Three MIT students were named Rhodes Scholars last Sunday, setting a record for the number of MIT students awarded the prestigious Oxford fellowship in any one year.

Ugwechi W. Amadi ’10, Caroline J. Huang ’10, and Steven Mo ’10 were among the 32 American and 80 international recipients of this year’s scholarship, which will allow them to pursue any course of full-time postgraduate study at the University of Oxford for up to three years.

“Everything has been surreal,” Huang said in an e-mail. “The quality of the other applicants in my district was extremely high; I feel extremely fortunate to have won.”

After being nominated by their home university, two winners were chosen from each U.S. district by the Rhodes Trust based on an extensive series of essays, letters of recommendation, and rounds of interviews. Judges rate applicants on their scholarship, athletics, community service, and character.

“The support from MIT has been unbelievable,” said Huang. “It’s a grueling process — transcript, two-page curriculum vitae, 1,000 word essay that essentially says who you are and what you want to do with your life, eight letters of recommendation, and an institutional endorsement — but it was bearable because of the support from MIT.”

The award covers all university fees and includes a stipend for living and travel, which is estimated to amount to roughly $50,000 per year.

MIT’s three recipients each hailed from different U.S. regions.

Amadi (Camden, North Carolina — District 5) is a senior majoring in Brain and Cognitive Sciences with a minor in literature. At MIT, she has been active in post-traumatic stress disorder and atherosclerotic restenosis research as well as brain and atrophy research at the Massachusetts General Hospital.

Amadi has served as president of the Brain and Cognitive Sciences Society. She founded the brain and cognitive freshman pre-orientation program, is an MIT Burchard humanities scholar, and has mentored middle school girls for three years through the STEM Summer Institute program. She plans to continue her studies with a M. Sc. in psychological research at Oxford.

Huang (Newark, Delaware — District 4) will also graduate this spring with a major in Brain and Cognitive Sciences, with minors in psychology and political science. She founded MIT’s branch of Camp Kesem — a free, student-run summer camp for children of cancer patients — and has completed research on MRI imaging, with applications to dyslexia, as well as on casual learning in children.

Adding to her list of activities, Huang is also an EMT, contributing editor for The Tech, co-chair of the Student Health Advisory Committee, and has interned for the late Sen. Edward Kennedy as well as the Cambridge Women’s Commission. At Oxford, she plans to earn a doctorate in public health “with a focus on bioethics.”

“Eventually, I would like to be a health policy professor and government advisor, conducting research on other ethical questions in health care and creating support mechanisms to help families dealing with difficult situations,” Huang wrote in an e-mail to The Tech.

Mo (Pearland, Texas — District 8) is a senior majoring in Biology with a minor in economics. Mo spent his junior year abroad, studying biochemistry and molecular biology through the Cambridge MIT Exchange.

At MIT, he has been active in research, studying breast cancer pathology at Cambridge and tumor suppressing nanoparticles at the Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology. For his research, he has been named an MIT Burchard Scholar, an MIT Amgen Scholar, and has received the MIT Johnson & Johnson Excellence in Biomedical Engineering Research Prize.

Mo has also taught for MIT’s Educational Studies Program’s Splash and Splash on Wheels for multiple years, and is president of the MIT Student Ambassador Program and MIT’s Chapter of National Society of Collegiate Scholars.

At Oxford, he hopes to earn a doctorate in biomedical engineering.

As a long-term goal, Mo says that he hopes to return to the U.S. and possibly serve as a leader in a biotechnology company, non-profit organization, or government agency such as the NIH, although he said he’s keeping the option of becoming a professor open.

“Right now, I’m still open to [the idea of] being a professor. It was always one of my dreams, but as I realized, there are more ways that you can impact things in society.”

“I just hope to come back to the States and inspire next generation of young scientist,” he says.

Amadi, Huang, and Mo will join a long list of over 40 MIT alumni who received the award when they begin their fellowships next fall.

For years, MIT has dreamed of increasing the number of undergraduates back to 4,500. That dream is still distant. Adding about 300 students means adding support staff, adding more sections of the General Institute Requirements and finding a place for all the students to stay. Adding students means finishing the renovation of the undergraduate dormitory W1, and untold other costs.

“We’re not ready to increase the student body size,” Chancellor Philip Clay said. “We haven’t systematically explored the questions yet.”

Though the Institute Task Force suggested increasing enrollment as a way for MIT to make more money, MIT might actually lose money by admitting more students, Dean of Undergraduate Admissions Stuart Schmill ’86 said. Administrators say that the real reason they want to add students is to give more students a chance at an MIT education.

“Report after report from the government [says] the country needs to produce more engineers,” Dean for Undergraduate Education Daniel E. Hastings PhD ’80 said. “In service to the nation and the world, we’d like to educate more students,” Schmill said.

Before class size can increase in a significant way, MIT must find a place to put the students. MIT’s undergraduate dorms are operating near capacity, with many forced triples and quads. W1, which planners say will house at least 460 students, must be finished in order for MIT to start accepting more freshmen.

It is not clear when W1 will be finished, or even if there will be money to finish it. Budget problems are holding the project back. “It’s all about the funds available to complete,” said Sonia Richards, the project manager for the W1 renovation. A large, anonymous donation is helping to fund this stage of the construction.

Because of a lack of clear plans and budget, there is no current indication of when the construction at W1 will be completed, though it will not be in the near future.

“It is very difficult for us to commit to any time frame,” Richards said. Currently, workers are repairing the exterior of the building. They plan to finish in January 2010, at which point they will begin interior demolition. That phase is scheduled through March 2010. Richards said there are no plans past next March.

Some preliminary plans have been confirmed. Richards said the dorm will have a dining facility. In planning the building, the historical aspect of Ashdown was kept in mind. “We are attempting to maintain the historical components in the building. That was one of our number one goals during the design of the project,” said Richards.

More freshmen also means more-crowded freshman classes. Already, classes like 7.012 and 3.091 are so big that the students cannot all fit into one lecture hall. Lectures have to be broadcast to overflow classrooms.

The Technology Enabled Active Learning courses, 8.01 (Physics I) and 8.02 (Physics II), are particularly hard to scale up. Both 8.01 and 8.02 are operating near maximum capacity. Peter A. Dourmashkin ’76, one of the developers of TEAL and a current 8.01 instructor, said that the issue isn’t as simple as space — adding more students goes “all the way around: more work, more students, more time.” In TEAL, the rooms are already almost at capacity, and ideally, they would be under capacity so that students can get more personal attention. Dourmashkin added that the problem “isn’t black or white.” MIT has to balance the national demand for more scientists and engineers with the difficulties of adding undergraduates. “I think [increasing class size] is worth it in terms of rewards across the large picture,” said Dourmashkin.

One way to increase enrollment without putting as much pressure on housing and the GIRs is to admit transfer students, who could live off-campus and may have passed out of most GIRs. MIT might also admit more transfer students of a particular major to fill departments that are operating under capacity.

But it is not clear that MIT has enough transfer applicants to pad out undergraduate enrollment. “A careful examination of the pool of transfer students needs to occur,” Schmill said. Every year, a couple hundred apply for transfer admissions, and about six percent, or 20 students, are admitted. If MIT were to suddenly decide to accept 50 or 100 transfers, it might not be able to find enough qualified students. Schmill said that the transfer students MIT currently takes are extremely talented, and that additional transfers would have to be just as talented.

Schmill said MIT might need to start recruiting transfer students in order to adequately increase class size.

MIT is not increasing undergraduate enrollment for the money, Schmill said. At this point, it is not even clear if MIT will make or lose money by admitting more students. More students means more tuition, but also more costs, to educate and house them. Because of need-blind admissions and MIT’s commitment to meeting all demonstrated need for admitted students, it is difficult to estimate whether there will be a net gain or loss of revenue from the addition of students. “Whether costs overwhelm tuition revenue, we don’t know at this point,” Schmill said.

MIT once had 4,500 undergraduates, when many freshmen lived at fraternities. MIT stopped that practice after a freshman died of alcohol intoxication in 1997. In order to fit the entire freshman class in the dormitories, MIT started admitting fewer freshmen.

Hastings says that the fact that MIT has successfully educated 4,500 undergraduates in the past indicates that it can happen again. “No one believes that the quality of our education then was somehow worse than now,” says Hastings. “The historical evidence is that we can teach 4,500 students and we can do it well.”

In the end, Schmill believes that despite the obstacles, increasing MIT’s student body will have a positive impact on campus. “There is an obvious advantage if you get more talented students — potential for student organizations, sports teams, music, classes … the campus would benefit in a really big way,” said Schmill. With any increase, however, there are risks that must be carefully evaluated, said Schmill, adding, “We want to make sure any sort of increase in undergraduate student body size wouldn’t have a negative impact on the educational experience”. Hastings also says that any increases that happen should not come at the cost of educational quality, but “the assumption is that the current size is optimal. The current size is what people know. There’s no evidence that the current size is optimal.”

You don’t always get into the college you want, but some students get a second chance.

Hundreds of students try to transfer to MIT every year. About 20 make it. Those lucky few have proven themselves at their own colleges, and have come to MIT looking for new challenges. For some, the Institute is everything they dreamed of. Others find the adjustment to MIT’s academic expectations and stressful lifestyle difficult. All of them give up schools which may have been easier, more social, or closer to home to come tool with the rest of the students at the Institute.

Many transfer applicants once tried to get in as freshmen, but were rejected. Associate admissions director McGreggor Crowley ’00, says that too many talented students apply for MIT to take them all. “Every year there are some amazing kids that we can’t admit as freshmen, and we hope that they apply as a transfer,” he says.

As hard as it is to get into MIT, it’s even harder to transfer in. Crowley says that there are very few spots for transfer students, who take the place of students who drop out, take a leave of absence or study abroad. This fall, only 6 percent of transfer applicants, or 24 students, were accepted. The regular admission rate was 10.2 percent. 21 of the 24 accepted transfer applicants chose to enroll at MIT.

Many students who were turned away the first time spend the next year at a backup college building their resumes. Shimeon Zerbib, a sophomore in courses 18 and 14, applied for the class of 2012 but was rejected. He was pretty sure he knew why he hadn’t gotten in: He had received his GED at 17 but never really graduated high school. Then he applied when he was 22, after spending 5 years out of school. After he was rejected, he started at New York University planning to transfer to MIT.

Crowley remembers Zerbib as a very strong applicant his first time around, but found a few things lacking in his application. Crowley was very happy to see Zerbib come back as a transfer. Zerbib had “been in the pipeline for a while,” Crowley says. The classes Zerbib took while at NYU were designed to fill whatever gaps there were in his application, and to serve as the prerequisites for a smooth transfer to MIT.

Crowley says that many students, like Zerbib, are in a much better position to apply after a year of college than after high school. Some students “really hit the ground running in college,” he says. “That’s the transformative element for them that makes them a very appealing transfer student.”

Sabine Schneider, now a sophomore in course 7, says her good grades at college and the close relationships she built with her professors at St. John’s University in New York helped her transfer to MIT. Though she had been rejected the first time, her professors at St. John’s recommended that she reapply.

It was a hard choice for Schneider to transfer. After she was denied at MIT, she immersed herself in college life at St. John’s. She didn’t want to obsess over what could have been. “Let’s buckle down, let’s do this,” she told herself. But Schneider was drawn by the allure of MIT’s biology program and cancer research labs, even though she’d built up a life and had friends at St. John’s. She was torn. It was difficult to motivate herself to fill out the transfer application.

But her doubts vanished as soon as she heard that she had been accepted. “I was like ‘Yeah, I’m going,’” she says.

Other students never even considered MIT when they started looking at colleges. Raghu Mahajan, a junior in Courses 8 and 18, was ranked first out of 200,000 on the standardized test which determines college placement in India. There’s a lot of pressure on you when you’re in the top ranks, Mahajan says. You’re expected to stay in India and major in the most prestigious subjects, which in India are computer science and electrical engineering. Mahajan chose to major in computer science at the India Institute of Technology in New Delhi.

But Mahajan soon realized he really wanted to study physics, and IIT would not let him change majors. His professors encouraged him to apply to MIT. They knew MIT was better for physics, he says.

Crowley says Mahajan, with his strong academic background, was an excellent candidate for a transfer student. He’ll have a Nobel Prize someday, Crowley says.

Some students realize they want to attend MIT only after seeing what life is like elsewhere. Christian Perez, a sophomore in Course 14, went to Northwestern University for a year but found that the curriculum was too easy for him. He knew he would have a much better chance at graduate school for economics if he went to a place like MIT with a more challenging curriculum and better research opportunities.

According to Crowley, students like Perez and Mahajan, who are driven to MIT after other schools have failed to give them what they need, stand out as transfer students because they will use the resources at MIT to their full advantage.

Crowley is extremely proud of MIT’s transfer students, speaking of them in glowing terms and calling them “future CEOs.” “They’re great kids,” he says.

The students themselves are not always so confident. Lekha Kuhananthan, a second-semester freshman, is grateful to be at MIT, but calls her acceptance “a happy fluke.” She doesn’t see what changed after she was denied the first time around. Zerbib feels like he’s still playing catch up at MIT. “I’m just a regular student,” he says, “there’s nowhere I can say — ‘oh, this is where I’m amazing.’” Since Zerbib hadn’t been in school for a long time before attending NYU, he felt had to relearn all of his study habits.

Schneider also feels that she started off behind in her classes. She says she feels a little inferior, especially compared to the freshmen who have placed ahead into her sophomore level classes, that she’s so far behind and can’t change it.

Schneider compares being a new transfer student to being an older freshman. “You’re new to this whole thing,” she says. Transfer students have to deal with many of the same adjustment issues that freshmen do, but they don’t get the same advantages.

All transfers, regardless of how many years they’ve spent at their previous college, start as sophomores at MIT. Transfer students can petition, like Kuhananthan did, to start as a second semester freshman, which means they don’t have to declare a major, and they get an extra semester of financial aid. Many transfer students start their first semester in GIR classes like 3.091 and 18.02, which are full of newly minted freshmen, but, unlike those freshmen, transfer students don’t get pass/no record grading. This can be frustrating for people like Zerbib who try to work in study groups only to find the freshmen have different goals. “People are studying for a 50, and you’re studying for a 100,” says Zerbib.

Most transfer students find that the academic bar at MIT is set much higher than at their previous college. Schneider says the professors at St. John’s broke their material down into bite size pieces and fed it to them in lecture, a method she hasn’t seen at MIT. Schneider often finds her classes here much more satisfying. “For the first time in my life I have the feeling that my exam grades really count for something,” she says. At other times, it’s extremely frustrating. I know exactly how much easier this would be somewhere else, she says. When she showed her old friends at St. John’s one of her Organic Chemistry tests, they responded “Oh, this is hard.”

Kuhananthan also both enjoys and struggles with the academics at MIT. “At UT I was always at the top, and here I finally know what it’s like to struggle and earn a grade,” she says. “It’s a challenge, and I think that’s what I love about it.”

The transfer students say that students are more serious here, but also tighter-knit. “People here are very focused on doing very well in what they do,” says Zerbib. He feels that MIT and NYU are both excellent schools, but describes the atmosphere at MIT as “more my style.” Schneider likes that students bond over difficult courses. At St. John’s she describes the atmosphere as students versus students, while at MIT she sees it more as students against the institution. “It’s just wonderful, the feeling of community,” she says of MIT.

Many MIT students are involved in sports and extracurriculars, taking advantage of the broad offerings available in both categories. When Kuhananthan transferred in she noticed that “everybody seems to have some type of passion or something they’re interested in.” Kuhananthan has been trying her hand at various student activities: Most recently, she has been involved in the Musical Theatre Guild.

A lot of transfer students come from schools where sports played a much bigger role than at MIT. Kuhananthan’s previous school in Texas was obsessed with football, and she likes that she doesn’t feel the same pressure at MIT. “Here’s it’s OK if you don’t notice sports,” she says.

Schneider and Perez both came from schools where they played very competitive sports. Perez misses having more people to play tennis with. Schneider was on a Division I track and cross country team at St. John’s, a sport she has continued here, but MIT’s team is in a lower division. Schneider does note how impressed she was that MIT sports were so inclusive and almost all teams take novices. That’s a “really special thing about MIT,” she says.

There are often many more resources available at MIT than at a transfer student’s previous college. Mahajan likes how much technology is available to students, and admits the Internet connection in his IIT dormitory was painfully slow. In general, Perez observes that “everything seems to be upgraded — besides the dining.”

The move to Boston also introduces some stark differences for some transfer students. Zerbib calls Boston a “little cute village” compared to New York City and doesn’t like the fact that everything, even the T, closes at night. “MIT’s not in the center of the Village,” he says, referring to NYU’s placement in the middle of Greenwich Village, a lively neighborhood of New York. Kuhananthan complains that even in November the weather is already freezing. Although, she says, laughingly, “I did buy a coat.”

This occasional feature follows up on news stories long past their prime. In this edition: the dismissal of long-time Student Support Services Dean Jacqueline Simonis and what caused the faculty uproar over her departure.

On June 22, 2009, Jacqueline Simonis was abruptly dismissed from her job as associate dean and co-director of Student Support Services after 23 years at MIT.

According to a July 9 letter written from six faculty members to former faculty chairs, Simonis was told she was being laid off due to budget cuts and that her job would end immediately.

“She was told that she was expected to be available to coordinate the transfer of her responsibilities while working from home,” the letter stated. “She was not allowed to speak with her colleagues in private, nor to return to work in her office.”

Around the same time, Dean for Student Life Chris Colombo lowered S^3’s reporting rank within the Division of Student Life and moved to initiate an administrative review of S^3’s services.

Neither Colombo nor any other administrator had consulted faculty members about the decision to lay off Simonis, the decision to restructure S^3, or the decision to initiate a review of S^3.

These actions aggravated some faculty members and prompted a flurry of letters and heated discussions. The faculty had three major concerns, which Clay summarized in an article in the September/October issue of the Faculty Newsletter:

¶ first, that such important changes had been made without faculty consultation;

¶ second, that the changes might “degrade” S^3’s quality of service;

¶ and last, that the manner in which Simonis was dismissed was “inconsistent with Institute culture and procedures.”

A July 2 letter addressed to Clay from current and former faculty members of the Committee on Academic Performance lamented the changes to S^3: “The academic careers (and even lives) of innumerable MIT students have been saved … thanks to [Simonis’s] work … These recent actions … have created a tentativeness within the Student Support Office and the overall support system for our students.”

The Committee on Academic Performance decides when to give students academic warnings or require them to withdraw from the Institute. S^3 advises CAP on many students’ cases, and the S^3 deans “often have a much better picture than anyone else of what’s going on,” said Jessica T. McKellar G, who was CAP member for three years as an undergraduate.

“We do not believe that CAP can properly fulfill its duties to the faculty in collaboration with a Student Support Office in such a state,” the CAP letter to Clay went on.

The letter recommended that the Simonis layoff and other interim changes be reversed since they “put the Institute’s core mission at risk.”

In response to these concerns, Faculty Chair Thomas A. Kochan arranged a meeting between concerned faculty, Clay, Vice Chancellor Steven R. Lerman PhD ’80, and Colombo, during which, “All parties … acknowledge[d] the seriousness of the issues and concerns raised by the faculty,” according to an article in the September/October Faculty Newsletter.

At this meeting, faculty and administrators agreed to create a joint faculty-administration-student task force to review S^3.

The committee, which is co-chaired by Professor W. Eric L. Grimson PhD ’80 and Lerman, will not address the significance or circumstances of Simonis’s layoff or the interim changes planned during the summer, which were rolled back before the 2009 fall term began. The committee was also not specifically asked to address budget cuts that affect S^3.

The task force was originally due to submit its report to Clay on October 30 and has not yet done so, but should “very soon,” Clay wrote in an e-mail yesterday.

Discussion with administrators and the task force’s creation has renewed some faculty members’ faith in the administration and in S^3’s ability to support students. Active discussion about the events that provoked a storm over the summer appears to have ceased.

Still, concerns linger among other faculty who never felt satisfied by the administrative response to their grievances.

Professor and former member of the faculty Committee on Student Life John W. Belcher said he, too, was upset that faculty, including those on the CSL, were not consulted prior to Simonis layoff. Belcher said that in his 38 years at the Institute, “I’ve never quite seen this kind of reaction.”

He said he is “still not happy with the actions” that have been taken to resolve faculty concerns. He sees “the appearance of a conflict of interest” in the membership of the S^3 task force: Since three of its members report to Clay, the group’s work “doesn’t have the appearance of an independent review.”

Several faculty and administrators, including Clay, Kochan, and task force members Professor and CAP Chair David A. Pesetsky, Grimson, and Colombo did not respond to or declined requests to be interviewed for this article stating variously that it would not be appropriate to discuss S^3 while it was undergoing review.

The events that transpired over the summer had, thus far, only been detailed publicly in the September/October issue of the Faculty Newsletter, which is the source of all letters excerpted in this article.

While Simonis’s dismissal from S^3 will not be reversed, her legacy as a dean lives, perhaps most powerfully in the minds of students whose lives she directly impacted.

Grace Kenney ’07, who worked with Simonis both before and after she took time off from MIT, said she was shocked when she found out in an October 25 e-mail on the ec-discuss mailing list that Simonis had been laid off.

Kenney said that Simonis helped through an academic crisis in her sophomore year. “Things were spiraling out of control and I couldn’t figure out how to get back on track,” Kenney said. Simonis “got me to calm down and helped me figure out a plan to get things back together,” she said.

During that time, Kenney met with Simonis every one or two weeks. Later, around the time of her graduation, she stopped by Simonis’s office to thank her for her support earlier on. Kenney is now a PhD student at Northwestern University.

Sari A. Canelake ’10, who also worked with Simonis during a period of academic struggles, learned about Simonis’ dismissal in the same ec-discuss e-mail.

She said Simonis helped her decide not to drop out of MIT, take a year off, and switch courses (from 5 to 6). Later, she reviewed Canelake’s application to be readmitted to MIT.

“I felt like she cared that I was doing poorly and happy that I was doing well,” said Canelake, which was especially valuable since “My parents have never really been involved in my education.”

When she discovered that Simonis had been laid off, “my jaw dropped,” Canelake said. “It was like finding out your close family member left.”

The Division of Student Life’s decision to dismiss Simonis made them seem “out of touch” with the student body, the very group it is their job to serve, said Canelake.

McKellar said that Simonis’s experience made her “a very good advocate for students” and gave her “a good sense of when student could come back and be successful.”

The death of Kabelo Zwane, a sophomore studying mechanical engineering, has been ruled a suicide, according to Terrel Harris of the Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety and Security.

Zwane was found dead in a wooded area in Bedford, Mass. on November 7 by a hiker. A plastic bag containing helium was wrapped around his head. The body was released to relatives in Swaziland on November 16.

Walk-in counseling is available weekdays in E23 from 2–4 p.m. People may also call 617-253-2916.

“He was the sweetest guy I’ve every met … a really kind, soft spoken person,” said Holly B. Sweet, associate director of Experimental Study Group and Zwane’s freshman advisor.

A memorial service will be held after the Thanksgiving holiday, according to Institute chaplain Robert M. Randolph.

—Nick Bushak

Why does anyone still question capitalism as the basic engine for economic growth? From what used to be the Soviet Union to China, capitalism has gained recognition as the best way to achieve broad-based economic success. However, individuals like Alexi Goranov, who wrote an article for the November 20 issue of The Tech (“Capitalism and Functioning Democracy Are At Odds”), believe that capitalism is inherently flawed. This is ignorance.

Capitalism has flaws, but these are flaws in implementation and are not inherent to the concept. Everyone must recognize this. There is a tendency, in times of financial turmoil, to declare the end of capitalism. It is a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument: Because the crisis occurred in capitalist countries, capitalism must have caused the crisis. Of course, the financial crisis and subsequent recession demonstrate that something went wrong. Too much greed, a lack of transparency in financial markets and the housing bubble all played some role in the collapse. Exactly what went wrong is up for debate, but a recession certainly does not prove the failure of capitalism. It merely needs a tune-up.

The climate is ripe for opponents of capitalism to take aim. Preying on economic fears, opponents make seemingly reasonable arguments against capitalism. These arguments are only reasonable because of the economic climate. Suggestions for less capitalism rest upon an assumption that the solutions are better than the problem.

Goranov’s argument is based on logical fallacies and misrepresentations from the beginning. He defines the right to equality as “the right to equal access to labor and life.” He assumes that these principles do not exist in a capitalist society. Equality of opportunity defines a capitalist society. Likewise, there is no logical reason why the right to life cannot exist in a capitalist society. The United States Declaration of Independence cites “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” among inalienable rights. The biggest violators of the right to life have not been capitalist countries, but communist countries!

Capitalism works. Opponents of capitalism can bring up examples of when alternative economic structures have worked, but these are trivial cases. Goranov cites small-scale collectives in areas near Barcelona during the Spanish Civil War as examples of the success of collectivization while ignoring the biggest examples of collectivization. The large-scale examples, the examples that matter, are of colossal failure. Collectivization in the Soviet Union led to bread lines and economic collapse. Mao’s Great Leap Forward led to widespread famine.

Compare that to the United States. Although we have poverty, it has never neared the scale of any largely collectivized economy.

Goranov could make an effective case for changing capitalism. His evidence of corporate bullying, using the example of the pharmaceutical industry, provides a compelling reason to try and address that problem. However, it is not the case for communism, collectivization, or socialism. It is the case for fixing capitalism’s flaws.

Fixing capitalism might involve some level of greater government intervention in the economy. Ensuring transparency in financial markets, regulating the shadow banking system and reorganizing effectively nationalized financial institutions are all options to help repair capitalism in the United States. While some may label these measures socialist, they unquestionably leave the market-driven economy largely intact. The implications of Mr. Goranov’s article are too extreme. The United States can adjust its economy without overturning it.

There is a reason why the United States is the sole economic superpower in the world. Free markets have allowed America to become enormously prosperous. Some segments of society have benefitted more from this prosperity than others. To fix this, we can tailor economic policy to benefit society as a whole, but we must never take away economic freedom.

Charles B. Barr is a member of the Class of 2013.

On December 7, world leaders will descend on Copenhagen for the United Nations Climate Change Conference to determine the future of planet Earth. Or at least they should. So far only 65 national leaders have actually committed to attending the talks. Notable absentees include president Hu Jintao of China and Barack Obama. These politicians, by waiting until the last moment to commit to attending the conference, hope to be portrayed in the media as the saviors of the planet, as the deal clinchers for a sustainable future. Unfortunately, they will be disappointed. Not only will the world not be saved in Copenhagen, because there will not be a treaty to sign, but also there is only one man who can truly salvage the process and play the hero: Barack Obama.

The number of Americans who believe that anthropogenic global warming is occurring has fallen to almost a third. The majority simply do not think it’s that big a problem. This surge in skepticism is the result of public fatigue with the threat of climate change (it’s difficult to understand, the messages we receive are contradictory, and its effects seem far away) and also because of the recession. Climate change isn’t quite as scary as unemployment.

But the scientific consensus hasn’t changed ­— only public opinion. Yes, we have been in a short period of global cooling, but I’d be more suspicious if the temperature changes were linear: Climate is sufficiently stochastic to make variation expected and so what matters is the trend, not the fluctuation. Which means climate change is just as serious a problem as it was in 2006, when 77 percent of Americans believed global warming was occurring. Despite the slump in public support, climate change requires international attention more than ever.

To limit the global temperature rise to 2°C (36°F), we need to cut emissions by 50 percent before 2050. Should the average global temperature rise exceed 2°C, the game may be up and we will truly be at the mercy of an increasingly inhospitable climate. To reduce exposing ourselves to this climate risk, we have to try both adaptation and mitigation. Adaptation involves developed countries paying $100 billion into the so-called “Mexico fund.” This money will be spent in developing countries to help cope with climate change (80 percent of the impacts of climate change will be felt in the developing world). Mitigation, on the other hand, requires both an 80 percent cut of emissions from developed nations and a 25 percent cut by the industrializing countries.

The need for international cooperation is revealed by the rise of China. Although 77 percent of anthropogenic greenhouse gases have in the past been from the developed world countries, China is now the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter, and under business-as-usual China would emit as much greenhouse gases in the next 40 years as the U.S. has done since the industrial revolution. So, to prevent climate change, Obama needs to get the Chinese on board. The question is: How?

Above all, any climate treaty will depend on international trust. The Chinese are concerned about environmental issues: spending on their “Green New Deal” reached $221 billion (compared to the paltry $23 billion spent by the E.U., and $112 billion spent by the U.S.), but they will not commit to further reductions in carbon dioxide emissions if they do not think that the U.S. and other developed countries will stick to their side of the bargain. And they have every reason to be suspicious.

Although the E.U. has instituted a carbon-trading scheme and reduced its carbon emissions in line with the Kyoto Treaty, the U.S. lags behind other developed nations in its environmental efforts. The United States signed, but never congressionally ratified Kytoto and instead of the 7 percent reduction of carbon emissions intended, the U.S. has since then increased its emissions by 16.8 percent. Similarly, healthcare reform currently dominates the political agenda, delaying the establishment of a carbon-trading market. The Chinese see this, and rightly ask whether it is believable that the US will actually be able to cut their emissions by the required amount.

For the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference to be a success, as part of a “one treaty, two steps” approach, requires the following: there must be agreement on domestic policies for reducing emissions in the developing world, the creation of the “Mexico fund” to pay for adaptation in the developing world, true emissions reduction targets for the developed nations, the creation of a body to assess whether countries are making sufficient efforts to meet their targets, and finally, a roadmap for the signing of a treaty in 2010. For any of these goals to materialize, President Obama must turn up in Copenhagen to reassure the Chinese that the U.S. is ready to take a lead on an issue they have long shirked responsibility over. Obama must also announce America’s short-term emission reduction targets, say 25 percent by 2020, to prove that the U.S. is ready to act now, and not at some point in the indefinite future. If Obama doesn’t take Copenhagen seriously, we will all be left to face the disastrous consequences of climate change.

Erasmus K. zu Ermgassen is an exchange student from the University of Cambridge in the Cambridge-MIT Exchange program.

In its second straight appearance at the NCAA Division III Championship, the MIT women’s cross country team improved to a fifth-place showing at Saturday’s national meet, hosted by Baldwin-Wallace College in Berea, Ohio. Maria J. Monks ’10 and Jacqueline M. Wentz ’10 led the way for the Cardinal and Grey, as each earned All-American honors, the first such accolades for the program since 1998. Monks’ 13th-place finish marks the best individual effort at the NCAA Championship in school history.

Monks’s time of 22:29.5 easily eclipsed the previous Institute standard, a 26th-place showing by Debbie Won ’00 in 1998. Wentz also had an impressive performance, crossing the finish with a time of 22:43.6 and in 29th. Alina E. Gatowski ’11 (23:08.2) narrowly missed the top 50 with her 51st-place standing. Tania K. Morimoto ’12 came through the chute in 23:49.1, good for 128th overall. Brooke C. Johnson ’13’s time of 23:58.8 was good for 145th, and 23rd best among all freshmen at the meet.

The Cardinal and Grey was able to improve upon its 10th-place showing in 2008, the only other NCAA Championship appearance in program history, and finish among the top five teams in all of Division III. Tech finished just 10 points behind defending national champion Middlebury’s total of 245. The two teams shared the New England Regional title a week ago. Wisconsin-Eau Claire won the team Championship with 171 points. Wendy Pavlus of St. Lawrence was the individual winner, finishing in 21:28.0.

Coach Halston Taylor has developed the program into one of the top squads in New England and nationally. Although the Engineers will miss the senior leadership of Monks and Wentz, five of the top seven runners will return next year.

MIT Men’s basketball improved to 3-0 this weekend with two wins in the Tip-Off Tournament at RPI. The Engineers blew out John Abbott College 78-38 in the first round, and edged host RPI 56-55 in the final.

In the finals matchup against RPI, neither team was able to put the game away late in the second half, as both teams had several missed opportunities. The winning shot by Erik S. Zuk ’11 came with 13 seconds left, off a missed free RPI free throw.

Mitchell H. Kates ’13 was named the Tournament MVP and joined Noel Hollingsworth ’12 on the All-Tournament team. MIT returns to action on Tuesday at Curry College.

—David Zhu, Sports Editor

In a rematch of last year’s seventh-place game of the Eastern Championships, the MIT Men’s Water Polo Team topped Iona College 9-8 on Sunday in the Z-Center pool. Devin M. Lewis ’10 and Mark E. Artz ’10 had three goals apiece as the Engineers built an early lead and were able to hang on for the win. Columbus P. Leonard ‘12 led the MIT defense with six saves in goal

MIT finishes its season with a 9-16 overall record, including 3-3 in conference play.

—David Zhu, Sports Editor

It is the year 2012. The end of the world as we know is fast approaching. Due to a rare planetary alignment, an unprecedented solar flare is heating up the Earth’s core to the point that the crust will destabilize. The ensuing seismic and volcanic activity followed by gigantic tsunamis are bound to wipe out all life from Earth. There is no way to stop the cataclysm. But there may be a way to weather it out. Or is there?

Roland Emmerich’s latest blockbuster is an apocalyptic movie in the vein of his other well-known productions, like Independence Day and The Day After Tomorrow. Long, yet tenuous, 2012 offers front seats to one of the most incredible disasters depicted on screen. The computer graphics and the amazing cinematography blend seamlessly and are likely to captivate even the sternest audiences. Few movies have come close to depicting, in such brilliant colors and bold camera angles, the fury of nature unleashed. Human civilization and all of natural life are brought to their knees and then utterly destroyed in a glorious spectacle that is more awe-inspiring than horrifying.

Unfortunately, when compared to such outstanding graphic depiction of the disaster, mankind’s desperate struggle for survival appears secondary. Indeed, there is a plot where characters we are supposed to identify with are scrambling away and coming up with Biblical plans (ha! that almost gives it away, right?). However, the plotline never quite unfolds. The disaster is too neutral and perfect to contend with. On the one hand, there is no real villain. In Independence Day, there were the aliens. In The Day After Tomorrow, mankind itself, especially highly developed countries were being pointed at for causing the climate changes that led to the disaster.

However, in 2012 there is no one at fault. The planetary disaster just happens — impartial and immovable like the laws of physics. In addition, the choice of protagonists doesn’t contribute to delivering the plot. While they realistically depict our society with all its rotten pragmatism and whimsical squabbles, they fail to convey the reasons for which they should be alive by the end of the movie. There is barely any love, any emotion.

Unlike other disaster movies, such as Armageddon or even Titanic, which are heavily drenched in sentimentalism to keep the audiences engaged (the feeble hearted ones, at least), 2012 maintains a rather distant emotional perspective. Although it surely sets a record for the casualty count, 2012 fails to make us empathize with it. Most dying people feel serene, almost happy to be done with. Those who do fight, have usually so little screen time that we barely acknowledge them. I wonder if Emmerich tried to make a point in not indulging in any sappiness or simply failed at it. In all its glorious 2 hours and 45 minutes, 2012 can barely squeeze a few tears, with some of the very few incongruous and awkwardly placed romantic scenes.

Despite the shortcomings of the script, the cast does a decent job in bringing to their (often short) life the characters of the movie. John Cusack’s portrayal of the aloof writer caring for his divorced wife and children is quite believable. Amanda Peet in the role of the divorced wife is less impressive. An exciting performance by Chiwetel Ejiofor as one of the scientists that predicts the disaster will surely give all scientists and especially geologists a field day. But then again, all disaster movies do. Other notable presences are Thandie Newton and Danny Glover, but their screen time is disappointingly short.

Despite its cataclysmic premise, 2012 develops some internal humor. Some of the funny overtones are cleverly woven in, playing especially on social and ethnic stereotypes. Other funny moments are probably unintentional, derived from the unlikely heroics of the protagonists. However, these light-hearted moments will most likely play the biggest role in keeping you entertained to the end. Despite failing to be a masterpiece, 2012 is nevertheless the ultimate apocalypse movie and may be worth a Blockbuster rental.

Emotionally, physically, and sexually abused by both her mother and father, Clareece “Precious” Jones is born into a life that no one would ever want to be born into. As the terribly child-like and misspelled opening credits scrawl across the screen, it’s difficult not to gasp at the horror of her illiteracy. “Who let this happen?” you ask. “Who could possibly be so heartless?”

If you haven’t heard of Precious, a Lee Daniels’ film based on the novel Push by Sapphire, then you should check it out. It was in the Official Selection at the 2009 Cannes Film Festival, won three awards at Sundance, and won the Audience Award at the Toronto Film Festival. As Oprah Winfrey put it, the film “split [her] open.” And I have to say, I mostly agree.

Precious (played by new actress Gabourey Sidibe) is a sixteen-year-old African American girl who managed to make it to the 9th grade without the ability to read or write beyond her own name. She is morbidly obese and seemingly apathetic towards life. But as we soon see, the characters in this film are shaped by circumstance and abuse. At home in Harlem, Precious is subject to both physical and verbal violence by her mother Mary (Mo’Nique). Mary is lazy and cruel, living off welfare and forcing her daughter to wait on her hand and foot. The only time Precious ever sees her father is when he rapes her − resulting in two children by the age of seventeen. Her mother blames her for the rape, calling her worthless and stupid.

At school, Precious is a case that the education system just passes by. She sits at the back, doesn’t speak, and doesn’t let on how poor her reading capabilities really are. When offered the chance to transfer to an alternative school, Each One/Teach One, Precious seizes the opportunity, despite her mother’s rants that she’s too dumb for school and ought to just go on “the welfare.”

What’s so likable about Precious as a character is her resilience. She dreams of being famous and loved, perks up when she talks about math, her favorite subject, and puts on makeup to go to school. Her childish hopes stand in the face of everyone that pushes her down, though she only lets her real self through to her caring and patient teacher, Ms. Rain (Paula Patton).

The acting in Precious is phenomenal. Precious gives a stunning performance in a difficult part, subtly revealing her character’s vibrant interior through the shell of indifference that she shows the world. Mo’Nique, as Mary, is show-stopping as a hateful, ruthless woman who herself has suffered at the hands of her husband; her performance is Oscar-worthy. Patton (Ms. Rain) is absolutely beautiful, both in her passion as a teacher and in her genuine love for Precious, while social worker Mrs. Weiss − played excellently by Mariah Carey − is realistically tough yet gentle-hearted. If you see this movie for nothing else, appreciate these actors’ efforts to bring this heart-breaking story to life on the screen.

Though I admire this film on many levels, I have to admit that the overall effect is not as powerful as I would’ve expected. Precious’ accomplishments seem somewhat glossed over, and even by the end of the film her hopes appear frustratingly futile against the obstacles still in her life. I left the theater more depressed than anything. On the one hand, I respect the rawness with which the filmmakers laid out her life, but on the other, I feel the film failed to reach the audience as profoundly as it could have.

This is one of those films that will impact every viewer in a different way. While I thought that overall the film fell short of its potential, I can’t overlook the marked honesty in its presentation. My best advice is to brace yourself, go to the theater, and judge Precious for yourself.

The Twilight scene is a cult. This is a fact. Granted, about 95 percent of the cult is female, so perhaps a “far-reaching fanbase” would be a more appropriate description. According to my friend, who did a headcount, out of the 196 viewers in my theater, there were only 12 male audience members.

You need to be in a particular mood to watch any of the Twilight movies. You need to be able to laugh about cheesy lines, somewhat bad acting, and have the capacity to withstand at least five girls around you ogle shamelessly at topless actors. When I dragged a few of my friends to the New Moon premiere, I justified to myself that I was only attending the premiere to relieve a week of stress by tapping into my inner teenybopper. What I didn’t expect to do was squeal along with the legions of other college girls.

The bulk of the book is devoted to Bella coping with the absence of Edward (and really, it’s probably harder for the fervent fangirls to cope with his absence), and she is able to slowly recuperate through the aid of Jacob Black, her younger Quileute Indian friend. While most fans of the book series regard New Moon as one of the worst in the quartet because the brooding lead male is missing for roughly 400 pages, the film is able to convert more than a few passionate Team Edward fans to Team Jacob fans.

Knowing the lukewarm appreciation of fans for the second book, the director tried a little too hard to draw the audience in. While Edward was all enigma, post-cordially rumpled hair and lascivious gazes in the first film, the gaunt-faced immortal only appears in the beginning and ending twenty minutes of New Moon. While many fans of the pasty-faced vampire may wail, fear not. If you are nondiscriminatory in your appreciation for good-looking boys, do not turn away so quickly. Taylor Lautner was able to reprise the role of Jacob only after he promised to work out extensively because the director believed that he wasn’t “strong-looking enough” for New Moon. Jacob Black is supposedly the pillar of both emotional and physical support for Bella when an incident causes Edward to depart. Lautner has bulked up for the role, resulting in perfectly toned abs and alarming biceps — a sight that the director never fails to capitalize on.

The predicted shift in numbers from Team Edward to Team Jacob lies in the sheer contrast of the characters as portrayed on screen. While in the book Jacob can be relegated to being the cute but obnoxious younger boy who follows you around like a lost puppy, Taylor Lautner is able to bring to Jacob a depth that was never fully explored in the book. Because Stephanie Meyer’s quartet always returned to the epic love story between Bella and Edward, no matter how adoring or toned Bella’s admirer Jacob is, he never stood a chance against Bella’s steadfast devotion to Edward.

In the film rendition of New Moon, Jacob gives Edward a run for his money. Whereas Edward’s brief scenes comprise of only furrowed eyebrows, anguished pursed lips and sighs of a Shakespearean Hamlet, Jacob is a completely different story. With the generous amount of screen time allocated to Lautner, he is able to ensnare the audience with his portrayal of Jacob Black. Warm, sincere, and struck with an innocent love for Bella, Jacob has the capacity to wrench hearts with his soulful brown eyes. The fact that the boy also possesses a pinup-worthy body doesn’t hurt either. Lautner’s performance allows me to believe that he is a promising young actor and New Moon has only pushed him into the realm of celebrity-dom faster.

While Edward’s departure from Bella is a bit rushed, I think the director should be condemned more for his amateur transitions. To show the passage of time in Edward’s absence, Bella is huddled in front of her bedroom window overlayed with floating text of the month. The CGI is terrible, action scenes are all slowed down to the point of being ridiculously contrived, and the cinematography is mediocre at best. I can understand the poor action scenes — we all know that Twilight isn’t exactly the Matrix series. However, since it is not, stop trying to emulate action films. It only cheapens those parts more and underscores the directors’ negligence for the fighting scenes.

Ultimately, New Moon is able to pull through. Little moments throughout the film make it so much more enjoyable. For instance, Dakota Fanning has a brief cameo. With her sleekly swept chignon and charcoal-darkened eyes, Fanning leaves a lasting impression despite her sparse screen time. Also be sure to brace yourself for the scenes where Jacob unceremoniously takes off his shirt. The loud squeals will remind you again that you are watching a B-rated film with the likes of teenyboppers (in both mind and age).

An anxious group exited the Symphony T stop at the Green Line, bee lining to the greeters at the door of Symphony Hall. Exactly at 8:03 p.m., the symphony finished tuning and welcomed the rushed audience with a sweet poem: “Pastorale d’été,” a symphonic poem by Arthur Honegger. Honnegger’s style in “Pastorale d’été,” generally associated with the 1920s avant-garde, contrasts with his peers’ — coined the “Groupe des Six” — in that Honegger believed that the new era of music resulted from transitioning from the traditional, as opposed to cleanly breaking away. He embraced the value in balance and virtue, which is exhibited in “Pastorale d’été.” One flute, an oboe, a clarinet, a bassoon, a horn, and strings create a lyrical song of a pleasant summer day in the fields.

The melodious “Pastorale d’été” prepared the audience for the true treat of the evening: 21-year-old French piano soloist Lise de la Salle. De la Salle has toured extensively — including performances in Paris, London, the Lucerne Festival Piano Series, Stuttgart, Copenhagen, Luxemburg, Munich, and Berlin. Furthermore, two of her recordings have been awarded Gramophone’s “Recording of the Month.” She has also been featured in Vanity Fair Germany. De la Salle began playing the piano at age 4 and at age 13, made her debut in Avignon and Paris. She then began her impressive career at that age by touring with the Orchestre National d’Ile de France. More information on de la Salle is available at www.lisedelasalle.com.

She performed Saint-Saëns’s Piano Concerto No. 2 in G Minor, Opus 22 — a significant performance; Saint-Saëns’s final performance of the piece in 1906 was also with the Boston Symphony Orchestra. Paralleling Saint-Saëns’s mastery of technique, de la Salle impressed the audience with the deft and lucid finger work that the piece required. All three movements of the piece, although each colored by their own tone, calls for intense focus and concentration. The final Presto movement required constant movement up and down the keyboard. In contrast to the somewhat playful air of Saint-Saëns’s piano concerto, the lasting impression left by the quality of Lise de la Salle’s performance and talent characterized the evening. After her performance, the audience’s applause forced de la Salle to return to the stage three separate times. Every time, la Salle humbly accepted the praise.

The second half of the evening was less remarkable. The full symphony performed “Petrushka,” by Igor Stravinsky. The piece seemed incomplete; the scenery, dancers, and sets were missed for this ballet score. The audience was at best mildly enthusiastic towards the performance.

The Boston Symphony Orchestra continues its 2009–2010 season with a performance featuring Sir James Galway, the Women of the Tanglewood Festival Choir, and John Oliver as the conductor. This performance will take place November 19–21. Other artists for this season include Joshua Bell, Yo-Yo Ma, and Frank Peter Zimmerman. For interested students, there is also an open rehearsal, usually on the Wednesday evening before the performances, with reduced priced tickets. View the Boston Symphony Orchestra website — bso.org — for more information.