
in a sophomore-year Rush undoubtedly were "problem houses,"
and should not be at MIT.
* Many professors argued that incoming freshmen should be
housed on campus starting in Fall 1998, without doing the
minimal checking necessary to find that doing so would be
logistically impossible. When the impossibility of this
proposal became known, one professor campaigned to house
all freshmen on campus by kicking all graduate students out
of their dorms, and into a suddenly tightened rental
market.
* Last fall, a professor argued that MIT fraternities were
undoubtedly houses of drunken carousing, based solely on
his own experience in a single fraternity decades ago.
* There are a number of professors who argue that MIT's
advising system is ideal by definition, because faculty are
the advisors. This definition fails to note that
satisfaction with advising is significantly lower at MIT
than at our peer schools. (Source: Baker Foundation
Advising Survey, 1995.)
* In a number of instances, a small group has met to
determine a public policy without including community
involvement. Consequently, these groups created policies
that ran counter to important community interests. The
policy proposals then either collapsed in the face of
community outcry, or led to counterproductive changes.
Some of the more major examples include:
o 1989 Potter Report. This was the last major attempt
to move Rush to the sophomore year. The Potter
Committee (formally, the Committee on Freshman
Housing), did meet with twenty students "informally".
The students expressed opposition to moving Rush.
The Committee then discarded these opinions on the
grounds that students would just express approval for
whatever the current system was.
Consequently, the report, when published, led to a
public outcry that culminated in an open forum at which
about 400 attendees unanimously opposed moving Rush to
the sophomore year.
o 1992 "Meal Plan Debate". In this debate, Aramark and
MIT's Department of Housing and Food Services attempted
to require students living in dormitories with dining
halls to buy five all-you-can-eat dinners in their
dorm's dining hall per week. These meal plans would
have been quite expensive, especially for those with
incompatible schedules or limited diets.
In the resulting outcry, Aramark and Housing and Food
Services presented a single alternative option: closing
the dining halls at McCormick Hall and MacGregor House.
Students acceded to this alternative, to the great
detriment of campus dining.
o 1994 Strategic Housing Planning Committee, which
considered moving graduate students to East Campus and
Senior House and undergraduate students to Ashdown,
without student membership on the Committee, or planned
student input to the Committee.
o 1998 Orientation Scheduling Committee, which failed to
include students as "part of a conscious effort to have
faculty and deans ponder what they want students to get
out of Orientation." [_The Tech_, 3 February 1998.]
The ensuing outcry resulted in several last-minute
major changes being made to the recommendations of the
Committee. Notably, the public outcry resulted in
houses continuing to be allowed to send Rush books to
freshmen, and a longer (rather than shorter) residence-
selection period.
o The recent decision to move some undergraduates to Tang
Hall (to allow for a reduced pledge class) was done
without consulting graduate students. [See INSTITVTE,
Vol. 6, No. 5, May 9, 1998.]
The above examples vary widely in severity, but they all share a lack
of quality analysis, and a failure to consider the viewpoints of the
students (and the community at large, for that matter). It is hard to
explain why incidents like these are the standard in student-life
issues, but we do have some ideas.
First, unfortunately, there is a lack of standards in public affairs.
Claims, arguments, and procedures that would be unacceptable in
scientific fields are common when it comes to making public policy.
Second, and particularly germane to student-life decision-making, is
what we call "the false expert fallacy." There are some professors,
administrators, and students, for that matter, who are brilliant in
scientific fields, or other fields not related to policymaking, but
who, unfortunately, sometimes interpret their excellence in these
fields as a qualification to make public policy decisions, even
without proper training and experience.
The problem is that public policymaking is not simple. It is
extremely difficult, especially since it usually is not possible to
formulate policies mathematically. Consequently, a Nobel laureate who
believes she can make student-affairs decisions without doing any
"homework" is akin to the same Nobel laureate believing she can fly a
jumbo jet without any flying experience.
This is not to say that we do not want the Faculty and administration
to participate in student life. We welcome increased participation.
Those who truly want to help improve student life, and are willing to
do the work necessary to help us, have our deepest gratitude, and we
look forward to working with them in the future.
Nonetheless, those who prefer not to do the work necessary to help
students, instead being content to pontificate on matters about which
they refuse to educate themselves, should remember that we students do
not attempt to run their laboratories or offices. They need to stop
messing blindly with our lives.
=========================================================================
SUGGESTIONS FOR A CLOSER MIT COMMUNITY
by Jeremy Sher
For some time, students, faculty, and administrators have noted the
lack of a coherent campus-wide community at MIT. Students, we are
told, form their allegiances mainly to living groups, to the detriment
of a true MIT community. The living groups, we hear, are isolated
from one another by boundaries of geography and culture that do not
allow a campus-wide community fabric to form.
How can we create an integrated, supportive campus-wide community, in
which students are as fondly attached to MIT as they are now to their
individual residences? There is no catch-all solution, but INSTITVTE
has two suggestions. The first applies to the entire student
community, and the second is applicable to students living in
dormitories.
.
SOCIAL SPACE IN THE STUDENT CENTER
Our first suggestion involves designating an area in the Student
Center for recreational social interaction. As it turns out, now is a
prime opportunity for action on this, since the departure of Newbury
Comics has created a vacancy in an ideal first-floor space. However,
due to that space's current commercial designation, a recreational
social space will require decisive endorsement from the senior
administration before a new commercial occupant is found. We call
upon the Dean of Students and Undergraduate Education, the Provost,
and the President to consider this situation and to act decisively.
A recreational space in the Student Center would serve several
important functions. It would provide a currently nonexistent indoor
space for student interaction in a relaxed, alcohol-free setting.
Designating this space as a "community room" would also be in keeping
with the recommendations of the President's Working Group on Dangerous
Drinking. We have heard too often over the past year that "there's
nothing fun to do without alcohol parties." A social space in the
Student Center -- perhaps with pool, ping-pong, and other indoor games
as well as seating -- would liven up MIT's social scene while also
providing a place for students who live in different places to come
together.
We are aware that before the Student Center was renovated, there was
an overabundance of recreational space in the building. We cannot
speculate on why that space was underused. However, we do not believe
that that prior experience proves that any social space, no matter
what size or how it is designed, is doomed to failure. Rather, we
feel that a well-designed, well-furnished space in a convenient
location would fulfill an important community need.
There are two options for action on a Student Center recreational
space. One option would be to remove the former Newbury Comics space
from MIT's real-estate portfolio, allowing the Dean's Office or the
Provost's Office to save on rent, but necessitating the removal of a
real-estate investment from the endowment. Another option is for
money to be allocated in MIT's annual budget to pay rent for the
space. The price tag for annual rent is significantly less than
$100,000. Also, the social space would require a one-time capital
investment of about $25,000, which could either be paid up-front or
spread out over five years at about $7,000 per year.
We believe that a recreational area in the Student Center would serve
an important programmatic need, and would provide a lasting gathering
place for an integrated student community.
[Editor's Note -- Readers interested in the possibility of
a Student Center recreational space should contact the UA
Executive Committee, which is currently working on this
matter, at , x3-2696, Room W20-401.]
.
UNIVERSAL CARD ACCESS TO DORMS
Our second suggestion has been discussed in INSTITVTE before.
Universal card access to student dorms is a policy whose benefits, in
our opinion, far outweigh its risks. What sense does it make, really,
to wonder why students don't interact with people in other dorms, when
they aren't even welcome past the front door?
Most students are aware that front-desk security in the dormitories
(with the exception of McCormick, which has a different set of
security expectations) is notoriously lax. Most students, if they
really wanted to get into a dormitory other than their own, could do
so. (A common method is to wait to walk in behind a student who has
access. If that fails, one can usually obtain full access to a
building by announcing at the desk the name of one student living
there.)
Accessing another dorm is far from impossible, which makes it
difficult to believe that the permeable front door is as effective a
barrier to crime as it could be. In fact, the policy at dorms with
dining halls is to let anyone in who wants access during dining hours.
It would be no more difficult for a young off-campus criminal to
access an MIT dormitory than it would be for a student.
At the same time, accessing another dorm is somewhat inconvenient,
which, with the current system's unwelcoming air, puts a damper on
casual visiting. It is usually a minor hassle (and infrequently a
major one) to stop by one dorm on one's way home to another.
Therefore, as one might expect, it is not as common as it could be for
students to visit each other in different residences. A hundred feet
between two buildings need not be a significant barrier to casual
interaction, but with the current system, it is.
We believe that the first step to encouraging interaction across
dormitory boundaries should be to institute universal card access to
all dormitories (with the exception of McCormick, which should keep
its current system). With universal access, students could make
casual visits whenever they want, feeling that MIT welcomes them to
interact with residents of other buildings. At the same time, it
would no longer be necessary for deskworkers to let in non-residents
who wish to enter; therefore, universal card access would allow the
implementation of much more effective screening policies for people
without access cards. Policies promoting interaction have to start
at the front door.
=========================================================================
VASSAR STREET PAVED, AMHERST ALLEY NOT
by Jeremy Sher
INSTITVTE notes with appreciation that the City of Cambridge has
decided to pave Vassar Street. We salute the City's concern for the
safety of those people, many of them members of the MIT community, who
use Vassar Street daily. Vassar Street's paving came to us as a
pleasant surprise. We thought it would be easier to get MIT to pave
Amherst Alley, used daily by thousands of bicycling, rollerblading,
and walking students, than it would be to get the City to pave Vassar
Street.
We extend our thanks to the City for proving us wrong. At the same
time, we reiterate our concern over MIT's recklessness in allowing
Amherst Alley to persist in its current condition. Potholes and
piecemeal pavement daily threaten the safety of students on wheels,
not to mention the damage they do to students' transportation devices.
The responsible administration of student safety, as we have all been
recently reminded, does not involve sitting around and waiting for an
accident or a tragedy to happen.
.
=========================================================================
INSTITVTE -- MIT'S ELECTRONIC JOURNAL OF STUDENT AFFAIRS
"Liberty cannot be maintained without general
knowledge among the people." -- John Adams
Staff: Ishan Anand, Richard Barbalace, Matthew Herper, John Hollywood,
Kai-yuh Hsiao, Jake Parrott (copy editor), Jeremy Sher (editor)
* Institvte's electronic mail address:
To get (or not get) INSTITVTE, send mail to .
Send letters, questions, and all correspondence to .
Web: http://web.mit.edu/institvte/WWW/
* Student Resource Service:
Send questions about MIT or its resources to
Web: http://web.mit.edu/institvte/WWW/resources.html
INSTITVTE is part of the Institute Foundation, a student service
group dedicated to student empowerment through "general knowledge
among the people," and through this to improving MIT for all members
of the community. INSTITVTE is no longer in regular distribution
over e-mail. However, INSTITVTE is planning to sponsor a radio show
on student affairs, beginning in February on WMBR.
We maintain a home page that stores reports, letters and other
documents that we have been unable to publish in our weekly bulletins.
To access the page from an Athena workstation type: add institvte;
tvte. The URL of the homepage is: http://web.mit.edu/institvte/WWW/
The Institute Foundation also manages the Student Resource Service,
a group of students who can answer questions about MIT and get
students in touch with the resources they need to get problems solved.
Questions can be sent directly to resources@mit.edu. The Service also
has a web page, at http://web.mit.edu/institvte/WWW/resources.html,
which offers more information about the Service and a list of current
members.
========================================================================