The administration of MIT have decided to nuke a dorm whose culture they didn't like and forced everyone to leave (they claim too much drugs and poor graduation rates). In their place, is "Pilot 2021" in which only freshmen will be moved in (and a few select upperclassmen).
Students feel the administration has been less than honest in their handling of the ordeal (and the dorm's year-long probation period) and had no real interest in helping the dorm improve or listening to the students' needs.
I find it slightly weird and offensive that the products contain sexual orientation information. Are the products being bought to be paired with other products, sexually? Or are they being bought to perform labor? Does the labor in any way depend on the sexual orientation of the product? Isn't prostitution illegal in the country where this company operates?
FYI, this is a commentary on MIT's recent decision to close and depopulate Senior Haus. Senior Haus is (was?) one of MIT's more creative dorms, and many feel it was especially supportive of some students that didn't fit in elsewhere.
MIT decided to depopulate Senior Haus because they statistically were less likely to graduate on time (numbers were questionable at best). Students felt like trading off a supportive community for graduation rates represented commoditization of students, hence the website.
In particular, Pilot 2021 is supposed to focus on wellbeing, health and career development, hence all the references to meal kits.
Food at MIT is a very interesting topic. The administration has been pushing "dining halls" and "mandatory meal plans" for 15 years now, thinking that college should be a Disneyland resort experience you can sell parents on as part of $60k+/year tuition (instead of a place where adults live, clean, cook, and eat like adults).
In reality, cooking and community kitchens has been a big part of MIT's culture. It's fun, it builds community, and it's stress-relieving. Also, meal plans are really expensive and many students do not want not-very-good-food for $20 a meal.
Fun story: I remember one dining hall banning to-go boxes because MIT students were inclined to take their meals to-go so they could eat their food quickly in isolation and get back to work. The administration thought if they forced people to eat in the dining halls they could somehow build a community that way.
As someone who lived at MIT's Senior House in the late 80's and then returned as an alumni to stay there a couple summers for conferences[0], I'm particularly torn by these moves to shut down Senior House and turn it into a freshmen community called Pilot2021.
Senior House has always had a heavy contingent of counter culture types, much more so than other dorms at MIT, making it look highly non-traditional while still having room for some of the founders of the campus student republicans group, conservative ROTC members, and inclusion of all manner of folks (at least in my day it did). Also, oddly enough, even though it was called Senior House it was not just for Seniors.
As others have mentioned there was a report with some pretty questionably statistics and even more questionable methodologies that said Senior House residents were more at risk for poor outcomes, failure to graduate, etc, than residents of other dorms.
There has been lots of debate about the nature and quality of that research. I understand those concerns. My concerns are different.
About ten years ago, the building went through a major renovation. The state required elevators for handicap access, and the walls and floors are amazingly thick solid concrete which made the rennovations extremely difficult and expensive. The end result being huge compromises were made architecturally in order to meet the mandated accessibility requirements.
I moved into Senior House as an undergraduate in large part because of the architecture. The building I lived in remains the best laid out dorm I've ever seen for fostering community and friendship and a sense of belonging, through a hierarchical set of groupings and spatial organization that encouraged a sense of shared identity and belonging on a host of different scales and group sizes. In short, the building worked.
Going back to live in the same space after the remodels was one of the most disturbing experiences I've had in a built environment.
The remodel had punched through all those nested, multi-scale groupings and turned the space into something that reminded me more of a slaughter house than an actual house. Never have I felt so alone, so isolated, so cut off from any community, and that change in experience resulted solely from the change in layout away from multi-scale clusters of group areas to an ad-hoc meander or non-branching non-scale varying random walk layout that resulted from the cost-challenged state-mandated accessibility requirements. It really did meander and twist and redirect in exactly the way a slaughterhouse does, and the design of slaughterhouses is explicitly laid out to impact and manage the psychology of the animals being led through them.
If I'm right that there was a real qualitative change in the nature of the interactions driven by the change in the physical layout of the space, and if the administration is right that outcomes of those living in the space have fallen, then the root cause for that change in outcomes is unlikely to be fixed by kicking out the counter culture types that used to live there (and still love the place) and replacing them with a statistical sampling of more "normal" MIT students.
[0] pro tip: MIT alums can or at least could stay in the dorms during the summer dirt cheap.
"Senior House has always had a heavy contingent of counter culture types, much more so than other dorms at MIT," -- ha ha. They nuked Bexley first for a reason. Ghetto -- suburb!
17 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 54.7 ms ] threadIs this, like, resentment at being desireable to employers?
The administration of MIT have decided to nuke a dorm whose culture they didn't like and forced everyone to leave (they claim too much drugs and poor graduation rates). In their place, is "Pilot 2021" in which only freshmen will be moved in (and a few select upperclassmen).
Students feel the administration has been less than honest in their handling of the ordeal (and the dorm's year-long probation period) and had no real interest in helping the dorm improve or listening to the students' needs.
MIT decided to depopulate Senior Haus because they statistically were less likely to graduate on time (numbers were questionable at best). Students felt like trading off a supportive community for graduation rates represented commoditization of students, hence the website.
In particular, Pilot 2021 is supposed to focus on wellbeing, health and career development, hence all the references to meal kits.
Food at MIT is a very interesting topic. The administration has been pushing "dining halls" and "mandatory meal plans" for 15 years now, thinking that college should be a Disneyland resort experience you can sell parents on as part of $60k+/year tuition (instead of a place where adults live, clean, cook, and eat like adults).
In reality, cooking and community kitchens has been a big part of MIT's culture. It's fun, it builds community, and it's stress-relieving. Also, meal plans are really expensive and many students do not want not-very-good-food for $20 a meal.
Fun story: I remember one dining hall banning to-go boxes because MIT students were inclined to take their meals to-go so they could eat their food quickly in isolation and get back to work. The administration thought if they forced people to eat in the dining halls they could somehow build a community that way.
Senior House has always had a heavy contingent of counter culture types, much more so than other dorms at MIT, making it look highly non-traditional while still having room for some of the founders of the campus student republicans group, conservative ROTC members, and inclusion of all manner of folks (at least in my day it did). Also, oddly enough, even though it was called Senior House it was not just for Seniors.
As others have mentioned there was a report with some pretty questionably statistics and even more questionable methodologies that said Senior House residents were more at risk for poor outcomes, failure to graduate, etc, than residents of other dorms.
There has been lots of debate about the nature and quality of that research. I understand those concerns. My concerns are different.
About ten years ago, the building went through a major renovation. The state required elevators for handicap access, and the walls and floors are amazingly thick solid concrete which made the rennovations extremely difficult and expensive. The end result being huge compromises were made architecturally in order to meet the mandated accessibility requirements.
I moved into Senior House as an undergraduate in large part because of the architecture. The building I lived in remains the best laid out dorm I've ever seen for fostering community and friendship and a sense of belonging, through a hierarchical set of groupings and spatial organization that encouraged a sense of shared identity and belonging on a host of different scales and group sizes. In short, the building worked.
Going back to live in the same space after the remodels was one of the most disturbing experiences I've had in a built environment.
The remodel had punched through all those nested, multi-scale groupings and turned the space into something that reminded me more of a slaughter house than an actual house. Never have I felt so alone, so isolated, so cut off from any community, and that change in experience resulted solely from the change in layout away from multi-scale clusters of group areas to an ad-hoc meander or non-branching non-scale varying random walk layout that resulted from the cost-challenged state-mandated accessibility requirements. It really did meander and twist and redirect in exactly the way a slaughterhouse does, and the design of slaughterhouses is explicitly laid out to impact and manage the psychology of the animals being led through them.
If I'm right that there was a real qualitative change in the nature of the interactions driven by the change in the physical layout of the space, and if the administration is right that outcomes of those living in the space have fallen, then the root cause for that change in outcomes is unlikely to be fixed by kicking out the counter culture types that used to live there (and still love the place) and replacing them with a statistical sampling of more "normal" MIT students.
[0] pro tip: MIT alums can or at least could stay in the dorms during the summer dirt cheap.
Talking about the dorms.