SHPC Report: Introduction

The charge given this Committee in early November focused on renovating Senior House with emphasis on how and when. Over the course of the time we have been working together, our focus has been broader. We found that turning to the issue of Senior House was salutary in that it sharpened our focus, but we also found that seeing Senior House in isolation failed to do justice to the complex issues we must deal with over the next half-decade. Therefore what follows is at once more comprehensive and complicated. Any course of action will have short term negative implications with resulting ire among our constituent communities of interest. There is no way to avoid the ire, but there is also no reason not to be prepared and able to spell out the long term benefits of acting with both compassion and vision. The emotional content of the conversation is better understood if the following points are kept in mind:

  1. Data gathered by the senior survey conducted under the auspices of the ODUESA suggest that the living group is the primary source of social interaction and personal support for undergraduates, and that among the most important elements of a living group are: adequate private living spaces, maintaining good physical condition of the facilities, and a sense of community. These were also areas where there was some significant disparity between relative importance and degree of fulfillment.
  2. Similarly, the general evaluation of undergraduate housing undertaken by the UA indicates "...that most undergraduates are quite satisfied with MIT housing, but that there are problems that need to be remedied." (p. 3) among those problems is the need to renovate several dormitories (especially Senior House, Baker, and Random Hall).
  3. Tentative conclusions from the fall 1994 graduate housing issues report prepared by the GSC state that the main reasons for choosing to live in on-campus housing are: convenience (both location and administration), cost, private room, living on campus, safety, and sense of community. These responses are also consistent with the graduate student housing and transportation survey undertaken in 1980.

The report that follows is informed by this understanding of student housing. It begins with facts as the Committee understands them and moves to conclusions that have the support of the Committee. For the sake of ease, however, we are producing the conclusions at the outset so that they inform the reader working through the report. (It would have been easier for us if we could have begun with conclusions firmly in hand; alas, we could not!)

The Archive Team (archive@the-tech.mit.edu)