in this issue we begin a focus on some of the recent and upcomingInstitute financial decisions that will affect all faculty as well as the rest of the MITcommunity. The article below, “Changes in MIT’s 401(k) Plan,” and our Editorial“Retirement Planning” initiate what we hope will be a continuing discussion. Wewelcome contributions on any and all related matters.

MITFacultyNewsletter

Vol. XXII No. 2November/December 2009

http://web.mit.edu/fnl

MassachusettsInstitute ofTechnology

continued on page 9

David E. Pritchard, Analia Barrantes,Brian R. Belland

Teach TalkWhat Else (Besidesthe Syllabus) ShouldStudents Learn inIntroductory Physics?

EditorialRetirement Planning

RECENTLY OUR EDUCATION RESEARCH

group has turned its attention from study-ing micro-learning (see relate.mit.edu) toissues that lie at the heart of any educa-tional reform – even though they areoften overshadowed by discussions ofwhat the syllabus topics should include.The questions we’re addressing include:

• What should students learn?•What do they actually learn? and•What do they retain at graduation?

This contribution is based on a surveywe administered to ~ 600 teachers andstudents concerning the first question –what students should learn in introduc-tory physics. Since our survey wasdesigned to emphasize student habits,pedagogical objectives, and overall

Changes in MIT’s401(k) Plan

Among the many benefits that MIT facultyand staff receive, the Supplemental 401(k)Plan is one in which a large majority of theMIT community participate.

ON A REGULAR BAS I S , the MITSupplemental 401(k) Plan OversightCommittee reviews MIT’s 401(k) plan.The committee has just completed a thor-ough review of the plan investments – (anactivity that is unrelated to the work ofthe Benefits Task Force). The review hasled to a number of changes, which willprovide participants with more passiveinvestment choices (i.e., investments thatare tracked by measuring against a broadmarket index such as the S&P 500),including “target date” funds, generallyimproved fees, and more user-friendlywritten and Web-based materials. Inaddition, these changes will reduce the

continued on page 3

Peter A. Diamond and Andrew W. Lo

continued on page 6

Hoppy Holidays

THE M IT HUMAN RESOURCES

Website allows each employee to study indetail his or her personal retirementbenefit profile. The site is well done, aneasy-to-use guide to planning retirementoptions within the framework of MIT’scurrent retirement system. The MIT TaskForce asks us to consider substantialchanges to this system: Theme 5 in theIdea Bank (ideabank.mit.edu) entitled“Modern Workforce Policies andPractices,” describes possible changes inretirement options, rules, and programs,all of which are aimed at reducing MIT’scosts. Among them are:

• Revision of the 401k plan• Freeze surviving spouse special deathbenefits• Eliminate some pension disabilitybenefits

Vol. XXII No. 2 November/December 2009

2

The MIT FacultyNewsletterEditorial Board

Alice AmsdenUrban Studies & Planning

John BelcherPhysics

Robert BerwickElectrical Engineering &Computer Science

Markus BuehlerCivil & Environmental Engineering

Nazli ChoucriPolitical Science

Olivier de WeckAeronautics &Astronautics/Engineering Systems

Ernst G. FrankelMechanical Engineering

Jean E. JacksonAnthropology

*Gordon KaufmanManagement Science/Statistics

*Jonathan King (Secretary)Biology

Helen Elaine LeeWriting and Humanistic Studies

Stephen J. LippardChemistry

*Seth LloydMechanical Engineering

David H. MarksCivil & Environmental Engineering

Fred Moavenzadeh (Chair)Civil & Environmental Engineering/Engineering Systems

James OrlinSloan School of Management

Ronald PrinnEarth, Atmospheric & Planetary Sciences

George VergheseElectrical Engineering & Computer Science

Rosalind H. WilliamsScience, Technology, & Society/Writing

David LewisManaging Editor

*Editorial Subcommittee for this issue

AddressMIT Faculty NewsletterBldg. 11-268Cambridge, MA 02139

Websitehttp://web.mit.edu/fnl

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

Subscriptions$15/year on campus$25/year off campus

Teach Talk 01 What Else (Besides the Syllabus) Should StudentsLearn in Introductory Physics?David E. Pritchard, Analia Barrantes, Brian R. Belland

01 Changes in MIT’s 401(k) PlanPeter A. Diamond and Andrew W. Lo

Editorial 01 Retirement Planning

From The 05 Holiday Readings and ReflectionsFaculty Chair Thomas A. Kochan

12 Memorial Resolution for David B. Schauer

Letters 13 Allocating Faculty TimeDave Staelin

14 The MIT150 Symposia:A Call for Proposals

15 Request for Proposals for Teachingand Education Enhancement

M.I.T. Numbers 15 OpenCourseWare (OCW)Expenses and Funding

M.I.T. Numbers 16 OpenCourseWare (OCW)Monthly Global and MIT Visits

contents

Photo credit: Page 12, Donna Coveney

MIT Faculty NewsletterNovember/December 2009

3

• Change the actuarial method for accrualof defined benefits after 65• Cap the career-based pension formula inthe defined benefits plan• Change the interest rate used on the cashbalance pension plan• Shift to a 5% cash balance definedbenefit pension plan for new hires andcurrent employees with short years ofservice• Shift to three-year vesting for new hires• Eliminate supplemental pension accru-als for high-salaried employees• Adopt an allocation strategy thatmatches pension assets to liabilities torecover all pension costs on federalgrants and contracts.

If we adopt some subset of these rec-ommendations will the machine remainproperly geared? It is relatively easy totrace the effects on employees of just oneof the changes proposed by the Task Forceif all other features of our retirement plansare held fixed and if medium to longerterm feedback behavior induced by achange in the structure of the plan areignored. However, two or more simulta-neous changes can interact in ways thatare not immediately identifiable and canlead to unforeseen and unintended conse-quences – unless someone builds a modelof our retirement system that properlyaccounts for the simultaneous effects oftwo or more changes in the plan’s struc-ture over a relatively long time horizonand uses it to trace consequences.

There are many, very different stake-holders at play. EachMIT employee wantsto know:

• “How does a particular combination ofchanges in the MIT Retirement Planaffect my current, future, and retirementincome stream?”• “How domy contributions to retirementchange? How does MIT’s contributionto my retirement portfolio change?”

• “How will my benefits at retirementchange?”• “Life is uncertain. Is there any guaranteethat restructuring our retirement plans is‘permanent’? Or can we expect futurechanges?”

A retirement “program change” can beviewed as a choice of “where to be” in eachof the thematic elements of change citedearlier. There are a very large number ofchoices. Even if we allow only one changein each domain – treatment of the 401kplan or adopting a 5% cash balancedefined benefit plan for new hires, forexample – our list yields 210 = 1024 possi-ble combinations (including the currentplan). The number of possibilities is, inreality, at least one to two orders of mag-nitude larger.

Not only are a large number of optionsat play here.Our retirement plan is part ofa large organizational dynamic systemwhich, in turn, is imbedded in a competi-tive marketplace for intellectual talent.This has not gone unnoticed in commen-tary our colleagues have posted about theTask Force recommendations. Here is asample:

“Reducing retirement and medicalbenefits is, of course, a reduction in tax-free or tax-deferred compensation. If webelieve agency theory, then the bestfaculty and staff, those that MIT wants toretain, will get market-based compensa-tion. Over time taxable salaries willincrease to compensate for the reduction.MIT will book some savings, but the net

cost, which is not easily observed, will notbe on the books and will be illusory. Theslight savings will come as a cost to ourculture. It is the people that we will mostwant to retain who will leave or overwhom we will spend time in recruiting

wars. We may not be able to attract thepeople we care about most.”

“With retirement benefits reduced,faculty and staff will be less likely toretire…and fewer opportunities forfaculty renewal. The bottom line is that, inequilibrium, the proposed savings couldlikely be, in reality, net additional costs toMIT, but costs that are hidden.”

“Think carefully about the tradeoffbetween a salary reduction and a reduc-tion in retirement benefits. Reducingsalaries by one dollar also reduces Federaland State income taxes by a dollar so thatan employee who pays aggregate taxes of35% is ‘giving up’ only 65 cents. A dollarreduction in after tax benefits costs anemployee one dollar. The multiplier effecton investment of tax-free dollars versustaxable dollars over many years magnifiesthe difference. Of course, we all must haveimmediate disposable income, but, formost of us, a salary freeze for a substantialperiod of time sounds decisively preferableto substantial cuts in after tax benefits.”

“I think people, institutions, societies,indeed, countries, are judged by the waythey treat the most vulnerable people intheir midst. Who are the most vulnerablepeople in an institution like MIT (apart

Retirement Planningcontinued from page 1

continued on next page

Even if we allow only one change in each domain –treatment of the 401k plan or adopting a 5% cashbalance defined benefit plan for new hires, for example– our list yields 210 = 1024 possible combinations(including the current plan). The number of possibilitiesis, in reality, at least one to two orders of magnitudelarger.

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XXII No. 2

4

from the students, whom we all serve)? Ithink the answer is that in general they arethe very young and very old. I hope theadministration will consider very, very

seriously, the impact on morale across theInstitute that reducing benefits, particu-larly for those approaching retirement,will have.”

“It would be helpful to explain why theTask Force selected this particularexample: ‘…a 51-year-old employee with19 years of service would, if he or sheretired at age 65, receive a projected totalincome (including the basic MIT retire-ment, 401k withdrawals, Social Securityand retiree medical benefits) of 108percent of his or her annual income justprior to retirement.’”

This last “example” may be a case ofselectionbias: an atypicalmember of a largepopulation is chosen to illustrate a generalfeature of thepopulation.The examplemayor may not be an accurate characterizationof most MIT employees. We do not knowuntil a more complete analysis is done.Display of histograms of the ratios of pro-jected total income at retirement to pro-jected income just prior to retirement for

(a) non-academic employees for (b) aca-demic employees and for (c) all MITemployees would tell us much more. Inturn, account for the effect of length ofemployment on retirement benefits by par-titioning each of (a), (b) and (c) accordingto length of employment atMIT.

“Our neighbor Harvard seems to offerbetter retirement benefits: ‘The Universityprovides a number of generous, competi-tive pension plans. For most staff, onceany employee is with the University sixmonths the University contributes to theirpension plan retroactive to their hire date.Each month the University contributes5% of salary below the social securitywage base to those under age 40, and 10%of salary below the social security wagebase for those age 40 or over. For earningsabove the social security wage base, thepercentage is higher: 10% and 15%respectively.’

“For employees with five ormore yearsof service Stanford contributes 5% ofsalary to what is essentially a 401k andmatches up to another 5% of salary. Inother words, for employees over 40 whocontribute 5% of salary, Stanford con-tributes a total of 10% of salary. This istwo times whatMIT currently contributestowards retirement.”

Talent has many options. Stanford andHarvard are our principal competitors –and both appear to have more generousretirement plans than we do. There are, asone would expect, dissenting voices:

“MIT’s benefit packages are totally outof control. In most respects, they are evenworse than the public sector benefits thatare dragging California into bankruptcy.Hire Towers Perrin, or some other bene-fits consultant and instruct them to do acomparison between other ‘peer’ schoolsand also between MIT and comparablysized private sector employers. Use thisindependent study to reduce these ridicu-lous, crippling benefit packages.”

We recommend that the Task Forceengage undergraduates and graduates andgive them the task of building a retirementplan model capable of projecting the con-sequences for any MIT employee –administrator, service employee, assistant,associate, full professor – of a vector ofchanges in retirement options and plansthat span those presented in the TaskForce report.

Along with changes in our retirementplans, the Task Force considers majorchanges in MIT Medical benefits, inemployment practices, and in use ofspace. MIT has been a supportive, stable,and generally equitable working environ-ment for faculty and overall an excellentplace to work. We need our currentadministration to continue to fully engageboth faculty and staff in planning andimplementing substantive changes, if weare to maintain a collegial, creative, andproductive environment.

Editorial Subcommittee

Retirement Planningcontinued from preceding page

“For employees with five or more years of serviceStanford contributes 5% of salary to what is essentiallya 401k and matches up to another 5% of salary. Inother words, for employees over 40 who contribute 5%of salary, Stanford contributes a total of 10% of salary.This is two times what MIT currently contributes towardsretirement.”

MIT Faculty NewsletterNovember/December 2009

5

I HOPE EVERYONE TAKES TIME toenjoy the upcoming holidays with familyand friends. As you do so, I’d encourageyou to take a few documents home withyou and use them to reflect on where weare going as a community. The reportscapture much of the hard and thoughtfulwork our peers have put into helpingshape the future of MIT.

I would put the report of the Initiativeon Faculty Race andDiversity at the top ofyour list. This committee has conducted atwo-year comprehensive review andassessment of MIT’s efforts to attract andretain minority faculty. Committee ChairPaula Hammond summarized the reportat the November faculty meeting and itwill be available in mid-January on theInstitute’s new “Inventing Our Future”Website: diversity.mit.edu. The report willdemonstrate that MIT has made someprogress in this area but still has muchwork to do to meet our objective ofattracting and retaining a more diversefaculty. This cannot and will not be areport that is issued and then put on theshelf. All of us from the chair of thefaculty, to deans, department heads, toindividual faculty members need to usethis report as a working guide for how toredouble our efforts to obtain the benefitsin education and research that flow fromdiverse faculty. I welcome your ideas onhow we can put this report to work.

The final report of the Institute-widePlanning Task Force should also be avail-able for holiday reading. This is a remark-able document both for its substantiveideas and for the process that generated it.This is our report – generated by over 80faculty and another 120 or so staff,

student, and administrative contributors.Now we need to sort through the ideas inthe report, test their costs and benefitsmore completely, modify and sharpenthem as necessary, and then implement

those that can both help address ourbudget problems and make MIT strongerfor the long run.

Some of this is already underway. Avery hardworking faculty and staff advi-sory group is looking at the alternativesposed for reducing benefit costs. Watchfor more information coming from thisgroup soon. The Sloan School haslaunched a very promising “talent bank”experiment to expand opportunities forcurrent staff and reduce reliance on tem-porary and contract help. Others areworking on modernizing our travel andprocurement systems. Still others willprocess ideas for new revenue genera-tion. This is MIT at work. Let’s keep it up.Read the report and find some ideas thatinterest (or concern) you and getengaged in taking them to their bestlogical conclusion.

To satisfy your global interests, lookcarefully at two recent reports on MIT’sinternational linkages. There is no doubtthat our global reach will continue togrow in the years ahead. The real question

is how can we shape and control thisprocess. The report of the InternationalAdvisory Committee, Mens et Manus etMundus (web.mit.edu/provost/reports/IAC_Report_20090903.pdf), outlines a

set of suggested criteria for assessingopportunities and proposals as they eithercome to us from outside of MIT or froman internal faculty or administrativegroup. Another report, prepared by theMIT Global Council (web.mit.edu/provost/reports/Global.Council.Report.pdf),summarizes the growing number of inter-national educational opportunities avail-able to our students. Together thesereports give us a roadmap for assessingproposals that come toMIT and for beingmore proactive in developing opportuni-ties that advance our mission.

Reading these reports will demonstratethe range of faculty members working onkey strategic issues, and perhaps encour-age you to get involved in the year ahead.But the holidays are a time to reflect notjust on our professional but also on ourpersonal lives. So let me end with my bestwishes to you and your families for theholidays and the new year.

Thomas A. KochanFrom The Faculty ChairHoliday Readings and Reflections

Thomas A. Kochan is a Professor ofManagement and Faculty Chair(tkochan@mit.edu).

The Sloan School has launched a very promising “talentbank” experiment to expand opportunities for currentstaff and reduce reliance on temporary and contracthelp. Others are working on modernizing our travel andprocurement systems. Still others will process ideas fornew revenue generation. This is MIT at work.

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XXII No. 2

6

complexities of investing for retirementwithout restricting those who desiregreater flexibility.

Along with these changes, we thoughtit would be helpful for our faculty col-leagues to have an explanation of theprocess and reasoning that led to thesedevelopments, supplementing the infor-mation being provided by MIT to all par-ticipants. What will not change is MIT’srecord-keeper for the 401(k) Plan, FidelityManagement Trust Company. Fidelity willcontinue to provide administrative andrecordkeeping services, including theenrollment of employees in the Plan,changes to investment and contributionelections, and the processing of benefici-ary designations, loans, exchanges, andwithdrawals.

The Supplemental 401(k) PlanOversight CommitteeThe Supplemental 401(k) Plan OversightCommittee was established by the MITExecutive Committee to help MIT meetits fiduciary responsibilities under theEmployee Retirement Income SecurityAct (ERISA). The committee is responsi-ble for the selection and monitoring ofinvestment options and consists ofmembers appointed by theMIT Presidentfrom among the senior officers, faculty,and staff of the Institute. [The currentcomposition of the committee may befound at web.mit.edu/committees/president/Rosters/supp401k.pdf.] This oversightrole is limited to the performance of theinvestments offered through the 401(k)Plan and does not include oversight ofadministrative operation or plan design.

The committee is chaired by MIT’sExecutive Vice President and Treasurer. In2007, MIT was very fortunate to haverecruited Theresa M. Stone for thisimportant role. An MIT Sloan alumna,Terry came to us with deep financial expe-rience, having served as Chief FinancialOfficer of a Fortune 500 company, ViceChair of the Board of the Federal ReserveBank of Richmond, and Chair of the

Board of the MIT InvestmentManagement Company (MITIMCo),which is responsible for managing theInstitute’s endowment, defined-benefitpension plan, and welfare benefit plan.Terry’s extensive financial expertise andleadership were invaluable as the 401(k)Oversight Committee conducted a major

review of the investment options availableto plan participants.

One of Terry’s first actions as Chair ofthe 401(k) Oversight Committee was toconfer with the President and Provostabout the composition of the committee,with the twin objectives of bolstering itsinvestment expertise and maintainingbroad representation of the entire MITcommunity. Based on Terry’s recommen-dations, two seasoned investment profes-sionals were appointed to the committee:Marty Kelly and John Nagorniak. Marty iscurrently a managing director atMITIMCo responsible for marketablesecurities, and John was the ChiefInvestmentOfficer of State Street Bank andTrust Company before founding FranklinPortfolio Associates, and is currently adirector of MITIMCo. Also, InstituteProfessors Peter Diamond (Economics)and Barbara Liskov (EECS), and LarryCandell (Lincoln Lab) were added to thecommittee, and Professor Andrew Lo(Sloan) was re-appointed. In the fall of2007, the committee appointed a subcom-mittee consisting of Marty, John, andAndrew to engage in amore detailed analy-sis of the 401(k) plan’s investment options,and to report back to the full committeewith specific recommendations and alter-natives to consider. Given his expertise inthe economics of Social Security and

retirement issues, Peter also participated inseveral subcommittee meetings.

Actions of the MIT 401(k)SubcommitteeThe subcommittee’s initial tasks were tointerview and then recommend a profes-sional investment consulting firm to assist

the committee in discharging its duties,and to review the existing 401(k) plan’schoice of investment options and theirpresentation. FromOctober 2007 throughMarch 2008, the sub-committee inter-viewed several investment consultants,and based on its feedback, the committeechose unanimously to engage the servicesof Mercer Investment Consulting, Inc.Mercer brought considerable experienceto the committee, having advised manycorporate and educational retirementplans similar to MIT’s. The Mercer con-sultants assigned to MIT have beenextremely helpful in every aspect of thecommittee’s deliberations, focusing par-ticularly on regular reviews of the 401(k)plan’s investment performance, the selec-tion of new investment options, and theoperational aspects of moving assets fromone manager to another.

From March 2008 through the end ofthe year, the subcommittee reviewed theinvestment design of the 401(k) plan andthe specific investment choices availableto plan participants. The subcommitteeconsidered a variety of new managers,new investment products, the fee struc-tures of existing funds, and the possibletermination of underperforming man-agers. This process was extensive, and wasmade all the more challenging by thefinancial crisis that started in 2007, and

Changes in MIT’s 401(k) PlanDiamond and Lo from page 1

This process was extensive, and was made all the morechallenging by the financial crisis that started in 2007,and reached a crescendo during the fourth quarter of2008 with the collapse of Lehman Brothers. During thistime, the subcommittee met frequently to keep abreastof the impact that the developing financial crisis mighthave on the 401(k) plan. . . .

MIT Faculty NewsletterNovember/December 2009

7

reached a crescendo during the fourthquarter of 2008 with the collapse ofLehman Brothers. During this time, thesubcommittee met frequently to keepabreast of the impact that the developingfinancial crisis might have on the 401(k)plan, but the primary focus was on thebroader agenda of improving the plan’sinvestment options and their presenta-tion. Given a recent change in the law, thecommittee also had to decide how the401(k) plan should invest the funds ofparticipants who join the plan but do notselect an investment option.

During the first half of 2009, the sub-committee formulated a proposal thatincluded several new investment optionsincluding “target date” or “life-cycle”funds, the termination of consistentlyunderperforming funds, the transfer ofsome of the plan’s assets to newmanagers,and a presentation of the investmentoptions that placed more emphasis onpassive index funds with lower fees. At thesame time, the subcommittee was sensi-tive to ensuring that the 401(k) plan’sexisting investment options would still beavailable as part of the new investmentprogram (except in cases of consistentunderperformance) so as to provide asmuch continuity as possible for those par-ticipants who were satisfied with theirchoices. These considerations were nottrivial because prior to the creation of thecurrent plan structure, MIT offered twoinvestment options (an all-equity fundand a bond/stock fund), and to preservecontinuity in moving from the legacy tothe current structure, the Bond OrientedBalanced Fund and the Diversified StockFund were created, organized as commin-gled pools (i.e., combines the money ofmany investors who own a share of thepool) managed by MIT. These fundsinvest in a combination of underlyingasset classes that were selected to approxi-mate the underlying investment strategyof the legacy vehicles. Since many planparticipants stayed with these options,they currently hold nearly 65% of thetotal funds invested in the plan. However,the choices of new participants have a verydifferent pattern, with over 66% of new-

participant assets being allocated to the“Investment Window,” which is a broadoffering of mutual funds. Apart from thetermination of a small number of under-performing funds, the new investmentoptions will allow all participants to con-tinue with their current choices if they

wish,with some of the choices having newmanagers.

The proposed changes to the MIT401(k) plan were approved by theOversight Committee in the spring. InNovember, all plan participants wereinformed of the changes by e-mail anddirect mail. The changes will go into effectat the start of 2010.

Before describing the changes in moredetail, we would like to acknowledge theenormous contributionsmade by the othermembers of the Oversight Committee(Alison Alden, Larry Candell, Marty Kelly,Barbara Liskov, and John Nagorniak) andthe MIT staff who support this committee(Gary Cahill, David Chused, SophiaManiaci, and Jean Samuelson). None ofthese changes would have been possiblewithout the dedicated efforts of these indi-viduals over the past two years.

Our discussion of the 401(k) plan’snew investment structure begins with asummary of the changes in managers ofexisting funds since this is of direct inter-est to those invested in these funds. Wethen turn to the addition of new funds –including Vanguard Lifecycle Funds – tothe investment array, and also describe achange in how the plan’s investmentoptions are presented to participants. Weconclude with a brief discussion of thenew default choice for participants who

do not choose an investment option whenthey join the plan.

I. Changes in ManagersBondOriented Balanced Fund. This fundis a“commingled pool”currently combin-ing seven separate funds managed by

Pyramis, a division of FidelityInvestments. Two of the smaller Pyramisfunds will be retained, which togetherrepresent 7% of the assets in this fund.The rest of the existing assets will bemanaged by PIMCO and Vanguard(approximately 40% of total assets toPIMCO and 53% to Vanguard). In termsof asset classes, the overall portfolio is notbeing changed, just the managers. Withthis change, we anticipate a reduction ofexpenses from .22 to an estimated .1655.With lower fees and a good track record ofmanagement, we think this is a betterchoice going forward. People invested inthis fund do not need to do anything, but,of course, do retain the option of movingtheir investments to other funds.

Diversified Stock Fund.This commingledpool currently consists of six separatefunds managed by Pyramis and FidelityInvestments. One of the smaller Pyramisfunds will be retained and the rest of theassets will be managed by Vanguard.Again, part of the reason for a change isthe anticipation of lower fees, withexpenses estimated to decrease from .25 to.0759. People invested in this fund do notneed to do anything, but, of course, doretain the option of moving their invest-ments to other funds.

continued on next page

During the first half of 2009, the subcommitteeformulated a proposal that included several newinvestment options including “target date” or “life-cycle”funds, the termination of consistently underperformingfunds, the transfer of some of the plan’s assets to newmanagers, and a presentation of the investment optionsthat placed more emphasis on passive index funds withlower fees.

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XXII No. 2

8

Some of the separate funds thatmake up these two commingled poolsalso are available as separate stand-alone investments. These separateinvestments will also experience thesechanges in management.

Fidelity Bond Pool. The existing underly-ing investments in this pool will now bemanaged by PIMCO (60% of the alloca-tion) and Vanguard (40% of the alloca-tion). The namewill change to Core BondPool and expenses are estimated todecrease from .20 to .1898.

Fidelity US Equity Index CommingledPool – Class 2. This fund will no longer bepart of the larger commingled pools. Bymoving this fund out of the BondOriented Balanced Fund and theDiversified Stock Fund, the decrease intotal assets undermanagementwill impactboth the expenses, which will increasefrom .05 to .10, and the share class, whichwill change from Class 2 (institutionalshares) to Class 1 (investor shares). Youcan access the Vanguard InstitutionalIndex Fund in the Investment Window atan expense ratio of .05.

II. New Investment OptionsVanguard Target Retirement Trusts,Vanguard Index Funds. Some partici-pants in the 401(k) plan want to activelymanage their portfolios. Others arelooking for investment options that cansensibly be held with limited attention tomaking changes. The new options andthe new layout of options are designedto particularly help those who do notwant to be actively managing theirinvestments. When an individual investsin an “actively managed fund,”where themanagers are choosing the investmentsand possibly changing them over time,the individual investor has to pay atten-tion to how good a job the manager isdoing. In contrast, a well-run index fundsimply attempts to match the outcomes

in some standard index of investments,such as the S&P 500 index. Given sto-chastic variation in the returns to anyinvestment strategy, it is easier to tellwhether an index is being adequatelymatched than whether, over time, anactive manager is doing a good job.While not all passive fund managers doexactly the same in matching, there isnot as large a concern about monitoringthe performance of the manager. Thus“passive funds” are more convenient forthose not planning on more monitoringof their investments. To aid those whowant to follow the passive investmentstrategy, we have added a number ofVanguard Index Funds to the array ofoptions. These Vanguard passivelymanaged index funds generally carrylower expenses and fees than activelymanaged funds. While MIT’s 401(k)plan has always had some index fundsamong its investment options, the pres-entation of investment options availableunder the Plan has been redesigned tocreate greater visibility and easier accessto these funds.

Recently, there has been growing inter-est in lifecycle funds. These are fundsmade up of a number of underlying assetclasses that change the mix of differentclasses over time. The idea is to slowlymove to a less risky portfolio which maybe desired by some investors as they age.Among the 401(k) plan’s new investmentoptions is a family of Life Cycle Optionsthat will provide participants with a diver-sified investment option with relativelylow expenses (.14) – the Vanguard TargetRetirement Trusts. “Life Cycle” or “TargetDate” options are designed to automati-cally adjust the balance between stocksand bonds as participants approach thetarget date. These options may appeal toPlan participants who do not want toactively manage their investments and thestock/bond mix of their investments ontheir own. Again, as detailed below, wehave placed them in an easy-to-find loca-tion in the presentation of investmentoptions.

III. Presentation of InvestmentOptionsThe previous terminology that refers toTiers I, II, III, IV is replaced by (1) LifeCycle Options, (2) Asset Classes, (3)Investment Window, and (4) BrokerageLink. The Asset Classes set of optionsincludes the Bond Oriented BalancedFund and the Diversified Stock Fund anda number of index funds covering differ-ent asset classes, both bonds and stocks.The presentation of the options in writtenmaterial and on the web has been changedtomake choosing easier. Some investmentoptions have moved into Asset Classes orthe Investment Window, but are other-wise unchanged.

IV. Change in Default InvestmentOptionCurrently, when a participant does notselect an investment for contributions, thecontributions are placed in the FidelityRetirement Money Market Portfolio. The2006 Pension Protection Act (PPA) nolonger permits use of a money marketfund as a default investment, although itwill still be available as an active choice.The new law permits the use of life cycleor target date funds as a default or auto-matic option for faculty who do not selectan investment option. The new defaultwill be the age-appropriate VanguardTarget Retirement Trust and will apply tonew contributions. Thus the accumula-tions as of January 1, 2010 of participantswho have been defaulted into the moneymarket fund will remain in the moneymarket fund, with new contributionsplaced in the lifecycle fund.

The committee will continue toprovide oversight of MIT’s 401(k) Planand periodically re-visit the investmentlineup. We believe these current changesenhance the MIT plan and offer morechoice for the MIT community.

Changes in MIT’s 401(k) PlanDiamond and Lo from preceding page

Peter A. Diamond is an Institute Professor(pdiamond@mit.edu);Andrew W. Lo is Professor of Finance(alo@mit.edu).

MIT Faculty NewsletterNovember/December 2009

9

student skills, it will be relevant to facultyin all General Institute Requirement(GIR) courses.

Historically, introductory physics was alecture-recitation course, and discussionsof course reformwere limited to changingsyllabus topics or whether to have labora-tories with the course. The developmentof tests of conceptual understanding, suchas the Mechanics Base Line Test and theForce Concept Inventory, however, revealedlimitations of conventional instruction.As a consequence, new instructional tech-niques (peer instruction, interactive lec-tures, discovery labs) and Web-basedactivities (phet.colorado.edu,WebAssign.net,MasteringPhysics.com) have been devel-oped to enhance learning, and which ofthese to adopt has become a new focus ofcourse reform. In a recent major reform –8.01 and 8.02 TEAL – the Physics Depart-ment adopted MasteringPhysics.com andswitched to studio physics (students areseated at tables and do much work ingroups) and peer instruction (using click-ers) with the objectives of teaching stu-dents conceptual knowledge as well ascreating more student-teacher dialog.

This paper represents an attempt toshift the course reformdiscussion in intro-ductory physics – and hopefully other sub-jects – to instructional goals rather thanteaching techniques and syllabus topics.This is imperative, because numerouslearning goals have recently come undercontemporary discussion in physics edu-cation research including cognitive abili-ties, scientific abilities, and habits of mind(e.g., demonstrating problem-solvingskills by initially developing a qualitativedescription of the problem).

To elicit non-topical learning goals forintroductory physics we used a Delphistudy approach, starting by asking about20 successful instructors – mostly fromthe Physics Education Research (PER) orAmerican Association of Physics Teachers(AAPT) communities – to suggest suchgoals in their own words. From theirresponses we distilled 12 alternatives.

Then we polled successive groups ofinstructors, using the question:“Due to a change in the academic calen-

dar, you have 20% more time to teach thecalculus-based introductory course to non-physics majors, and the syllabus has notbeen expanded.What learning will you seekto add or emphasize with this extra time?”

The respondents were asked to vote fortwo of the 12 alternatives, which weregrouped into four categories:

1. Course Content• Wider content: e.g. gyroscopes,optics, quantum mechanics, modernphysics....• Discovery or Traditional Labs.

2. Instructional Themes• Scientific method, hypothesis andexperimental test.• Physics is constructed from a few ideasthat can be expressedmathematically.• Epistemology: how do I know, deri-vations?

3. Problem Solving• Vocabulary of Domain.• Concepts: “Be Newtonian thinkers.”• Problem Solving: understand, planthe solution starting with concepts(plan set-up).• Problem Solving: make sense of ananswer (includes estimation) usingunits, special or limiting cases, sym-metry, etc.

4. Relation to the OutsideWorld• Write/Present scientific argumenteither in oral or written formats,• Science in news and society, to readscience news critically, e.g., be able toexamine a New York Times article forsense and consistency.• Physics applied to everydaylife/things, to understand how objectsaround you work.

It should be noted that this approachleaves two major questions out of the dis-cussion: Should we adopt a more modernapproach (e.g., basing discussion ofmatter and interactions on an atomicviewpoint), and should we assess studentsmore broadly than by their ability to solveproblems (e.g., a term paper or project)?

We received 708 responses frominstructors representing different groups:educators at AAPT meetings, atomicresearchers at a Gordon ResearchConference, and education researchers at aphysics education research meeting.These three groups agreed on sometopics, but also disagreed substantially onothers. We also asked several groups ofstudents what they wanted to learn, giventhe same alternatives, receiving a total of562 responses. Students in different insti-tutions were in reasonable accord, buttheir preferences generally anti-correlatedwith those of their instructors. The per-centage of positive responses on each ofthe alternatives is presented in Figures 1and 2. The dashed portion of the bars cor-responds to the 95% confidence intervalsfor proportions calculated using a normaldistribution. The scientific method andvocabulary of subject domain wereunpopular (average under 2%) with thethree groups of instructors and with stu-dents as well; therefore, they are notincluded in the figures.

Similarities and differences betweeninstructor groupsThe most striking fact about instructorpreferences in Figure 1 is that there is no“must do” selection. Sense-making of ananswer was the instructors’ top choice(17% of the votes representing ~34% ofthe teachers, since they could vote twice).All instructor groups showed aboutaverage preference for both laboratories(10%) and understanding science in newsand society (10%), and a disdain for widercontent (4%).

The most notable difference amonginstructors was on problem solving – thecombination of vocabulary, concepts, andplan set-up. Educators selected problemsolving (excluding sense-making) at 39%,more than atomic researchers (16%) andeven more than education researchers(7%). For education researchers, episte-mology (17%) generally applies to theconstruction of individual students’knowledge (e.g., whether the studentthinks problem solutions are obtained by

What Should Students Learn in Physics?Pritchard et al., from page 1

continued on next page

applying memorized formulae ratherthan thinking about the concepts), and agood fraction of epistemological effort isaimed at better problem solving.Counting most of the “epistemology”responses as problem solving, responsesputs Education Researchers near theaverage of all instructors in this category.Education researchers thought “scientificargument” (15%) was more importantthan the other two instructor groups(average of 5.5%). Atomic researchersrated “physics from a few ideas” (17%) astheir top selection, while educators wereless enthusiastic (6%).

Similarities and differences betweeninstructors and studentsThe substantial difference between thepreferences of students and instructors(average of educators, atomic researchers,and education researchers) is shown inFigure 2.Wider content was students’ toppreference but instructors’ lowest (19%vs. 4%). The relation of physics to every-day life/things was students’ second pref-

erence but the instructors’ second lowest(15% vs. 6%). On the other hand, stu-dents had no interest (3%) in sense-making, which was the instructors’ topselection (17%). Students had little inter-est in scientific argument (2%) whereasinstructors thought it merited significantattention (9%). Students and instructorsagreed on priorities of five of the 10options – physics from a few ideas, episte-mology, concepts, plan set-up of prob-lems, and understanding of science innews and society.However, the differenceson the other selections were so markedthat the correlation between students’ andteachers’ preference is - 0.4. In otherwords, the students’ interests are morethan orthogonal to their teachers’ – theyare 115 degrees apart!

Implications for Course Reform at MITWhat do these findings imply aboutcourse reform for introductory physics?The most significant finding is that stu-dents’ preferences anti-correlate with ours.We instructors seem to be saying, “We are

going to make you into expert physicists,”and the freshmen seem to be replying,“Before we commit to that much hardwork, tell us how physics connects to theworld around us and to society’s prob-lems, and teach us new things we haven’tstudied before.” Freshmen don’t see therelevance of introductory physics to theirlives, as evidenced by a survey we took in8.02 where, by nearly 2:1, they character-ized their prime motivation in 8.01 and8.02 as “goal-oriented” [to pass therequirement] rather than “mastery learn-ing” [of the subject]. In contrast, they indi-cated, also by ~ 2:1, that they’d choose tolearn the subject matter of their major butreceive no degree rather than get a degreethat was accompanied by little learning.Arguably, students don’t realize that intro-ductory physics underlies a large majorityof their likely majors. Many students viewintroductory physics primarily as arequired hurdle and focus exclusively onhow to do problems like those on exams,rather than focusing on any other aspect ofthe subject, such as epistemology, history,and relevance to their major or to theireveryday observations or reading.

To get students’ engaged attention weshould demonstrate the relevance andutility of physics to their lives and careers.We can do this without sacrificing a greatdeal of course time, simply by selectingillustrative examples involving “physicsapplied to everyday life/things” and“science in the news and society.” Ourmoving mass problems could involvetopics such as air resistance and how air-planes fly – rather than artificial exampleslike a railroad car slowing because it isfilling with rain – and our treatment ofmechanical energy could mention theenergy crisis. We could use examples thatillustrate the application of basic physicsin other disciplines at MIT as well, and incurrent research.

Demonstrating the relevance of intro-ductory physics would address two of thestudents’ four top preferences, but nottheir top preference – new topics.

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XXII No. 2

10

Education Research Atomic Research Educators

Wider Content

Labs

Physics froma few ideas

Epistemology

Concepts –Newtonian Thinking

Plan Set-Up

Sense Making

ScientificArgument

Science inNews/Society

Relation toeveryday life

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Relationto

OutsideWorld

Problem

Solving

Instructional

Themes

Course

Content

Figure 1. Percentage of each instructor group choosing each topic as an importantaddition to the syllabus. The lighter portion of the bars corresponds to the 95%confidence limit (i.e., have total length of 4 sigma). If two lighter portions justoverlap, the chance the two group averages are really the same is p ~ 0.01.

What Should Students Learn in Physics?Pritchard et al., from preceding page

MIT Faculty NewsletterNovember/December 2009

11

Unfortunately, research literature andconcept tests show that we already sacri-fice basic conceptual understanding bycovering too many topics. Thus a betterapproach might be to add sufficient realworld and societal relevance to existingtopics (certainly not part of what our stu-dents learned in high school) so our stu-dents find revitalized interest.

At MIT, teaching students to becomecritical thinkers is one of our professedgeneral educational goals. A foundationalskill for critical thinking is to “make senseof an answer (includes estimation) usingunits, special or limiting cases, symmetry,etc.” – the top instructor choice in oursurvey. In honesty, we (and most profes-sors nationwide) do not regularly makesense of our example solutions; weemploy a partial credit grading systemthat often awards significant credit forphysically ridiculous answers, and onlysometimes do we take a point off if theanswer is dimensionally incorrect.

Both students and instructors wantstudents to become more expert problemsolvers, although students don’t see thevalue of making sense of their answers.(According to research, novice problemsolvers put their faith in procedures ratherthan concepts.) Currently introductoryphysics is primarily oriented to problemsolving, especially in TEAL, and clearlyachieves success – students exiting 8.01show a learning effect in excess of twostandard deviations on the problemsrequiring an analytic answer (versus justover one on conceptual questions).However, typical physics problems repre-sent a narrow slice of possible assessmenttasks. They give only necessary and suffi-cient information, use standard notationfor the various physical quantities, give theapproximations, and (at MIT) rarelyinvolve numbers. A consideration of pos-sible consequences, such as not assessing“thinking like a physicist,” encouragingnovice problem solving techniques, orfailing to give a quantitative view of theworld is important in a discussion ofcourse reform, but lies outside the scopeof this article.

Our results, like any exploratory study,raise new questions. In addition to the pro-fessors and the students, the educationalgoals of the Institute at large, the PhysicsDepartment, and the instructors of coursesrequiring 8.01 and 8.02 have priorities thatmust be considered in any comprehensivediscussion of what to teach. Also theremight be other groups of instructors withdifferent preferences; or student prioritiesmay change over time. (Results fromCollege of DePaul indicate that studentslose interest in studying more topics andbecome much more interested in problemsolving by the end of the semester. MITseniors highly value 8.01 and 8.02 forteaching them problem solving.)

These refinements aside, our resultsshow a robust mismatch between ourteaching and what students are interestedin learning; moreover they show that wephysics teachers ignore our own top pref-erence – making sense of the answer. Wereally should consider addressing suchdisparities when we reform our GIRs.

Future articles in this series will addresswhat students actually learn in 8.01 and howmuch of it they still retain at graduation.

AcknowledgmentsWe are grateful to E. Cornell, C. Monroe,M. Sabella, and J. Thompson for giving ustime to survey the attendees at their con-ferences, and to T. Carter and D. Demareefor administering the survey to theirclasses. We are grateful for support fromNSF grant PHY-0757931.

Note: This work is part of a study fornational publication that will hopefullyaffect physics discussions nationally. Theviews are those of the authors and not of thePhysics Department.

Average of all Instructors Students

Wider Content

Labs

Physics froma few ideas

Epistemology

Concepts –Newtonian Thinking

Plan-Set Up

Sense Making

ScientificArgument

Science inNews/Society

Relation toeveryday life

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Relationto

OutsideWorld

Problem

Solving

PhilosophyCourse

Content

Figure 2. Percentage of instructors (average of educators, atomic researchers, andeducation researchers) and students choosing each topic as important. The lighterportion of the bars corresponds to the 95% confidence limit (i.e., have total lengthof 4 sigma). If two lighter portions just overlap, the chance the two group averagesare really the same is p ~ 0.01.

David E. Pritchard is a Professor of Physics(dpritch@mit.edu);Analia Barrantes is an Experimental StudyGroup (ESG) Lecturer (analiab@mit.edu);Brian R. Belland is an Assistant Professor inthe Instructional Technologies & LearningSciences Department at Utah State University(brian.belland@usu.edu).

Memorial Resolution for David B. Schauer

The following resolution was passed unani-mously at the Institute Faculty Meeting onOctober 15, 2009.

IT IS WITH GREAT SORROW that weregretfully acknowledge the sudden deathof our friend and colleague, Dr. DavidSchauer, on June 7, 2009 – one day afterhis 48th birthday. David Schauer wasknown not only for his keen scientificmind, but also as a friend whose empathyand compassion touched countless indi-viduals. David’s warm personality andgentle nature evoked a sense of genuinetrust and caring. His students loved himfor his openness, unpretentious manner,and ability to sit down with them todiscuss research projects, or talk aboutpersonal issues or life in general. Thisappreciation is shared by the many col-leagues he interacted with not only here atMIT but also those more widely at thenational and international level.

David was born in NewYork but spenthis youth in North Carolina, where he

graduated with honors in biology fromthe University of North Carolina in 1983.He was then accepted into the School ofVeterinary Medicine at North CarolinaState University. He chose this career pathafter being counseled by a research veteri-narian and mentor, Dr. James Pick, whoconvinced David that a veterinary educa-tion would allow David to establish solidfoundations in science and comparativebiology. Indicative of David’s passion forscience, he undertook laboratory researchduring his veterinary education with Dr.Paul Orndorff, professor of veterinarymicrobiology, and published his first twofirst-authored papers while in Dr.Orndorff ’s laboratory. He graduated witha doctorate in veterinary medicine in1987, and then after a year’s experience inprivate practice joined the laboratory ofDr. Stanley Falkow at Stanford Universityto gain a doctorate in microbiology andimmunology. Dr. Falkow considers thepublications resulting from David’sresearch on Citrobacter rodentium asseminal contributions on the role ofmicrobes in inflammatory bowel diseaseand colon cancer.

Following completion of this work,David was recruited to MIT in 1993 as anassistant professor in the Division ofComparative Medicine and the Divisionof Toxicology, transitioning in 1998 intowhat is now the Department of BiologicalEngineering. In 1999 he was promoted toassociate professor, and four years ago hebecame a full professor. Along the way,David became increasingly involved withundergraduate and graduate education atMIT, both in the Biological EngineeringDepartment and institute-wide. Heserved on the MIT UndergraduateCurriculum Committee as chairman, and

helped establish a new interdepartmentalprogram in microbiology in 2007, as co-director, with Alan Grossman of theBiology Department. David will be longremembered as a gifted and dedicatedteacher both to undergraduate and gradu-ate students at MIT, and additionally atthe Chulabhorn Graduate Institute inBangkok, Thailand, where he taughtduring a number of summers.

David’s research was supported on acontinuous basis by the NationalInstitutes of Health throughout his careerat MIT. His studies on microbial patho-genesis of gastrointestinal pathogenic bac-teria, particularly Citrobacter rodentium,a murine model of enteropathogenicEscherichia coli, and enterohepatic heli-cobacter are widely known and respected.David’s research provided importantinsights into the molecular mechanismsevoked by enteric pathogens and how theinfections caused by these bacteriaperturb the gastrointestinal barrier, elicitinflammation, and produce clinically rele-vant disease. His scientific research ischronicled in scores of journal publica-tions, review articles, and book chapters.Professor Peter Dedon, a colleague inBiological Engineering here, describesDavid as a “brilliant scientist and anabsolutely wonderful experimentalist.”

Along with his scientific contributions,David’s personal interactions as a mentorand collaborator in his research programhave had significant impact. Dr. VinceYoung, now on the faculty at theUniversityof Michigan, joined David’s laboratory fora postdoctoral fellowship in infectiousdisease. Vince credits the training hereceived under David’s supervision as hisprimary motivation to focus his researchon the microbial ecology of the gastroin-

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XXII No. 2

12

MIT Faculty NewsletterNovember/December 2009

13

testinal tract. As Vince describes, Davidremained a steadfast friend and was readilyavailable for advice, “which was alwaysuseful and always cheerfully given.” Dr.John Leong, a professor at theUniversity ofMassachusetts Medical School, was a col-laborator and friend. He describes David’sgenuine interest in the work of others inthe field and his innovative approach toenvironmental health problems on a globalscale. Dr. Scooter Holcombe, currently astaff veterinarian and immunologist atMassachusetts General Hospital, wasDavid’s classmate in veterinary school anda close friend for 25 years, who also echoesthese sentiments. Scooter fondly remem-bers David’s sense of humor and intensefocus,whether in the laboratory or relaxingwith sports activities.

Dr. Schauer’s membership on theGastrointestinal Mucosal PathobiologyStudy Section exemplifies the esteem inwhich David was held by his colleagues.Dr. Richard Peek, a professor atVanderbiltUniversity and a co-member of this studysection, recalls that David “exuded enthu-siasm, integrity, and vigor for his work aswell as the work of others.” David alsoserved on the editorial board of several

journals and as a scientific reviewer formany others. His colleagues at MIT andhis collaborators throughout the worldalso valued his keen scientific insights and,importantly, his friendship.

David’s family and his Jewish faithwere the center of his personal life. Alongwith Carol, his wife of 25 years, he was theproud father of two sons, Nathan andSam, both young adults; Nathan is a soph-omore in college, and Sam is a recent highschool graduate. The family resided inNewton, Massachusetts, and was activelyinvolved in their temple. David intro-duced his sons to the Young JudeaSummer Camps and the 9-month YoungJudea Program in Israel, where he andCarol had first started dating. In additionto participating in a variety of sportsincluding intramurals with our graduatestudents, David relished the outdoors andalways eagerly anticipated camping tripswith his family and bike treks with hiswife in Europe and Asia.

David is survived by his mother,Francine (Ross) Schauer of Scottsdale,Arizona, and 2 brothers: James ofMadison, Wisconsin, and Andrew ofDenver, Colorado.

We will miss and remember David inmanyways, eachof uswith special thoughtsof his warm, gentle spirit, his openness toothers’ views and ideas, and most impor-tantly how he embraced life, both person-ally and scientifically, and deeplyappreciated its boundless opportunities.

“BE IT RESOLVED: THAT THEFACULTY OF THE MASSACHUSETTSINSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, AT ITSMEETING OF OCTOBER 21ST 2009,RECORD ITS PROFOUND SENSE OFLOSS ON THE DEATH OF OURBELOVED COLLEAGUE AND FRIEND,DAVID B. SCHAUER, AND EXPRESS ITSDEEPEST SYMPATHY TO THESCHAUER FAMILY.”

Douglas A. LauffenburgerJames G. FoxPeter C. DedonSteven R. TannenbaumColleagues in the Department ofBiological Engineering and Division ofComparative Medicine(edited from “In Memoriam” article byJ.G. Fox in Gastroenterology)

letters

To The Faculty Newsletter:

TH I S NOTE I S I N RESPONSE TO

your September/October editorial “alter-ing the culture” query about administra-tive involvement in allocation of facultytime to teaching vs. research.

From a business/financial perspectiveMIThas twomain educational businesses –undergraduate education funded almostexclusively by students and donors, andresearch-centered graduate educationfunded largely by fellowships and studentRA earnings billed to sponsors.Independent of their absolute “profitabil-ity”, the former relies significantly more oncharity than does the latter and therefore

our finances would clearly not be improvedby increasing the former at the expense ofthe latter, as some have suggested.

The alternative option of increasing thegraduate program makes sense financiallyonly if that business is “profitable” in anabsolute sense (unlikely), and shrinkingboth businesses makes sense financiallyonly if we assume the charitable compo-nent will shrink less over the long term.The optimum strategy is therefore likely tobe continuing improvements in long-termoperational efficiency that promote teach-ing and research productivity within acost-effective plant. MIT has been blessedrelative to its peers by its healthy evolvingstrategic balance, so it is reasonable to

expect that optimum solutions should notdramatically shift that hard-won multi-dimensional balance as costs are reduced,barring significant shifts in oursponsor/donor environment. Beyondinsightful efficiency improvements andpruning, the main remedy for financialstress is creative increases in income andthoughtful reductions in compensationthat preserve institutional /esprit de corps/and academic excellence. In summary,moderation and balance will be key.

Dave StaelinProfessorDepartment of Electrical Engineeringand Computer Science

Allocating Faculty Time

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XXII No. 2

14

The MIT150 Symposia:A Call for Proposals

MIT WI LL CE LEBRATE ITS 150TH

anniversary during the spring semester of2011. In addition to a variety of other pro-grams that will celebrate the past andenvision the future, the Institute willsponsor a series of five symposia. The goalis to create a series that will explore issuesand topics of interest to MIT’s commu-

nity of scholars, students, and staff and tocommunicate those issues to the world.

This series will focus on howMIT as aninstitution fosters innovation, andtogether with an academic convocation tobe convened by the president, forms thescholarly and intellectual centerpiece ofthe MIT150 program. The ideal sympo-sium keynotes will feature individualswith MIT ties who are leaders around theworld. Symposia will look forward andback: they will reflect on historical accom-plishments while helping to define theMIT of the twenty-first century.

The MIT150 Steering Committee isseeking proposals from the MIT commu-

nity for these symposia. A subcommitteeof faculty, senior administrative staff,alumni, and students will select proposalsfor funding. This initial request is for two-page “pre-proposals,” from which anumber will be selected and invited forlonger proposals.

The committee offers the followingexamples for symposium topics, althoughit emphasizes these are to generate ideasmore than specify proposals:

• Organizing to solve global problems• MIT as an engine for the economy• Establishing new disciplines and fields• Great laboratories at MIT• Technology and the arts• MIT as an innovator in education• MIT and global partnerships• MIT and the future of exploration

Each symposium will last 1 to 1.5 days,although the committee is open to otherformats. Each symposium will contributepapers and transcripts into a collection of

scholarly works, permanently recordingthe events in a combination of books andonline materials.

RequirementsEach proposal should identify as a leaderat least one faculty member or senioradministrative staff member, includepotential speakers from both within andoutside of MIT, and representmore than asingle department or center.

RecommendedStrong proposals will identify matchingfunds and/or additional fundraising,highlight MIT’s intellectual focus andimpact, engage a range of MIT stakehold-ers (alumni, faculty, staff, students), andgather participants from around theglobe.

Dates and deadlines•December 20, 2009 – Pre-proposals due• Early January 2010 – Pre-proposalsselected for further development• February 15, 2010 – Complete proposalsdue

ContactPre-proposals should be directed to theattention of Professor David Mindell,chair of the MIT150 Steering Committee,and sent as a PDF to mit150@mit.edu byDecember 20, 2009. Questions? Pleasecontact Ted Johnson, director of planningand operations for MIT150, attej@mit.edu.

This series will focus on how MIT as an institutionfosters innovation, and together with an academicconvocation to be convened by the president, formsthe scholarly and intellectual centerpiece of theMIT150 program. The ideal symposium keynotes willfeature individuals with MIT ties who are leadersaround the world.

MIT Faculty NewsletterNovember/December 2009

15

Request for Proposalsfor Teaching and Education Enhancement

Alumni Class Fundssupported by the Classes of 1951, 1955, 1972, and 1999

The Office of Faculty Support seeks proposals for innovative projects for the 2010-2011academic year that improve the quality of teaching, enrich students’ learning experiences,and uphold the tradition of innovation at the Institute. Grants typically range from $10,000to $50,000 and cover a wide variety of creative curricular and pedagogical projects.

Guidelines and more information including past awards can be found atweb.mit.edu/alumnifunds or by calling the Office of Faculty Support at 3-6776.

Proposals are due on Monday, February 1, 2010.

24%

29%

47%

10%

41%49%

Publication Technology Other MIT Budget Grant Reserves Other

M.I.T. NumbersOpenCourseWare (OCW)Expenses and Funding

FY09 Expenses (Total $3.5M) FY09 Funding (Total $3.5M)

• 12% reduction from FY09 budget• “Other” includes outreach, evaluation,management, administration, and fundraising

• Grants have provided 72% of OCW fundingto date• Grant reserves will run out in FY12• “Other” includes small donations, interestincome, and Amazon.com revenue

MIT Faculty NewsletterVol. XXII No. 2

M.I.T. NumbersOpenCourseWare (OCW)Monthly Global and MIT Visits

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

-

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

Oct

ober

Dece

mbe

rFe

brua

ryAp

rilJu

neAu

gust

Oct

ober

Dece

mbe

rFe

brua

ryAp

rilJu

neAu

gust

Oct

ober

Dece

mbe

rFe

brua

ryAp

rilJu

neAu

gust

Oct

ober

Dece

mbe

rFe

brua

ryAp

rilJu

neAu

gust

Oct

ober

Dece

mbe

rFe

brua

ryAp

rilJu

neAu

gust

Oct

ober

Dece

mbe

rFe

brua

ryAp

rilJu

neAu

gust

Oct

ober

Global Visits

MIT Visits

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

OCW Benefits

External• 56.8 M total visits from 35.7 M unique visitors directly to the MIT OpenCourseWare site; 30 M additional visits to OCW contentin translation• 60% of OCW visitors are from outside North America• 66% of visitors are mostly or completely successful at meeting educational goals; 27% are somewhat successful

Internal (MIT)• 92% of undergraduates, 84% of graduates, 73% of faculty, and 47% of alumni use OCW• 96% of students report a positive impact from OCW on student experience• 90% of faculty say OCW furthers MIT’s public service mission; 92% feel it reflects positively on MIT; 82% consider it animportant element of MIT’s international engagement