this issue features an overview of the relationship between MIT andSingapore by Tom Magnanti (page 8); our MIT Profiles, highlighting Adèle NaudéSantos (page16); Teach Talk, “First Response Education: New Orleans Comesto MIT” (page 20); and our new From The Archives, offering “The Implication ofMega-Partnerships for MIT Faculty” (page 22).

MITFacultyNewsletter

Vol. XIX No. 2November/December 2006

AT T H E S E P T E M B E R FAC U LT Y

meeting, Dean Robert Silbey, the chair ofthe Task Force on the UndergraduateEducational Commons, formally pre-sented their report to the faculty. Thisreport was commissioned in 2003 bythen-President Vest. Most of us hadalready been at one or more of thenumerous departmental and open meet-ings that the Task Force organized, but thepresentation of the final report to thefaculty as a whole is an important transi-tion point in our reconsideration of ourstudents’ educational experiences at MIT.

The Task Force’s work engaged someof our colleagues who are most deeplycommitted to undergraduate educationin a broad examination of almost everyaspect of undergraduate education. Asthe report’s authors noted, the last majorchange in our degree requirements was

continued on page 6

http://web.mit.edu/fnl

MassachusettsInstitute ofTechnology

Steven Lerman

From The Faculty ChairUndergraduateEducationReconsidered

continued on page 3

EditorialStudent-DrivenActivities at MIT

TH E SU PE R B QUALITY OF our stu-dents, both graduate and undergraduate,is the number one reason given by ourcolleagues for choosing to teach orconduct research at MIT. Not only areMIT students in a class by themselves asscholars, they are also very energetic,ambitious, and enterprising beyond theclassroom. The surprisingly large numberof student-initiated and student-drivenactivities and teams on campus prove this(see table, page 4). Not primarily initiatedby the administration or faculty, nor partof the regular curriculum, these activitiesare generated and sustained by the stu-dents themselves.

Many of these student projects operatewithout significant support from theInstitute. The students’ level of commit-ment is remarkable, but MIT can domuch better in supporting them. In this

L. Rafael Reif

MIT’s financial structure and recenthistoryM I T H A S S E E N S I G N I F I CA N T

increases in its overall financial resourcesover the last decade. As a result of growthin financial markets and extensive fundraising campaigns, the Institute’s netassets increased from $2.5B at the end ofFY1996 to $10.1B in FY2006, represent-ing a cumulative annual growth rate of14.8%. At the same time, as a result ofincreases in instructional activity andsponsored research, MIT’s annual opera-tions have almost doubled during thesame period, increasing from $1.2B inFY1996 to $2.2B in FY2006.

While net assets have grown roughlytwice as much as operating expenses, theavailability of financial resources has beenasymmetrical across MIT’s four operat-ing categories: General Institute Budget

FinancialFoundation forMIT’s Future

continued on page 12

MIT Motorsports’ 2006 Car

Vol. XIX No. 2 November/December 2006

2

The MIT FacultyNewsletterEditorial Board

Alice AmsdenUrban Studies and Planning

*John BelcherPhysics

Nazli ChoucriPolitical Science

Erik DemaineElectrical Engineering & Computer Science

*Olivier de WeckAeronautics & Astronautics/Engineering Systems

*Ernst G. FrankelOcean Engineering

Stephen C. GravesManagement Science and Engineering Systems

Jean E. JacksonAnthropology

Gordon KaufmanManagement Science and Statistics

Daniel S. KempChemistry

Samuel J. KeyserLinguistics & Philosophy

Jonathan KingBiology

Stephen J. LippardChemistry

David H. MarksCivil and Environmental Engineering

Fred MoavenzadehCivil & Environmental Engineering/Engineering Systems

Ronald PrinnEarth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences

*David ThorburnLiterature

George VergheseElectrical Engineering and Computer Science

Rosalind H. WilliamsSTS and Writing

David LewisManaging Editor

*Editorial Sub-Committee for this issue

AddressMIT Faculty NewsletterBldg. 11-268Cambridge, MA 02139

Websitehttp://web.mit.edu/fnl

Telephone 617-253-7303Fax 617-253-0458Email fnl@mit.edu

Subscriptions$15/year on campus$20/year off campus

From The 01 Undergraduate Education ReconsideredFaculty Chair Steven Lerman

01 Financial Foundation for MIT’s FutureL. Rafael Reif

Editorial 01 Student-Driven Activities at MIT

In Memoriam 07 Stephen J. Madden, Jr.

08 MIT and SingaporeTom Magnanti

15 Teaching and Challenging Engineers . . . to EngineerErnst G. Frankel

MIT Profiles 16 Adèle Naudé Santos

MIT Poetry 19 Written in Pencil; February LunchWilliam Corbett

Teach Talk 20 First Response Education: New Orleans Comes to MITHolly Sweet

21 Do MIT Students Ever Sleep?

From The Archives 22 The Implication of Mega-Partnerships for MIT FacultyRobert B. McKersie

24 FitFaculty@MITKim Schive

25 Helping Students Become Better WritersRebecca Blevins Faery

26 A Century of MIT at a Glance

M.I.T. Numbers 28 MIT Faculty and Students (1900-2007)

contents

Photo credits: Page 1, Alex Slocum, Jr.; Page 11, Deric Stucker; Page 20, Sebastian Bögershausen; Page 23, FSAE.

MIT Faculty NewsletterNovember/December 2006

3

editorial, we review the range of studentactivities at MIT and point out whereinstitutional support is inadequate. Wethen suggest four main areas of improve-ment that MIT should consider.

Students enter into extra-curricularactivities for many reasons, but most doso primarily because they are interested inchanging the world and in applying theirtheoretical knowledge to challenging real-world situations. In general, we can distin-guish the following activities:

CompetitionsA number of professional societies organ-ize yearly competitions, in order to attractyoung talent to their field and also to giveindividual schools and groups an oppor-tunity to measure themselves against theirpeers. Examples of such competitions arethe yearly Formula-SAE competition andthe AIAA design-build-fly competition.Another example is the autonomousunderwater vehicle competition. Typicallyin these competitions, a rule set is estab-lished and teams compete by designing,building, and operating a machine thattries either to maximize a score or tocompete directly against other machines.

ChallengesChallenges are more open-ended thancompetitions. They aim to push the tech-nological boundaries and state-of-the-artin a certain field. Examples are DARPA’sGrand Challenge, designed to developnew autonomous vehicle navigation tech-nology, and the NASA CentennialChallenges for the development of newexploration technologies. Challenges alsoinvolve intricate rules, but often requirethe development of new technologies andtechniques in order to meet a more or lessutopian goal.

Community OutreachThese projects are designed to respond tosome urgent and important societal needsuch as rebuilding after Hurricane Katrina

in 2005, or the teaching of school childrenin underserved rural areas in the develop-ing world, among other activities. Theseactivities are fundamentally differentfrom competitions and challenges in thatthey emphasize altruistic human andsocial interactions rather than technology.

How Are We Doing?An informal survey (see table, next page)shows how active and engaged MIT’s stu-dents are in many of these areas. The tableshows a (probably incomplete) list ofstudent-driven activities at MIT.

Student teams have moved surpris-ingly quickly to take up PresidentHockfield’s energy challenge, in somecases outpacing the Institute’s official ini-tiatives. Emerging student groups focusedon energy research include:

• Solar Decathlon team, which is buildingan entirely solar powered house

• Vehicle Design Summit• NetImpact, based in the Sloan School of

Management • UA Committee on Sustainability.

We should be proud of our students fordevoting their time and energy to theseimportant activities. But after reviewingthe results of past competitions anddrawing as well on our own experience asfaculty advisors to such projects, we feelthere is a discrepancy between MIT’sstanding as the leading university forscience and technology in the U.S. and oursometimes disappointing performance insome – but not all – of these events.

The Stanford Racing Team wonthe 2005 DARPA Grand Challenge in

6 hours, 53 minutes. MIT was elimi-nated before the final round. It isimportant to note, though, that theMIT student team raised about$100,000 for the competition, whilethe winning teams operated onmulti-million dollar budgets.

The MIT Formula SAE team wasformed in 2001 and competed for the firsttime in 2003, achieving the followingrankings: 97th in 2003, 41st in 2004, 34thin 2005, and 63rd in 2006. On the designside, the students have been quite success-ful, creating many inventive enginedesigns; however, they have not yet beenable to crack the top 25. This year, forexample, extensive testing would haverevealed a developing failure in a second-ary system which eventually knockedthem out of competition.

Our Solar Electric Vehicle Team fin-ished third in the 2005 North AmericanSolar Challenge and sixth in the 2005World Solar Challenge.

Still more impressive, the ORCA teamhas a fantastic record since its first compe-tition in 1998, including five first-placevictories.

Current Level of SupportStudent-driven projects offer an opportu-nity for our students to learn and practiceskills that would be difficult, if not impos-sible, to acquire in the classroom.Currently the Edgerton Center is the cen-terpiece of MIT’s support of student ini-tiatives. The Center is currently the homefor 23 clubs and teams, all of which receiveadministrative and advisor supportthrough part-time efforts of three staff

Student-Driven Activities at MITcontinued from page 1

continued on next page

LinksThe following are selected links to externally-sponsored competitions and challenges in which

MIT teams frequently participate.

• AIAA Design Competitions: www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=210

• Autonomous Underwater Vehicle Competition: www.auvsi.org/competitions/

• DARPA Grand Challenge: www.darpa.mil/grandchallenge/index.asp

• Formula SAE: students.sae.org/competitions/formulaseries/

• NASA Centennial Challenges: exploration.nasa.gov/centennialchallenge

• World Solar Challenge: www.wsc.org.au/2007/

• North American Solar Challenge: americansolarchallenge.org/

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XIX No. 2

4

members. The total effort is about 1.5 full-time equivalents. The Edgerton Center,with help from the Offices of the Provostand the President, provides roughly$100,000 in financial support, along withsome limited laboratory space at two loca-tions on campus. The teams also do someexternal fundraising on the order of $300kto $500k per year, which is an importantpart of their learning experience.

Steve Banzaert of the Edgerton Centerinsists that victory is secondary; what’simportant is that our students are learn-ing. That is certainly a valid viewpoint. Butthere is another perspective, too.We set thehighest standards for ourselves when itcomes to university rankings. Shouldn’t weaspire to the same level of achievement inour support of student-driven activities?The reality is that many of our studentteams are operating with minimalsupport, in ramshackle facilities, and onshoestring budgets. The students’ commit-ment is remarkable, but we must ask:

Can we do better? How can MIT live up to its name, not justin terms of research and academics butalso in terms of these intellectually chal-lenging and very visible student activities?

We suggest four main areas ofimprovement to be considered:

1. FundingSome limited funding for student activi-ties is available at MIT, but mainly theseare small grants on the order of $5-10kwith little prospect of follow-on support.Most student teams depend on the gen-erosity of private or corporate donors.MIT should establish a dedicated endow-ment for student-driven activities thatwould provide support at much higherlevels, as much as $100k and $1 millionper year for well thought-out proposals.

2. InfrastructureThis is probably the area requiring themost attention. While MIT has spent hun-dreds of millions of dollars on “trophy”

Student-Driven Activities at MITcontinued from preceding page Student-Driven Activities at MIT (currently active teams)

Team Website Purpose

MIT Motorsports web.mit.edu/fsae/ To conduct formula SAE Racecarcompetition

MIT Solar Electric Vehicle Team web.mit.edu/solar-cars/www/ To design and participate in varioussolar races, such as the WSC

MIT Autonomous UnderwaterVehicle Team

web.mit.edu/orca/www/To design, build and compete withan Autonomous Underwater Vehicle

MIT Space Elevator Team mitset.mit.edu To participate in NASA’s centennialpower beaming challenge

MIT Hurricane Katrina StudentInitiatives

web.mit.edu/katrina/initiatives.htmlTo coordinate student organizedrelief efforts post Hurricane Katrinain 2005

MIT DARPA Grand Challenge Team grandchallenge.mit.edu/ MIT’s participation in the DARPAurban grand challenge

MIT Vehicle Design Summit www.vehicledesignsummit.org/ To promote cooperative design ofenvironmentally friendly vehicleswith volunteer students

Biological Energy Interest Group(BEInG)

web.mit.edu/pweigele/www/beingTo promote the design, deploymentand dissemination of biologicalenergy systems

MIT Competitive Robotics Club(CRC)

web.mit.edu/edgerton/battlebotsTo inspire students and othersthrough competitive robotic events

Easyrider Motorcycle Club web.mit.edu/easyriderTo foster an interaction amongmotorcyclists at MIT

Floodsafe Honduras web.mit.edu/lem/hondurasTo design early warning systems fordeveloping countries with an earlyfocus on flooding

MIT FIRST Robotics Team web.mit.edu/first/www/ MIT students work with high school students to build robots while learningabout engineering

MIT Human Powered Vehicle Team(HPV)

lancet.mit.edu/decavitator/History.htmlTo build competitive, land- or water-based HPV’s through multidiscipli-nary efforts

Mars Gravity Biosatellite www.marsgravity.orgTo develop, launch, and recover abiosatellite to study the effects ofpartial gravity on mammals

MITERS web.mit.edu/miters/www/home.html To encourage and assist studentprojects for electronic and mechanical construction

MIT Rocket Team web.mit.edu/cats/wwwTo make tangible steps towarddecreasing the cost of spaceaccess through rocket design

ROV web.mit.edu/rov/www/OldSite/ To build a remotely operated vehiclefor the Marine AdvancedTechnology Education Center

S.T.O.M.P. @ MIT Student TeacherOutreach Mentorship Program atMIT

www.stompnetwork.org/mitTo pool the talents and knowledgeof K-8 educators and universityengineering students

MIT UAV Team aares.mit.eduTo build an unmanned aerial vehicleand to participate in AUVSI’s UAVcompetition

The Tech Model Railroad Club ofMIT

tmrc.mit.edu/To promote the design and opera-tions of model railroads for over 50years

MIT Walking Robot Club web.mit.edu/Edgerton/ To design and construct ambulatoryrobots for competition

MIT Wind Wise sailbot.mit.edu/ To design and build an autonomoussailboat for competition

MIT Design that Matters web.mit.edu/dfc/www/ To enable students and faculty toleverage their skills to serve devel-oping nations worldwide

Africa Internet Technology Initiative web.mit.edu/mit-africa/www To provide opportunities throughsummer information technology education programs in Africa

MIT Faculty NewsletterNovember/December 2006

5

buildings and highflying architecture inthe last decade, many of our student teamsare operating out of ramshackle facilitiesor are tolerated as temporary occupants invarious departmental facilities.

To be sure some spaces, such as theEdgerton Center, are well organized andhelpful to student teams. However, wethink the Institute can and should domuch better. MIT should have a largefacility dedicated entirely to student proj-ects, with built-in design studios, profes-sional quality machine shops and testfacilities. If we can afford one of the mostexpensive dorms ever built in per-square-foot costs, we can afford a facility such asthis, which would contribute vastly moreto our students. The NW quadrant ofcampus in particular offers potentialopportunities for building such a facilityor converting an idle space for such use.What would be most helpful is a flexible24-hour facility with some commonareas, but also some modular “bays” witheasy access doors that would be assignedto teams for the duration of their projects.There, efficient design and building activ-ity could take place, occupational safetystandards could be monitored andenforced, and building materials and toolswould be safe. The students have beentrying to organize a “Do It Zone” (see:diz.mit.edu), and MIT is starting to takenotice. But we need to do much more.

3. ServicesMost student teams have extensive needsfor building materials, machining, elec-tronics, programming, and other services.Other requirements include counseling,communications, fundraising, and trans-portation. We believe these enterprisingstudents deserve priority access to MIT’soutstanding services.

4. Academic Credit and Faculty SupportWe should reconsider the purely volun-tary and unofficial system now in place.The Institute should consider a range ofways to link student-driven projects withcapstone courses and design-build experi-ences. We might award academic creditfor sustained and demonstrable perform-

ance on such activities. Other universities(for instance, Cornell’s Formula SAEprogram) have developed courses andentire curricula around student activitiesand design competitions. But at MIT – forthe most part – these activities are treatedmainly with benign neglect. (But neglectis never really benign!)

The recently released report on theundergraduate commons places heavyemphasis on project activities; there couldbe a natural tie-in with the student-drivenprojects we’ve described here. Of coursethere is a danger:“institutionalizing”studentactivities might undermine their grass rootsnature. A balance between spontaneity andprofessionalism has to be found.

On the other hand, we faculty musttake care to offer advice, but not comman-deer these projects or threaten the value tostudents in having ownership and respon-sibility for their activities.

Clearly, many student teams are des-perately seeking faculty advice andsupport. So, when asked to mentor astudent team, we urge you to step up tothe plate and support our exceptional stu-dents in their independent projects. As aninstitute of technology, we should look atthe great names engraved in Killian Courtand recognize that many were inventorsand engineers as well as scientists. Howmany faculty members today shy awayfrom doing hands-on things with stu-dents because they are either too busy orbelieve it’s not useful for the tenure path?We need to foster a more diverse idea ofwhat an MIT education involves and howwe as faculty can contribute to it.

The Faculty Newsletter solicits yourcomments and suggestions on student-driven activities. We would like to thankProf. Alex Slocum, a number of studentteams, as well as Sandra Lipnoski andStephen Banzaert, for their extensive com-ments and suggestions for this editorial.

* * * * *

Clarification

I N TH E LAST Faculty Newsletter edito-rial (“The Need for Increased Faculty

Involvement in Major InstituteInitiatives,” September/October 2006) wereferred to the “failure” of several majorrelationships, and mistakenly cited the“ending of the Cambridge University/MIT partnership.” We were intending torefer to the MIT Cambridge UniversityStudent Exchange, not the CambridgeMIT Institute (CMI). “Failure” wasintended to refer to what we understoodat the time to be the discontinuation ofthe Exchange.

In fact, we have learned that theExchange is continuing, with over 30 stu-dents from each institution in residence atthe other this academic year. There is aformal intention by both institutions tocontinue the exchange in coming years.CMI, which was funded as a six-year projectby the British Government, is wrapping up.

A more complete report on CMI, theStudent Exchange, and its evolution willappear in the January/February issue ofFaculty Newsletter.

* * * * *

Special Edition Faculty Newsletter

A S P E C I A L E D I T I O N FacultyNewsletter will be published in mid-January, devoted entirely to commentaryon the recently released Report of the TaskForce on the Undergraduate EducationalCommons. The Special Edition is beingproduced at the request of Faculty ChairSteve Lerman, who is responding to thesuggestion by faculty members at theOctober 18th Institute faculty meeting.

Articles will be reviewed by a subset ofboth the Newsletter Editorial Board andmembers of the Task Force, to avoidredundancy and inaccurate information.Replies from members of the Task Forcemay accompany published articles.

Deadline for submission of articles isDecember 20th, and priority will be givento those that are succinct. Articles shouldnot exceed 750 words. Please e-mail allsubmissions to the Faculty Newsletter atfnl@mit.edu.

Editorial Sub-Committee

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XIX No. 2

6

made in 1965 in response to a report by acommittee chaired by Professor JerroldZacharias. Since that time, we have madesome smaller changes, including theintroduction of a biology requirementinto the science core curriculum, and theaddition of the communications require-ment, which changed the educationalprogram of every undergraduate studentand academic department.

The recommendations of the TaskForce involve one of the central functionswe have as a faculty. As I noted in mycolumn in the last issue of the FacultyNewsletter, any changes in MIT’s degreerequirements must ultimately be voted onby the faculty. Through the work of thestanding committees of the faculty,notably the Committee on theUndergraduate Program (including theCUP Subcommittee on theCommunications Requirement), theCommittee on Curricula, and theCommittee on Academic Performance,we also are responsible for many of thepolicies that govern how our degreerequirements are implemented andmanaged. I can think of nothing moreimportant that we as a faculty will do overthe coming years than discuss and actupon the recommendations made by theTask Force.

The discussion following the presenta-tion of the report at the September facultymeeting was the start of our deliberativeprocess. The breadth and depth of theinitial comments and questions from thefloor of the meeting reflect the extraordi-nary interest we all have in undergraduateeducation. Even at this early stage, it isclear that different parts of the Task Forcereport evoke strong positive and negativeresponses from many of us. We intend tocontinue this discussion at future facultymeetings, with the goal of informing anydecision we ultimately make.

I should stress that an actual vote on achange in the degree requirements,assuming we choose to have such a vote,won’t be taken for quite some time. Our

plan is to discuss the Task Force reportover several meetings and then ask a sub-committee of the Committee on theUndergraduate Program to consider theissues and concerns raised by the facultyand come back with a concrete proposalthat we would discuss and ultimately voteon. This later stage may not happen untilnext academic year or later.

If history is any guide, these next fewfaculty meetings will be crucial in deter-mining MIT’s educational directions forthe careers of most of us now on thefaculty and at least an entire generation ofstudents. Even if you have never come to afaculty meeting before, I urge you toattend the meetings in the comingmonths and participate in the discussion.

Not surprisingly, our first discussion ofthe Task Force report at the Septembermeeting was relatively unstructured. Inorder to make our time at upcomingmeetings as productive as possible, I’d likeeveryone to consider the following ideasabout how we should proceed.

• Try to find time to read the Task Force’sreport before coming to the nextmeeting. It is online at web.mit.edu/committees/edcommons/documents/TF_FullReport.pdf. The report is superblywritten and provides the best summaryof the philosophy and history of MITundergraduate degree requirements thathas ever been produced. Even moreimportantly, the report provides not justthe Task Force’s recommendations, but acareful exposition of the factors thatwent into those recommendations.Almost all of the issues we’ll debate atour upcoming faculty meetings wereconsidered in great detail in the course ofthe Task Force’s work, and their discus-sion about why they made each decisionshould guide our discussion.

• If you can’t read the entire report, thenplease read the Task Force’s summary ofthe recommendations. These can befound at web.mit.edu/committees/edcommons/documents/TF_SumRecs.pdf.This summary gives a sense of the scopeof the Task Force’s work and presents

their conclusions in a clear and conciseform.

• As you think about the recommenda-tions, try to keep in mind the difficultbalance the Task Force is trying to strike.Any choices we make about degreerequirements must balance the time stu-dents spend in courses that are part ofthe educational commons with timethey spend in their majors and electivesubjects. Every decision we make mustbalance the flexibility in our programsthat allows different students to have dif-ferent educational trajectories, againstour responsibility to ensure that studentshave the breadth of knowledge everywell-educated adult should.

As the report’s authors make abun-dantly clear, fitting everything that wewant every student to know into a four-year curriculum is a hopeless task. Wemust take seriously the idea that all ourstudents must leave MIT with the passionto learn new things and the ability to do soover their entire lifetimes.

The recommendations of the TaskForce should not be seen as a single, “takeit or leave it” bundle. Clearly, there areimportant interdependencies amongsome of the recommendations that weshould try to respect as we examine alter-native proposals for educational change.However, there are also opportunities tointelligently disaggregate our choices insome areas. As the Task Force notes,earlier committees with similar chartersmade some recommendations that, forvarious reasons, we never chose to imple-ment. Also, the Task Force report notessome recommendations about whichtheir own membership was divided. Theauthors carefully articulate both themajority and minority views.

We should make sure that we considerall aspects of the Task Force’s recommen-dations in depth. In particular, despite thefact that a majority of our faculty are inscience and engineering, we should notfocus entirely on the Science, Mathematics,and Engineering requirements. The TaskForce makes important recommendations

Undergraduate Education Reconsideredcontinued from page 1

MIT Faculty NewsletterNovember/December 2006

7

about the structure and content of theHumanities, Arts, and Social Sciencerequirements. The report devotes an entirechapter to how and why we should expandthe opportunities for all our students tohave educationally meaningful interna-tional experiences. It also provides guid-ance on important educational issues suchas the coherence of the first-year experi-ence, academic advising and mentoring,diversity, classroom quality and utilization,and educational innovation. While not allof these issues are directly governed by theregulations of the faculty, they have pro-

found effects on all our students andshould be discussed and debated.

Be open to change. Part of thedynamism of MIT comes from our abilityto innovate in our research and educa-tional programs. We can never become soossified in our thinking or decision-making processes that the only feasibleoutcome is the status quo. If we decide notto change our undergraduate degree pro-grams, it should be because we have fullyexplored alternatives and decided thatwhat we have now is the best we can do,not because it’s what we have always done.

I should note that the upcomingfaculty meetings will not be the onlyforum for discussion of the Task Forcereport. I am pleased to announce that theEditorial Board of the Faculty Newsletterhas agreed to create a special issuedevoted entirely to discussion of theundergraduate educational commons.Any of you who would like to write ashort piece for this upcoming issue areinvited to do so.

Steven Lerman is Professor of Civil andEnvironmental Engineering; Faculty Chair(lerman@mit.edu).

Newsletter StaffIn MemoriamStephen J. Madden, Jr.

STE PH E N J. MAD D E N, J R. , a retiredprofessor who spent his entire 52-yearprofessional career at MIT, died onOctober 7, 2006. He was 70.

Throughout his life, Madden wasdeeply fascinated by the sea and the sky.Much of his research involved celestialnavigation, flight, fluid mechanics, andgravity. At the start of his career, as partof the Apollo missions, he was respon-sible for determining the precise loca-tion of the Moon throughout themission, allowing the deployment andredocking of the lunar module to themother ship.

In his later work, more detailed gravi-tational measurements were used todevelop a better understanding of theshape of the Earth. His interests ingeodesy and radar converged in earlyresearch on the GPS system, performed atDraper Laboratory. One of his lastresearch projects was for the LIGOsystem, designed to detect gravity waves

from distant supernovas yielding clues tothe fundamental structure of the universe.

Stephen was also a gifted teacher. Heloved to encourage his students’ curiosity.Throughout his career, he taught in theDepartments of Mathematics, Aeronauticsand Astronautics, and Earth and PlanetarySciences at MIT, supervising more than adozen graduate theses. Even after retiringfrom Draper Laboratory in 1995, he con-tinued to teach, and it provided him withgreat satisfaction to see his students takeoff with a problem.

Fond remembrances by colleagueLeonard S. Wilk (SB, SM, MIT ’52) includethe following:“As a graduate student, Steveworked at the then Instrumentation Lab,most significantly on the Apollo Program– celestial and orbital mechanics. He alsopracticed his hobby of magic, giving stageperformances with Bernie Whitman. Hewas very adept and was true to the profes-sion in that he never revealed the secrets ofthe trade.”

Wilk continues, “After retirement,Steve formed The Analemma Associatesto consult with his expertise in computersand computer programming. This namecame from his lifelong interest in sundialsand the Equation of Time. Steve was adevotee of Chinese cooking and a longtime patron of The Little Eating Place,Mary Chung’s, and The Royal East. Hewould delight in ordering his favoritesoup in Chinese.”

Although his interests ranged far andwide, Madden always remained close tohis roots, in Newton Lower Falls, at MIT,and on Cape Cod. His greatest love washis family, especially his five grandchil-dren. He was also a kind and gentle friendto many, and he was always eager to hear astory or share a joke. His sense of humor,his love of life, and his great passion forlearning were freely shared and widelyenjoyed.

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XIX No. 2

8

Tom MagnantiMIT and Singapore

Tom Magnanti, dean of the School ofEngineering, has been actively involved inMIT’s Singapore programs from the begin-ning of the Institute’s large-scale institu-tional collaboration there in 1997. His ownparticipation has been as a member of abroad faculty assessment team in 1997, as afaculty member in one of the initialSingapore-MIT Alliance (SMA) programs,as the Dean with primary responsibility forSMA and, most recently, as a member of aSteering Committee for the proposedSingapore-MIT Alliance for Research andTechnology, or SMART, program.

AS TH E I N STITUTE HAS been consid-ering a major new research initiative inSingapore during the past several months,our community has been engaged in alively dialogue that has raised a number ofsignificant issues. Some faculty membershave asked “Why Singapore?” “What arethe benefits of MIT’s engagement inSingapore?” “What are the required com-mitments of MIT’s faculty and staff inSingapore?”As expressed in an editorial inthe previous Faculty Newsletter, “Havefaculty been sufficiently involved in thedeliberations concerning our interna-tional activities?” And generally, “Wouldparticipation in international programs,and Singapore in particular, adverselyaffect education and research on ourcampus?” These are important questions.

MIT and International EngagementsFirst, from what I know, and from whathas been reflected in various forums suchas the recent report of the Task Force onthe Undergraduate EducationalCommons, there is considerable enthusi-

asm on campus for international engage-ments. Indeed, many, if not most, wouldassert that MIT must be engaged interna-tionally if it is to maintain its status as oneof the world’s great educational institu-tions. (Large engagements such as therecently announced program in Portugal,as well as programs like MISTI and manyfaculty engagements throughout theworld, already provide considerable diver-sity in our international portfolio.) Otherforums have reinforced the importance ofMIT’s international engagements, includ-ing a series of sessions held on interna-tionalization by Academic Council thispast spring, a subcommittee ofEngineering Council convened two yearsago to examine internationalization, andan open faculty forum on internationalprograms held at MIT on May 17, 2006.As is evident from the feedback at theseforums, the question is not whether weshould be engaged internationally, buthow and with whom we should engage.Rather than attempting to answer thesequestions in general, I will focus specifi-cally on Singapore.

Why Singapore? There are many reasons. Singapore hasmade a significant national commitmentto education and research. It has

• excellent resources and physical infra-structure;

• a stable, corruption-free government;• English as the official language;• technically-savvy national leaders at the

highest levels who embrace science andtechnology;

• a strategic location in a rapidly growing

part of the world at the crossroads ofAsia (especially China and India), havingalso emerged as one of India’s largesttrading partners;

• a stable, multi-ethnic society (Chinese,Malays, Indians, Australians, andEuropeans/Americans);

• a world-renowned standing as a leaderin math and science education at the K-12 level; and

• an established international focus ashome to a number of American,European, and other academic institu-tions/partners (for example, INSEAD,Johns Hopkins, Georgia Tech, Duke, U.of Chicago), and it has become a key hubfor major activities of a large fraction ofthe Fortune 500 American companies.

Of course, Singapore is also a youngcountry without a rich research history; itis 12 times zones and 12,000 miles away.Its culture is different from that of theUnited States, and its government policieson some matters are not the same as thoseof this country. Participation by MIT inactivities there could attract precioushuman and other resources away fromour campus.

Any major initiative the Institutemight undertake in Singapore, or any-where else, will have associated risks andbenefits to MIT. We need to be cognizantof these and prudently manage them.

How does MIT benefit from a relation-ship with Singapore? Let me answer by indicating how theInstitute has already benefited from theSingapore-MIT Alliance since its incep-tion in 1999. Through SMA, we have:

MIT Faculty NewsletterNovember/December 2006

9

• invested in and created new educationaland research programs of considerablevalue to our faculty, departments, and tothe School of Engineering, includingnew Master’s degree programs inComputation for Design andOptimization, Manufacturing Systemsand Technology, and AdvancedMaterials for Micro- and Nano-Systems.

• supported important emerging initiativesat the interface of molecular biology andchemical engineering and the Institute’snew initiative in Computational andSystems Biology, as well as a traditionalcore area, computer science.

• been able to devote considerable resourcesto education. Many faculty have indicatedthat their teaching has improved as a resultof their SMA experiences.

• brought together faculty from multipledepartments in unusual ways to educateMIT students and foster interdiscipli-nary research and education.

• provided many of our faculty and someof our students with the opportunity tospend quality time, for the first time, inAsia.

• provided MIT opportunities to experi-ment with distance education anddemonstrated that we can educate stu-dents effectively at a distance. Forexample, most of the SMA courses havebeen offered simultaneously to studentsat MIT and in Singapore. The classroomperformance of these two studentgroups has been indistinguishable.

• not only been able to support currenteducational and research interests of ourfaculty and students, but also provideresources that support the long-termhealth of the Institute through invest-ments in infrastructure (distance educa-tion-equipped classrooms and seminarrooms) and endowment to hire addi-tional faculty and to create graduatestudent fellowships.

Has MIT attempted to address issuesrelated to SMA and engage faculty inthe SMA deliberations?The SMA program has, of course,required faculty presence in Singapore.Moreover, it has provided considerable

resources to some faculty and not toothers. This raises legitimate concerns. Wehave tried to mitigate these concerns inpart by ensuring that most courses havebeen taught to students both at MIT andSingapore, by providing considerable dis-cretionary resources to the participatingdepartments, and by having an open com-petition for the SMA-2 programs (withina broad set of problem areas jointlydefined by MIT and Singapore). SMA-1and SMA-2 both benefited considerablyfrom faculty input. Before launchingSMA, 25 faculty spent over six months toassess the strengths and weaknesses of theSingaporean universities. The assessmentsubsequently led to the definition ofSMA-1’s educational and research direc-tions. Presentations at MIT faculty meet-ings, at FPC, CGSP, CoC, and CUP, atEngineering and Academic Councils, andin articles in this newsletter providedfaculty with information and opportuni-ties to offer input on SMA-2.

What deliberations have led to theproposed new Singapore-MITAlliance for Research and Technology(SMART) Center?Based upon the perceived success of SMA,the Singapore government invited MIT toconsider being the first of several interna-tional universities to establish majorresearch collaborations in Singaporethrough a new research complex thatwould contain a building devoted to MIT.(ETH, Zurich, has recently announced itsintention to participate and an institutionin Israel and research laboratories ofAmerican and overseas corporationscould be other likely participants.) Byleveraging eight years of MIT facultyexperience and input with SMA, the pro-posed new SMART Center would beintended to offer similar benefits as SMA.It would expand our relationship toinclude a non-degree-granting, broaderresearch engagement that would includecollaborations with universities, industrialorganizations, and research institutes inSingapore and the rest of Asia.

In January of this year, the Provost leda delegation with deans, departmentheads, and laboratory and program direc-tors to explore this possibility.Subsequently, a Steering Committee wasformed, composed of the Provost, theVice President for Research, and theDeans of Engineering and Science and aformer head of the Department ofMaterials Science and Engineering, andthe heads of the Biology, Civil andEnvironmental Engineering, andElectrical Engineering and ComputerScience departments, as research themeleaders. The committee began to developa process for faculty engagement thatincluded several direct communicationsfrom the Provost to the MIT faculty, pre-sentations at Academic Council, at severalSchool councils, the Faculty PolicyCommittee, and an MIT faculty meeting.Through 82 submissions of ConceptPapers, 212 faculty from across all fiveSchools responded to a call for possibleresearch collaborations – an expression ofa strong grass-root interest in MIT’s

continued on next page

SMA Facts

• Over 65 faculty, drawn from all fiveSchools, but mostly from Engineering,have participated in SMA.

• Anchored in Singapore but with abroad regional reach, SMA hasgraduated nearly 700 students(with degrees in Singapore), drawnprimarily from India, China, andother countries in the region.

• SMA has resulted in approximately500 research publications.

• In SMA-2, unlike SMA-1, MIT givesdegrees (Master’s degrees) andSingapore independently givesdegrees. Students are independ-ently and separately admitted toMIT by the existing admissionscommittees of the appropriatedepartments and units, using thesame rigorous standards employedto admit other MIT students tothese programs.

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XIX No. 2

10

expanded research engagement withSingapore and to the initially definedbroad program themes of biomedical sci-ences, interactive digital media, and waterresources and the environment.

After reviewing submissions, theSteering Committee clustered severalconcept papers and invited a number offaculty to submit research proposals.Singapore provided funds for MIT facultyto travel to and learn more aboutSingapore, and recently multiple delega-tions of research colleagues fromSingapore traveled to MIT to meet withfaculty and help design joint researchprojects for the proposed initial researchactivities.

What is SMART intended to be? Broadly speaking, SMART aims toprovide a unique opportunity for a majorexperiment in global research and toperform interdisciplinary experimental,computational, and translational researchthat presently could not be conducted atMIT. SMART also provides MIT anopportunity to be a pioneer in an interna-tional research campus of distinguishedinstitutions in a strategic location within arapidly-growing region of the world thatis predicted to dominate technologicalgrowth in the twenty-first century.

The program activities are still underdevelopment, but would include a majorresearch program with approximately 10focus areas, each envisioned to involve ateam of MIT faculty, PhD students, postdocs, and collaborators from universities,research institutes, and companies inSingapore and from countries through-out Asia, including India and China, aswell as potential collaboration with otheruniversities elsewhere in the world(including those establishing similar pro-grams in Singapore). Research would beconducted both at MIT and in the newbuilding in Singapore dedicated toSMART. The research themes would betargeted for topics providing uniqueopportunities for MIT to conduct

research on problems of significance tosociety, such as infectious disease. Theprogram would also create new opportu-nities for MIT to facilitate technologytransfer in the region through the cre-

ation of a technology innovation centersimilar, and perhaps linked, to theDeshpande Center for TechnologicalInnovation at MIT. The SMART buildingin Singapore is also expected to havestaffed wet lab facilities with capabilitiesnot available on the MIT campus and aworld-class supercomputing facilityaccessible through special Internet accessto faculty and students at MIT.Opportunities for appropriate under-graduate student participation, such asUROP projects in Singapore, summerinternships, and MISTI internships, arealso possibilities.

Faculty participation in SMARTOf course, having a building in Singaporedevoted to MIT research carries expecta-tions of residency in Singapore for partic-ipating MIT faculty. It also carries anexpectation that more research fundingwill be spent in support of the MIT-directed research of SMART@Singaporethan of SMART@MIT. As currently envi-sioned, about 10 faculty would beexpected to conduct research in the MITcenter in Singapore at any given time,taking turns through periodic facultyvisits within a well-coordinated researchtheme. A number of meetings held withfaculty members preparing the first roundof proposals are helping to design modelsfor faculty presence and research expendi-tures in SMART. The provision ofresources to endow up to 10 new facultypositions at MIT would offset, to somedegree, the reduction in faculty time onour campus because of time spent at theSMART Center.

SMART is intended to provide newand unique research opportunities andtechnologies that would be very attractiveto our faculty. No faculty member wouldbe required to participate.

Next steps in developing SMARTThroughout the process to date, discus-sions have continued with Singaporeconcerning the structuring of the newrelationship. Faculty input, mostobtained through meetings with thecluster leaders and groups of facultymembers with prior involvement inSingapore through SMA and/or with astrong interest in participating in thefuture activities of SMART, has beenessential in shaping these deliberations.

If all goes well, the current plan wouldbe to launch a small number of researchthemes (three or four) next summer anduse these as opportunities to graduallylearn about, and better frame, the SMARTCenter and research program. Over thenext three years, we would solicit addi-tional proposals from a broad cross-section of MIT faculty and expand to the10 envisioned research thrust areas (oneof which is likely to be a cluster of smallprojects). The areas of research would bebroad, beyond the initial areas identifiedalready, and would be formulated basedupon input from MIT faculty.

Several issues remain to be resolved,including residency requirements inSingapore for participating MIT faculty,allocation of funding between Singaporeand the MIT campus, resources andaccommodations to be provided to facultyand families while in Singapore, and therelationship between SMA and SMART, aswell as the implications and managementof the impact of the SMART program onthe MIT campus.We are currently workingon these issues with several MIT facultygroups and with colleagues in Singapore.

MIT and SingaporeMagnanti, from preceeding page

As currently envisioned, about 10 faculty wouldbe expected to conduct research in the MITcenter in Singapore at any given time, takingturns through periodic faculty visits within awell-coordinated research theme.

MIT Faculty NewsletterNovember/December 2006

11

Would large-scale research funding inSMART present too much risk for MIT?Although the funding details are stillunder discussion with the SingaporeNational Research Foundation, the com-bined funding for SMART@MIT andSMART@Singapore is likely to be at alevel comparable to some of the largestresearch centers at MIT.

Some faculty have asked if we aredevoting too much of our resources toprograms in a single country and ifresearch in some areas might become toodependent on a single source of fundingthrough SMART. These are judgmentcalls but I believe that, for reasons I havealready stated, Singapore represents an

unusual opportunity that, althoughrequiring careful oversight, is worth pur-suing. The Institute certainly needs toclosely monitor situations when it receivesa large amount of funding from any singlesource as it does with sponsors thatprovide core support to large labs andcenters and those that provide large frac-tions of the research funding acrosscampus. Concerns about large-scale con-centrated funding are partially mitigatedby the fact that SMART would be organ-ized around several diversified researchthemes, introduced gradually over threeyears, and would be supporting a spec-trum of MIT faculty and researchdomains. In each of these domains

SMART would provide only part of theInstitute’s research. Nevertheless, we needcareful oversight and management as weintroduce any approved SMART pro-grams with the benefit of input from awide cross-section of researchers fromMIT and Singapore.

Other faculty ask if we are respondingtoo much to availability of resources. Wehave many other opportunities, somepotentially very well funded, that we donot pursue. Funding is an issue, but moreimportant are the intellectual, strategic,geographical, and programmatic oppor-tunities Singapore offers, such as those Ihave suggested previously.

Concluding CommentsI hope that this communication has pro-vided some insight concerning our rela-tionships in Singapore, about theprocesses we have and are using, andabout some of the possible benefits andcosts to MIT.

If SMART is to be successful, it mustprovide clear benefits for both MIT andSingapore. The process must strike abalance between centralized institutionalplanning that is essential to any long-termand large-scale program like SMART onone hand and bottom-up faculty gover-nance and input on the other. I stronglybelieve that the program holds enormouspotential and exciting new opportunitiesfor MIT, for Singapore, and for scienceand technology worldwide.

Dean Tom Magnanti and SMA Students from Singapore, China, India, Indonesia, andMalaysia at a Welcome Reception in Singapore, July 6, 2006

Tom Magnanti is Dean of the School ofEngineering and an Institute Professor (magnanti@mit.edu).

Singapore Harbor and Skyline

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XIX No. 2

(GIB), Sponsored Research, Auxiliary, andDesignated (see Figure 1). The GIB fundsthe bulk of the academic MIT enterprise,and includes unrestricted funds that canbe used for any Institute purpose. Itslargest sources are tuition, unrestrictedendowment income (e.g., payout tounrestricted accounts invested in Pool

A), and facilities and administrative costrecovery. Sponsored Research representsthe direct component of grants and con-tracts, typically controlled by individualprincipal investigators. Auxiliaryincludes proceeds and expenses fromHousing, Dining, MIT Press, EndicottHouse, and Technology Review. Finally,Designated corresponds to restrictedexpendable gifts and endowment incomepaid to the holders of restricted Pool Aaccounts such as Professorships orScholarships. Both the restricted andunrestricted endowment incomes comefrom annual distributions fromrestricted and unrestricted accounts,respectively, invested in Pool A. The

Executive Committee of the Corporationvotes these distributions annually, andthey are typically referred to as “votedendowment distribution.”

MIT has generally viewed SponsoredResearch and Auxiliary activities as self-funded. Since these budget categories donot fundamentally affect the Institute’sfinancial flexibility, the remainder of thisarticle will focus on the GIB and theDesignated funds.

Designated funds cover expenses thatare within the scope of restrictionsimposed by their donor or custodial aca-demic unit. As a result of the limitationson their use, as well as conservative spend-ing and the desire to save for a rainy day,Designated resources available for spend-ing are rarely exhausted and their aggre-gate balances have accumulated with time.

MIT’s continued need to maintain itscompetitiveness has put pressure on theGIB. As a result, the GIB expenses havebeen higher than the GIB revenues for thelast several years, creating a structuralbudget gap within the GIB. In April 2000,the Executive Committee of the MITCorporation authorized an “additional

endowment distribution” of up to $500million for the 2001-2010 period tofinance strategic investments – that is, itauthorized support from the endowmentbeyond that of the voted endowment dis-tribution described above to close thebudget gap resulting from these strategicinvestments and growing operatingneeds.

The additional endowment distributionhas been provided by selling unrestricted

endowment units in Pool A, normallyreferred to as the “quasi endowment” (seeFigure 2). These financial plans formal-ized a longer-term trend that can betraced as far back as the early 1970s andwell into the 1990s. Since then, MIT hasclosed annual budget gaps with unre-stricted funds.

Protecting MIT’s Financial FlexibilityA significant fraction of the income fromthe voted endowment distribution is notavailable to help balance the GIB, as it iseither held primarily by Departments,Labs, and Centers (DLCs), or is restrictedby donors to specific uses. Moreover, inFY06, less than 10% of the endowment

12

Financial Foundation for MIT’s FutureReif, continued from page 1

Unrestricted Revenues

(i.e., Tuition, InvestmentDistribution, etc.)

GENERALINSTITUTEBUDGET

F&ASPONSOREDRESEARCH

AUXILIARYENTERPRISES

Sponsored Research Revenues

Auxiliary Fees, Service Revenues

Restricted Designated Revenues

DESIGNATEDUSES

STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS$’S IN MILLIONS

FY 2007 BUDGETGeneral Research Auxiliary Designated TOTAL

FY 2006-FY 2007

Figure 1. MIT’s Operating Categories

MIT Faculty NewsletterNovember/December 2006

13

was sufficiently unrestricted to be consid-ered quasi endowment and used tosupport the additional endowment distri-bution. Given projected levels of fundrais-ing and anticipated operating needs, ourcurrent financial practice is unsustainablein the long run. In fact, based on currentprojections, the Institute would haveexhausted its unrestricted endowmentfunds by Fiscal Year 2015 (see Figure 2).

FY08: Laying a New FinancialFoundation for the Future Strategy DescriptionStarting with Fiscal Year 2008, we planto lay a new foundation for MIT’s finan-cial future, increasing the Institute’slong-term financial flexibility by allo-cating funds more effectively betweenthe GIB and the Designated operatingcategories.

The proposed strategy is essentially a“zero-sum game.” The plan will elimi-nate the additional endowment distribu-tion by increasing the voted endowmentdistribution by an equivalent amount(see Figures 3 and 4). Whenever possibleand allowable, the additional funds thatacademic units receive from theincreased voted distribution payout (seeFigure 4) will be exchanged with GIBfunds. As a result, the aggregate GIB andendowment revenue to each DLC will beat least the same as before. In fact, as dis-cussed below, the revenue to some DLCswill actually increase. Importantly, the

proposed strategy does not increaseMIT’s overall reliance on the endow-ment. It simply wraps the additionalendowment need into the voted distri-bution, keeping the aggregate distribu-tion from endowment funds at the samelevel as projected using the currentmodel.

This new strategy will support the pro-jected operating costs for FY2008 by first

increasing the voted Pool A distribution,and then utilizing the lion’s share of theincreased distribution to offset an equiva-lent reduction in support from the GIB.Let me contrast the new model with thecurrent model: If we were to follow ourcurrent financial model of “voted” and“additional” endowment distributions,the voted distribution for FY08 would be~$43 per unit, and a projected FY08 oper-ating gap of about $77M would require anadditional distribution derived fromselling unrestricted Pool A shares (seeFigure 3). However, by increasing thevoted distribution to $53 per unit, the

operating gap is reduced to a nominalamount (see Figure 4). We plan to elimi-nate the use of the additional distributionentirely by FY09.

In sum, this strategy would eliminateMIT’s reliance on unrestricted endowmentassets to balance the operating budget – ause that is unsustainable in the long term –while maintaining the same level of pro-jected funding for academic units.

$1,000

$800

$600

$400

$200

$-FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17

$ M

illio

ns

History Projection

Figure 2. General Unrestricted Expendable Assets (Quasi Endowment)

Pool A: 7.7M units

Voted Distribution

$330.6 Million + $77.3 Million =$407.9 Million

$0

“AdditionalEndowmentDistribution”

RestrictedEndowment

UnrestrictedEndowment

Figure 4. FY2008 Endowment Support of Operations – Proposed Approach

XX

Pool A: 7.7M units

Voted Distribution

Projected FY08$330.6 Million

Reduction in unit value

Projected FY08$77.3 Million

“AdditionalEndowmentDistribution”

Reduction in unrestricted units (Erosion of financial flexibility)

RestrictedEndowment

UnrestrictedEndowment

Figure 3. FY2008 Endowment Support of Operations – Current Approach

continued on next page

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XIX No. 2

14

Of course, donor restrictions appropri-ately constrain the application of thisrebalancing mechanism, and distributionsfrom restricted funds can be exchanged forequivalent GIB funds only when such uselies within the restrictions of the funds.

While this and other limitations makea 100% exchange unattainable, discus-sions with the top 20 academic depart-ment holders of Pool A accountsindicated that a large portion of theincreased voted distribution can substi-tute for today’s GIB funds.

The Strategy in ActionEndowment holdings are projected toinclude 7.7M Pool A shares in FY2008. Ofthese, 4.2M shares are in unrestricted andScholarship & Fellowship accounts, whichfund the GIB; 3.5M shares are in otherrestricted accounts that fund the DLCs.Increased voted distribution from the4.2M shares will directly offset the needfor additional distribution to the GIB.Increased voted distribution from the3.5M of DLC-targeted funds will be usedto offset a reduction in GIB allocation tothe DLCs.

As an illustration, considerUndergraduate Scholarships. MIT acceptsstudents on a “need-blind” basis andcommits to meeting the full financial needof all students. In FY2006, total under-

graduate financial aid expendituresamounted to $54M. Endowment incomepaid to Scholarship Funds covered only$36M, which left a gap of $18M that wascovered by unrestricted GIB monies.Scholarship funds hold 1M Pool A shares,and implementing the new policy wouldhave increased the endowed financial aidfunding by $10M, therefore reducing theneed for GIB subsidy from unrestrictedfunds to only $8M.

The Strategy’s ImpactMIT’s Pool A Distribution RateThe main purpose of MIT’s endowmentis to provide a level of revenue stability forcurrent and future generations of MITfaculty, staff, and students. To ensure that

the purchasing power of the endowmentis maintained for future generations, MIThas used as its target for the voted endow-ment distribution a spending range of4.75-5.5% of a 36-month average of the

Pool A Unit Market Value (UMV). Overthe years, MIT has kept the “voted” distri-bution rate within the target range.However, our “all-in” or effective distribu-tion rate, which includes the additionalendowment distribution as well as thevoted endowment distribution, has been inthe neighborhood of 5.5% since FY1999(see Figure 5). The “Financial Foundationfor the Future” strategy will drop the total,“all-in” distribution rate to 5.1% inFY2008, a rate that is consistent with thepreservation of our assets for future gen-erations (see Figure 5). It is important toemphasize that this does not reduce thefunds that a DLC or faculty member willreceive now or in the future.

Beyond FY08: Assessing the Future The goal of this new financial strategy is tobalance MIT’s operations and increaseour financial flexibility for MIT’s future.Implementation of this strategy willrequire a great deal of commitment, col-laboration, and hard work from facultyand administrative leaders across the aca-demic units receiving GIB funds andholding endowed funds. By workingtogether, we will lay a sound and sustain-able financial foundation for MIT’s con-tinued academic excellence.

Financial Foundation for MIT’s FutureReif, from preceeding page

Poo

l A D

istr

ibut

ion

(as

a pe

rcen

tage

of 3

6-m

onth

trai

ling

aver

age) 7.0%

6.5%

6.0%

5.5%

5.0%

4.5%

4.0%

3.5%FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08

Voted Distribution All In Distribution

Figure 5. MIT’s Endowment Distribution (FY1999 - 2008)

The main purpose of M IT’s endowment is toprovide a level of revenue stabi l i ty for currentand future generat ions of M IT faculty, staff ,and students.

L. Rafael Reif is Provost(reif@mit.edu).

MIT Faculty NewsletterNovember/December 2006

15

Ernst G. FrankelTeaching and Challenging Engineers . . .to Engineer

E N G I N E E R I N G E D U CAT I O N H A S

undergone radical changes in content,objectives, and delivery during the last 20-30years. The approach has increasingly been toemulate science teaching and train engi-neering scientists, researchers, and technol-ogy developers to the detriment ofdeveloping skills required to engineer,design, and manage increasingly complexand often large engineering systems andinfrastructures. Some schools, such as MIT,are filling the resulting gaps by introducing“Systems Engineering” or “EngineeringSystems” offerings, often taught by instruc-tors who have extensive experience in realengineering projects.

While the U.S. has made tremendousprogress in advancing so-called high tech-nology and remains at the forefront of infor-mation technology, control imaging, andother technologies, it seems to increasinglylag behind or even fail to maintain capabili-ties in engineered systems or projects, andeven in manufacturing engineering. This isbecoming more and more evident consider-ing the condition of our electricity transmis-sion networks, highways, railways, ports,electricity generation, water supply, andother public infrastructure systems inAmerica, as well as public services such aswireless telephony and others.

Few other, if any, developed countries dis-tribute electricity and land-line telephoneservice by wires hanging from forests ofwooden poles. Their maintenance andfailure costs could easily pay for placing theseservices underground. Our highway and railsystems are not only outdated and in manyparts of the country decrepit, but are mostlyincapable of accommodating or servingadvancing transport technology, traffic, andservice demands. Our ports are at least 20-30years behind modern Asian and Europeanports and are incapable of accommodatinglarge modern ships, many of which must

transship their cargoes at foreign transship-ment ports to feed US ports at added costs ofbillions, if not tens of billions of dollars peryear. None of our airports are among the topof the world’s terminals in terms of effi-ciency, operations management, or architec-ture. Similarly, many of our water, sewage,and other distributed systems are not onlyantiquated, but in serious disrepair. Even ourwireless telephone systems technology in useis probably 10 years behind that in place inmuch of Europe and Eastern Asia.

Probably most importantly, is our real orperceived inability to effectively plan, engi-neer, design, and even manage engineeringprojects. While the Big Dig may be anextreme example, there are unfortunatelymany other examples of inexcusable budgetand schedule overruns, failures of qualitymanagement, and quite often inadequatesupervision, engineering, or design.

Serious schedule overruns are of particu-lar concern, as they not only dramaticallyincrease financing costs, but also introduceinherent technological obsolescence. In thenot too distant past, American engineeringfirms and contractors were consideredworld leaders and played important roles inmany of the world’s most important largeengineering projects. This is no longer so,and most large engineering projects in theworld are now planned, designed, andmanaged by foreign, mainly Asian, engi-neering firms. For example, China built theworld’s first high-speed Maglev train systemin Pudong on schedule and budget, and itsThree Gorges dam project, the world’slargest, is both on budget and schedule.There are similar examples in large tunneland costal construction projects in Japanand Europe.

During a recent MIT Brunel lecture,President Emeritus Charles Vest laid out hisvision of Engineering Education for 2020,and among other objectives emphasized

social responsibility of engineering. Brunel,who over a hundred years ago advancedtunnel and coastal construction, shipbuild-ing, and large infrastructure engineering, allthe while making engineering a true renais-sance profession, would probably be disap-pointed at the increasingly narrow focus oftoday’s engineering educational and inade-quate social concern. This was also shown inmy recent involvement with the Katrina dis-aster, where we uncovered disregard forengineering quality and a resulting failure ofpublic safety in the design, construction,supervision, inspection, and ultimatelymaintenance of the levee system protectingthe city of New Orleans. And this is not anisolated example, but often represents thenorm in this country.

While there are many factors contribut-ing to these increasingly common failures inAmerican engineering projects, the need toimplement some basic steps seems clear.Among them are a reintroduction of moreprofessional engineering education withmandatory life-long professional training inadvanced engineering technological andproject/risk management subjects, andestablishment of more effective certifica-tion/licensing and inspection requirements.These may go a long way toward reestablish-ing American engineering and giving it theglobal status it once proudly held. This mayrequire a cultural change and assignment ofmore responsibility, prestige, and rewards toengineers, but unless we start to redirect ourapproach toward engineering and engineersand give it the proper prestige, before longwe may find America in the condition ofIndia, a country with a highly-educated pro-fessional elite, a decrepit infrastructure, anda largely defunct social system.

Ernst G. Frankel is a Professor Emeritus in theDepartment of Mechanical Engineering(efrankel@mit.edu).

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XIX No. 2

16

MIT ProfilesAdèle Naudé Santos

The following interview of Prof. Santos(ANS) by the Faculty Newsletter (FNL)took place on October 27.

FNL: What brought you to MIT to serveas the first woman dean of the MIT Schoolof Architecture and Planning?

ANS: MIT is such an interesting place!There’s all this unique stuff going on thatmakes Architecture and Urban Planning

completely different from our neighborup the street! When I was approachedabout the deanship here, I had been onthe faculty at Harvard, the Chair ofArchitecture at UPenn, the Dean atUCSD, was a professor at UC Berkeley –and was heading back to private practice. Ithought at the very least I should check itout. I didn’t know if they would go for awoman or even consider a third deanfrom the southern hemisphere – but herewe are.

FNL: Those are pretty large programs,aren’t they?

ANS: Well, they are. SA+P may be atiny school, but you know what? It’s apretty damn good program. As good orbetter than our peers. And in league withour siblings here at the Institute. In fact,when compared to the other Schools atMIT, we must work harder and smarterwith fewer resources, yet we do not com-promise our high standards of excellence,and continue to make impressive contri-butions to our disciplines and to improv-ing the overall quality of human life andthe health of our communities.

FNL: What makes the MIT School ofArchitecture and Planning so special?

ANS: It’s the company we keep! Thereis an incredibly diverse array of disciplinesand pursuits under the roof of this Schoolthat draw on and experience cross-fertil-ization with many, many of the incredibleand diverse activities happening every-where else at MIT. We have Center forReal Estate faculty assembling and analyz-ing data into the first index for commer-cial real estate who work side by side in thesame department where the TeacherEducation Program educates undergrad-

uates from all over MIT how to be scienceand math teachers in secondary highschools. We educate mid-career profes-sionals from developing countries inSPURS (Special Program for Urban andRegional Studies) as well as working withMassachusetts community activists andlocal institutions in the Center forReflective Community Practice. SA+P ishome to faculty who study whether com-puters can learn and respond to emotionin the Media Lab, who are looking at rapidfabrication techniques for housing, orstudying how sensing networks developedby engineers and all the data we can nowgather and manage from these networks –can be embedded in the infrastructure ofcities to help us better understand how weuse and can improve these environments.

FNL: And all of this occurs within theSchool of Architecture?

ANS: Ahem. The School ofArchitecture and Planning!

FNL: Yes, of course! ANS: It’s a common shorthand, but

our faculty are architects and plannersand artists, computer scientists, buildingtechnologists, experts in environmentalpolicy and sustainability, musicians,urban economists, community activists,historical preservationists, and teachers ofteachers. And that’s just a start! We have aworld-class program in Urban Studiesand Planning with in-depth, decades long,urban partnerships both in Massachusettsand around the world. We started the firstCenter for Real Estate in this country 20years ago with an innovative approach toreal estate that goes beyond investmentand profit but approaches real estatedevelopment as a physical product in the

Adèle Naudé Santos, FAIA, is an architect andurban designer whose career combines pro-fessional practice, research, and teaching. Sheis currently Dean of the School of Architectureand Planning at MIT, as well as principal archi-tect in the San Francisco-based firm, SantosPrescott and Associates. Her academic careerincludes professorships within the graduateprograms of UC Berkeley, Harvard, RiceUniversity, and the University of Pennsylvania,where she also served as Chairman of theDepartment of Architecture. She was also thefounding Dean of the new School ofArchitecture at the University of California, SanDiego, and has had numerous visiting appoint-ments throughout the United States and theworld, including Italy and in her native SouthAfrica.

MIT Faculty NewsletterNovember/December 2006

17

built environment. The Media Lab is thefirst research center of its kind to investi-gate the boundaries and interactionsbetween people and technology. We havea tradition of artistic innovation in our

Visual Arts Program and the Center forAdvanced Visual Studies that attractsworld-renowned artists and has earnedinternational recognition – yet few peopleat MIT know these are even part of theDepartment of Architecture. And, we havethe oldest architecture program in thecountry. Our alumni in Architectureinclude notables like I.M. Pei and CharlesCorrea, and graduates who formed thearchitectural foundations for some of themost successful firms in the country –firms like Skidmore, Owings and Merrill(SOM) in Chicago, Bull, Stockwell andAllen (BSA) in San Francisco, GruzenSamton in New York City.

FNL: I think a great deal of work beingdone in the School of Architecture andPlanning is really unknown by other partsof the MIT community.

ANS: It’s true. The alumni and facultyof this School have had an enormousinfluence on the shape, architecture, art,development, and infrastructure of manyof the major cities and communities inthis country, and in cities and communi-ties around the world. Yet, as a relativenew comer to MIT, I can easily see that thecontributions of this School are morewidely known and understood outside thedoors of 77 Mass. Ave., than on the oppo-site side of this threshold! For instance,not many people here at MIT know thatfor 20 years we’ve been taking a team ofstudents every other year to Beijing wherewe partner with Tsinghua University totackle some intractable problem in thecity of Beijing. Based on our two decadesof collaboration, our faculty in urban-

ism/city design and development are inthe process of establishing a researchentity called the China Urbanization Lab– the Urb Lab – with Tsinghua to dealwith rapid urbanization. Why? Because

there is massive migration of rural peopleto the cities of China where cookie cuttersolutions are going up faster than you canspeak because nobody sat down and said,“Well, what is the quintessential answer tourbanism here?” The Urb Lab gives us achance to look at how to build in amanner that is more durable, more sus-tainable, more beautiful, and culturallyrelevant. When we were there in Januaryand again in June, we were heralded by theBeijing Press! Back home, I found myselfoften explaining in great detail the historyand significance of being the first MITfaculty in China 20 years ago and what itmeans today.

FNL: What plans do you have for theSchool?

ANS: To take this rich and marveloustradition of excellence and make it evenbetter! We need to build on what we dobest in each area and create stronger col-laborations across the School and acrossthe Institute. We need to play a strongergame at the undergraduate level and growour learning community at the graduatelevel. And we need people to know whatwe do! We need to raise our visibility andprofile both within MIT and across thegreater alumni community. The disci-plines and faculty of this School haveenormous experience and expertise theycan bring to larger Institute initiativessuch as energy, international education,and institutional partnerships. Improvingthe content and quality of our undergrad-uate curriculum is as important as ispreparing the next generation of leadersto tackle the types of problems facing MIT

– like the future of community buildingand campus development right here inCambridge. The way I see it, if the realestate industry, which includes residential,commercial, construction, etc., is thelargest consumer of energy in thiscountry, if over half the world will beliving in urban areas by the year 2030, ifutility costs in our campus buildings are adriving cost factor of our budget, MITneeds this School and our faculty at thetable, in the studio, and at the lab bench todevelop the best solutions possible.

FNL: Do you feel like you have been ableto make some inroads?

ANS: Most definitely so. We have thebenefit of having fresh leadership in theDepartment of Architecture, the MediaLab, the Center for Real Estate, and theVisual Arts Program, while being able todraw on the experience, counsel, andexpertise of those faculty who have servedthe School so well in the past.

This year we will introduce a newundergraduate course called Cityscope.Modeled on Terrascope, we will bring allthe focus of the disciplines in our Schoolto examine one city each year from multi-ple points of view. Everything from: Howdo you conduct policy and land surveys?What do you see? What policy issues areinvolved? What are the challenges? Whathappens to one part of the city infrastruc-ture if you alter a different part? What arethe environmental issues? What aboutenergy efficiency? How do both theseissues affect economic viability? I think itcould be a very exciting first dip into thebuilt world for the undergraduatestudent, and provide important exposureto issues that affect all of us – because weall live in communities. On the graduatelevel, we have finally been able to doublethe size of the incoming class in theMaster’s of Architecture program from 12to 24 students. This is very exciting andwill truly invigorate the quality of debateand discussion by building a vibrant com-munity of learners in this program.

We have begun to develop new cross-School initiatives. I already mentioned theUrbanization Laboratory – which will

continued on next page

This year we will introduce a new undergraduatecourse called Cityscope. Modeled on Terrascope,we will bring all the focus of the disciplines in ourSchool to examine one city each year from multiplepoints of view.

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XIX No. 2

18

have its first demonstration project inShenzhen under the direction ofArchitecture Department Head Yung HoChang. Emeritus Dean Bill Mitchell isworking to bring form and coherence to

The Design Lab, a collection of multidis-ciplinary research and project teams pur-suing innovative design solutions tosocial, economic, and cultural problems.And I am very excited about two newcross-School advisory groups: an SA+PEnergy Council to develop a cross-Schoolinitiative on the energy efficient city, andan SA+P Housing Task Force to reviewour curriculum and research initiatives toaddress renewed interest in housing. And,we have a working group of faculty fromacross the School that is developing aninitiative called the Responsive City. It’sreally a very fascinating inquiry – with allthe sensor networks being developed bythe engineers, and all the data being col-lected – how can the planners and archi-tects embed this data architecture into thephysical infrastructures of our communi-ties to understand how they can workbetter?

FNL: What’s the biggest challenge to cre-ating such cross-disciplinary activity inSA+P?

ANS: Quite honestly, it’s been ourspace. Our programs, students, andfaculty are widely scattered across thecampus, and up and down Mass. Ave., andsome of the facilities are in dangerous dis-repair and unsafe for students at night.And, we desperately need exhibition spacefor our studios and course work to beeffective teaching tools. Exhibition spacefor us is like lab space for the School ofScience!

This is why I am so pleased that theProvost, the President, and members of

the Space Committee have worked withus on two important projects – making itpossible for us to move into Building 9and restarting construction of the build-ing designed by Maki for the Media Lab.Building 9 is the heart of the School andhome to Urban Studies and Planning, andArchitecture. It will be a fundraising chal-

lenge for sure, but we are looking forwardto finally bringing the Center for RealEstate from across Mass. Ave. into itshome department of DUSP, right offLobby 7 and the Dome. When the exten-sion to the Media Lab is completed, welook forward to bringing the Visual ArtsProgram, the photography labs, and theCenter for Advanced Visual Studies downfrom the MIT Museum area and givingthem a home in the Wiesner Building.Think of it! If I could get the whole Schoolplaying together from the visual artistswith the architecture faculty all the waythrough the Media Lab where there arefaculty musicians and artists and design-ers, and put them all next to the art at theList Center, imagine what could happen!

FNL: When is the extension to theMedia Lab building supposed to happen?

ANS: Actually, it will get underwaynext year. We expect to break ground inthe spring and are planning for comple-tion a couple years after that. It will beexciting to better integrate the Media Labphysically into the activities of the School.Most people don’t even know the MediaLab is part of the School.

FNL: The Media Lab building is onlyone capital project in an ambitious programof campus development. How is MITdrawing on your expertise and the expertiseof the School?

ANS: I think there is an important rolethe Dean of the MIT School ofArchitecture and Planning can play indeveloping and implementing the long-term vision of campus development for

MIT. I believe the Dean can and shouldplay a role in forming policy, choosingarchitects, and helping to critique whatgoes on – because critique and peer-review are an essential part of qualityarchitecture and planning – just as theyare in the sciences. I believe that our peerreview process should come from insideand outside the campus. The School hasextremely talented faculty who haveextensive experience in campus develop-ment at other universities in this countryand around the world who can provideimportant and useful feedback to our ownplans in campus development. And wecan use what we have learned in ourdesign studios that have studied, forexample, the provision of faculty andstudent housing adjacent to campus.

We are invited from around the worldto do studios and workshops on realproblems in places like Seoul, Kiev, SaoPaolo, Zaragosa, and so on. Our proposalsfor the Seoul Digital Media City are beingimplemented. We have just shipped a pro-totype interactive bus shelter to Paris fromThe Design Lab. We have had many excit-ing ideas on how to re-energize ourboring Infinite Corridor and how to dealwith the negative impact of MassachusettsAvenue on our institutional image. Wehave the know-how to transform ourpublic environment into a digitally inter-active place that is focused on the future.It seems silly that the students and facultyhave not been included in the process ofthinking through our own environment.

FNL: Is there anything else you wouldlike to add?

ANS: MIT is a place where people takea practical, pragmatic approach to solvingproblems. This hands-on approach tovery real problems is exactly what we doacross the School of Architecture andPlanning. Our problem sets are designstudios, our laboratories are physicalspaces, our peer-reviewed journals areexhibits and juried competitions. But atthe end of the day, we proudly share withour colleagues across MIT a common ori-entation to Mens et Manus, mind andhand. Who would want an architect orplanner who didn’t come with both?

Adèle Naudé Santoscontinued from preceding page

We have had many exciting ideas on how to re-energize our boring Infinite Corridor and how todeal with the negative impact of MassachusettsAvenue on our institutional image.

MIT Faculty NewsletterNovember/December 2006

19

WWrriitttteenn iinn PPeenncciill

The lake under rainWind streams in waterA day full of words,Most unspoken, lightning,The bowl filled with peoniesLong enough ago to know betterMarni you were here whenMy mother, your grandmother, died,Lay dying, not so far awayI couldn’t go. I didn’t,Had reasons that today I can’tRemember. No wonder we lieTo ourselves, to others, selfish,Easier than facing who we are.If that’s the thunder tell meSomething I don’t know or sayIt in a way I’ve never heard before.

MIT Poetry

William Corbett, who teaches in the Program in Writingand Humanistic Studies, has published three volumes ofpoetry as well as memoirs and literary essays. His mostrecent publication is Just the Thing: The Selected Lettersof James Schuyler.

FFeebbrruuaarryy LLuunncchh

So cold schools closeOn the train reading SnyderForty years down the roadRare, job-worthy poemsOf hard outdoor workEar for the way we talkPlain surface, action belowA fine ride to the whitedCambridge streetsAnd lunch with old friend SimicDown from New Hampshire.Dean? Not for him.Clark, whose Belgrade bombingKilled his uncle or KerryWill get his primary vote.He’s just back from Germany,Liked it there because peopleAdmit they once did terrible things.

by William Corbett

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XIX No. 2

20

Holly SweetTeach TalkFirst Response Education:New Orleans Comes to MIT

History of the development of theNOLA study groupL I K E M A N Y A M E R I CA N S , I wasstunned to follow the progress of theimpact of Hurricane Katrina on the GulfCoast last August, particularly the devas-tation of New Orleans caused by floodingfrom the storm due to levee failure. At adinner gathering of friends shortly afterthe hurricane, I asked everyone what theywere going to do to help. “Nothing” wasthe most common answer, citing variousreasons (“it’s too big a problem, I don’tknow what to do, my dollars will just getswallowed up in bureaucracy,” etc.).

The passivity of their responses got tome. I realized that the most importantthing I could do was to get others involvedin New Orleans through some kind ofeducational effort. I wanted to bring thedevastation of New Orleans home to MITstudents. It is one thing to watch pictureson TV, it’s quite another to study what isactually going on. I wanted students togain experience doing research on theirown about an event that was happening atthe same time they were studying it, andto present a specific topic in class. I alsowanted them to imagine concrete solu-tions to real-life problems. I wanted tohave them work together, alongside me, inteaching and learning about a subject thatwas new to all of us.

I knew that credit drew students so Iconferred with the director of ESG(Professor Alex Slocum) about using ourspecial topics credit (SP.233) for thegroup. He agreed that it was important touse this credit in “first response” educa-tion, that is, an educational experienceinvestigating important current events in

depth. I sent out an e-mail to the ESGcommunity the next day about a studygroup on the subject and had a planningmeeting with interested ESG studentsright after Registration Day. I also sent outthe following announcement to all under-graduate administrators at MIT:

SP.233 New Orleans: Rising or SinkingCity? (3-6 units pass/fail credit)This study group will spend time looking atwhat made New Orleans great, whyKatrina was so devastating, and what canbe done to rebuild the city. Guest speakersand documentary films will supplementdiscussion and readings. Participants willtake turns presenting information on topicsand will put together a resource book.

Finally, I contacted the administratorof the MIT home page to put somethingup about the study group. By September16th, I had 10 students from a variety ofbackgrounds enrolled in the subject.

Structure of the study groupWe started with introductions, overviewof the group, people’s special interests,and discussion of final projects, spent aweek on the history of the city, two weekson the culture of New Orleans, two weekson Katrina (focusing on why the leveesfailed, why Katrina was such a powerfulstorm, and why the evaluation plan failedso dramatically), two weeks on the politi-cal and psychological aspects of the storm(in particular, for the people who weredisplaced from their homes), and threeweeks on the rebuilding of New Orleans(including a look at other cities that expe-rienced natural disasters). Our guest

speakers included an MIT alumnus wholives in New Orleans, an ESG alumnuswho went down to Houston to help in therecovery efforts, and Professor LawrenceVale, who discussed his book on Resilient

Cities and implications for New Orleansbased on his research. Readings werelargely drawn from Wikipedia and fromcurrent newspapers and journals (includ-ing Time, Newsweek, The New York Times,The Boston Globe, and the local paper ofNew Orleans – The Times Picayune). Ipaid attention to what was on TV andtaped a number of shows that were of rel-evance to our class, including those onlevee construction, global warming, andcoastal erosion.

Each week a student took notes aboutwhat happened during the class and e-mailed me the information, which wecollected and stored on the ESG Website. Icreated a listserve for the students in thestudy group and students were encour-aged to send relevant information whichthey found online to the class. Studentswere responsible for presenting materialfor one top