Task Force 2021 and Beyond
Menu↓
  1. Home
  2. Report
  3. Undergraduate Program

Undergraduate Program

Undergraduate Program Refinement and Implementation Committee (RIC) 1

Committee Members

Rick Danheiser (Chair), Arthur Bahr, Duane Boning, Anne McCants, Krishna Rajagopal, Lily Tsai, and Ian Waitz

Abstract

RIC 1 recommends that MIT convene a new Task Force on the Undergraduate Academic Program. The charge of the Task Force will include reviewing the current program and considering improvements in all aspects of the General Institute Requirements (GIRs), with a focus on both the curriculum and pedagogy. The new Task Force will begin work in academic year 2022–23 but will be preceded by several “Foundational Working Groups” that will begin work this fall. These foundational groups will include the Ad Hoc Committee on Social Equity and Civic Responsibility (proposed by Task Force 2021 RIC 2) and the Ad Hoc Committee on Leveraging Best Practices from Remote Teaching for On-Campus Education (proposed by RIC 16). In addition, an Ad Hoc Working Group on the SME Requirements will be convened to continue the work of the 2019 group of the same name, critically analyzing the current SME required subjects, and canvassing the community for input concerning the current requirements and directions for change. The existing CUP Subcommittee on the HASS Requirement and the Subcommittee on the Communication Requirement will be assigned to provide foundational groundwork for the new Task Force with regard to the HASS and Communication components of the GIRs.

Background

Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, the Chair of the Faculty and the Senior Leadership of the Institute had agreed that it would be desirable to stand up a Task Force on the Undergraduate Academic Program to begin work in spring 2020. The charge and membership for this Task Force was to be developed jointly by Faculty Chair Rick Danheiser and Vice Chancellor for Undergraduate and Graduate Education Ian Waitz. The charge of the Task Force would include review of the undergraduate curriculum including, in particular, the General Institute Requirements. Both the SME (science-math-engineering) and HASS (humanities-arts-social sciences) components of the GIRs would be reviewed. Proposals by the Task Force for changes in the undergraduate requirements would be submitted to the appropriate committees of Faculty Governance for their consideration. Unfortunately, the eruption of the Covid 19 pandemic in early 2020 intervened and plans for this task force were indefinitely postponed.

Findings and Recommendations: A Task Force on the Undergraduate Academic Program

RIC 1 has considered the reports of prior reviews of the MIT undergraduate academic program and consulted with faculty colleagues who participated in previous studies of the undergraduate curriculum including the 1964 Zacharias Committee, the 2006 Task Force on the Undergraduate Educational Commons, and the 2008 CUP Subcommittee on the Educational Commons. In accord with previous discussions, the RIC 1 agrees that the principal aims of the General Institute Requirements comprise the following:

  1. Foundational Building Blocks: The GIRs provide a common body of knowledge that faculty can then assume in teaching advanced subjects.
  2. Literacy in Essential Fields: The GIRs provide substantive knowledge in areas with which every MIT graduate should have familiarity.
  3. Methods for Creative Analytical Thinking: The GIRs teach modes of thinking and provide portable (transferable) tools, skills, and general strategies for formulating, analyzing, and solving problems.

While the Committee reaffirms these as the principal aims of the MIT General Institute Requirements, we also recognize that what constitutes the ideal specific subjects and experiences in the undergraduate program that are used to achieve these aims has evolved over time. We also note that the background, interests, and expectations of our undergraduate students have changed in recent years, as have the fields they will enter, and that there have been important developments with regard to pedagogy and the technology available for delivering educational experiences. Consequently, the Committee endorses the previous plan to convene a new Task Force to review the MIT residential undergraduate academic program. The Committee believes that the focus of the new Task Force should be on both the curriculum and pedagogy, and the charge of the new Task Force should include consideration of improvements in all aspects of the General Institute Requirements. However, areas such as advising and the education of learners outside of MIT should not be considered to be in the purview of the Task Force.

The Committee believes that a relatively small Task Force (e.g., 10–12 members) is ideal, perhaps augmented with ancillary working groups. Note that the Lewis and Zacharias Committees had only [5 + 10] and 9 members, respectively. Members of the Task Force should be afforded some relief from other duties, perhaps via the ”education sabbaticals” proposed by RIC 16. The Task Force membership and charge will be developed by the Chair of the Faculty and the Vice Chancellor, in consultation with the Chair of the Committee on the Undergraduate Program (CUP). The membership of the Task Force will include, ex officio, the Chair of CUP. The new Task Force itself will begin work in academic year 2022–23. The Task Force will be asked to issue its draft recommendations after approximately one year, i.e., by spring 2024. This relatively short timeline should be possible by building on the work of prior task forces as well as the foundational working groups described below.

Recommendation: Foundational Working Groups

RIC 1 recommends that groundwork for the Task Force be conducted by the several ad hoc “foundational working groups” described below that will begin their work this fall. This approach has the added advantage of allowing time for the assembly of a task force with the necessary experience, quality, and expertise. Note that appointing such a task force immediately would be very difficult due to the “task force fatigue” that many key faculty are experiencing as well as by the continuing burden associated with teaching and conducting research under the conditions of the Covid 19 pandemic. The Task Force will deliver its report to the President, Chancellor, and Provost (representing the Administration), the Chair of the Faculty (representing Faculty Governance), and the Chair of CUP. If needed for implementation of its recommendations, the Task Force report will include proposals for motions to amend Rules and Regulations of the Faculty.

Extensive deliberations with regard to defining the aims of the MIT undergraduate academic program should not be necessary, as the new Task Force can build on the work of the 2006 Report of the Task Force on the Undergraduate Educational Commons (Robert Silbey, Chair) and the 2014 Report of the Task Force on the Future of MIT Education (Israel Ruiz, Sanjay Sarma, Karen Wilcox, Co-Chairs). In addition, a foundation for the work of the Task Force will be provided through the information gathering, deliberations, and subsequent reports of the several “foundational working groups” which will complete their work prior to the beginning of meetings of the Task Force in academic year 2022–23. These working groups will not necessarily be charged with bringing specific motions for consideration by the Faculty, but rather will provide information and suggestions that will facilitate and accelerate the work of the Task Force when it is convened in academic year 2022–23.

One such foundational group, which issued its report in 2017, is the Working Group on Computational Thinking (Eric Grimson, Chair). The report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Social Equity and Civic Responsibility (proposed by Task Force 2021 RIC 2) will also provide a foundation for the work of the new Task Force. In addition, some of the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee on Leveraging Best Practices from Remote Teaching for On– Campus Education (proposed by RIC 16) will also be valuable for the new Task Force in its deliberations.

Critical analysis and foundational groundwork on the current SME component of the GIRs, and an initial discussion of possible improvements, will be undertaken by the Ad Hoc Working Group on the SME Requirements described below. Critical analysis and foundational groundwork on the current HASS component of the GIRs will be assigned to two existing subcommittees of CUP: the Subcommittee on the HASS Requirement (SHR) and the Subcommittee on the Communication Requirement (SOCR).

Recommendation: Foundational Working Group on the SME Component of the GIRs

To lay a foundation for the work for the Task Force, we recommend that a critical evaluation of the current SME component of the General Institute Requirements and some initial canvassing of faculty and critical analysis of proposals for change be conducted by an ad hoc ”working group” which will begin work this fall and will report its findings to the new Task Force prior to the beginning of its work in academic year 2022–23. This Ad Hoc Working Group on the SME Requirements will continue the work of the 2019 Working Group of the same name, possibly with some overlap in membership with the 2019 committee. See the Appendix for the draft charge for the Working Group; the charge of the 2019 Working Group is also included with this report in the Appendix.

The membership of the Working Group will be determined by the Chair of the Faculty. The charge of the 2019 Working Group (see Appendix) focused on a review and critical analysis of the current science core component of the SME requirements and the work of this group included meetings with representatives of each department responsible for a science core subject. The new iteration of this Working Group will review the findings of the 2019 group and will also discuss the findings of the 2006 Silbey Task Force and the subsequent Educational Commons Subcommittee concerning the SME component of the GIRs.

The new Working Group will augment this review of the work of the 2019 group with additional meetings with the science core departments (Biology; Chemistry; Materials Science and Engineering [DMSE]; Math; and Physics). We note that the Working Group can serve a role as a sounding board for ideas from these departments for changes in the science core subjects that they are considering. The charge of the new Working Group on the SME Requirements, however, will include canvassing faculty and others across all schools of the Institute for input concerning the current requirements and potential directions for change. The Working Group will include the REST and Laboratory Requirement in their review and critical analysis of the SME component of the General Institute Requirements.

We recommend that the size of the Working Group be on par with the earlier iteration, i.e., no more than 10 members, including representatives of Biology, Chemistry, DMSE, Math, and Physics, as well as additional faculty from across the Institute. We suggest that the future Task Force may wish to create a subcommittee of CUP with a focus on the SME requirements and with a charge analogous to that of the existing CUP Subcommittee on the HASS Requirements. Note that the membership of such a future CUP Subcommittee would be expanded and different from this ad hoc working group. Such a subcommittee was proposed by the ECS in the failed motion on the SME requirements in 2009. Note that the creation of such a subcommittee would require amending Rules and Regulations and approval of a motion by the full Faculty.

The Committee views the need for foundational groundwork on the HASS component to be less urgent relative to the SME component of the GIRs since significant changes in the HASS component were made in 2009. Consequently, we believe that a new working group on the HASS requirements is not necessary; the Subcommittee on the HASS Requirement (SHR) and the Subcommittee on the Communication Requirement (SOCR) can be assigned the role of providing some foundational analysis of the HASS GIRs for the new Task Force. Note that the charge of SHR already includes “Ensure regular review of new and existing subjects to ascertain that the educational goals of the HASS Requirement are met while maintaining MIT’s high educational standards” and “Support, encourage, and monitor the development of new innovative subjects and changes to the HASS Requirement”. The charge of SOCR includes similar wording.