FSILGs Already Provide Benefits of RBA
In “Advisers on Hand” [Mar. 13], Jyoti Tibrewala points out several strengths of McCormick’s pilot Residence-Based Advising system: freshmen get to know their classmates well and they get to meet their living group’s upperclassmen during orientation.
I’d like to point out that MIT’s FSILG system provides those same advantages, but to a far greater degree. New FSILG members get to know their fellow new members far better than just reading a “condensed biography” over the summer, and they receive far more support and advice from upperclassmen than they would in any RBA system.
Sadly, MIT’s administration doesn’t see the strengths of the irreplaceable residence system it currently has. But any FSILG resident will tell you that no other living arrangement can provide the same close connections with fellow residents and the same level of support and advising, that you get in an FSILG.
Darius G. Jazayeri G
[LTE]Creighton/Stringfellow Caused Record Turnout[body]
Tuesday’s issue of The Tech quoted several sources as claiming that the Undergraduate Association elections had record voter turnout because the UA Election Commission effectively advertised the election and motivated students to vote. But the UA publicizes every election, this one being no exception. This year’s difference was the ticket of Rhett Creighton and Maggie Stringfellow. The difference they brought to the election was sincerity, a virtue that was not clearly demonstrated by anyone else. They deserve most of the credit for motivating students not residing between McCormick and Next House to show their support for a team which was firmly grounded in reality. They didn’t talk about “integrating the campus” or “improving undergraduate life.” They knew what can and cannot be accomplished from the office of UA president, and they showed that they would leverage the power of that position to do what they could.
Amal K. Dorai ’04[sig]
[LTE]National Brief Biased, Incomplete[body]
I felt that the news brief titled “House Votes to Repeal New Ergonomics Rules” that ran in the Mar. 9 issue of The Tech was biased and incomplete. As someone who doesn’t think that W. is out to “screw” this country but who doesn’t feel that we should take everything he gives us with a smile, I like listening to opposing viewpoints.
This brief, however, only gave you one point of view: the ergonomics rules were repealed because Republicans are partisan. Statements like, “Only 13 of 220 Republicans strayed from their party leadership to support the rules” and “The House ... demonstrated even stronger GOP discipline” seem more fitting in an editorial than in a news article.
But it’s not what was there that bothered me. It was what wasn’t there. The article clearly lacked one of the main Ws of journalism: why. Why would 279 of the country’s senators and representatives vote for a repeal of the ergonomics rules when the article clearly states how wonderful these rules are? Senators and representatives need to have reasons to vote one way or the other. The article should’ve stated both reasons. Tell me why they did this. Don’t tell me if it is right or wrong. I can form my own opinion.
A news article should be unbiased; it should show facts. I am certain that the article does not contain lies but one side of the facts doesn’t constitute the truth.
David E. Euresti ’01[sig]