[2071] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: [Mit-talk] Separating threads: Student Committee on
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Chris Rezek)
Mon Jul 10 16:11:38 2006
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 16:10:37 -0400
To: Jessica H Lowell <jessiehl@mit.edu>, Chris Rezek <crezek@alum.mit.edu>
From: Chris Rezek <crezek@alum.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20060710155006.19zncr6etm8s8s0g@webmail.mit.edu>
Cc: faber@alum.mit.edu, mit-talk@mit.edu, grace <gkenney@mit.edu>,
Dheera Venkatraman <dheera@mit.edu>, ua-scatr@mit.edu,
"Pius A. Uzamere II" <pius@alum.mit.edu>
Errors-To: mit-talk-bounces@mit.edu
If policy work takes time (it does) and if the time of students is
limited (it is) and if some work can be done by staff and not by
elected officials (it can) then it seems that the overall
effectiveness of the UA (and the grades of its officials) would be
improved by greater staff support.
For example, I would rather the nominations committee spend its time
interviewing students, rather than splashing posters all over
campus. The former must be done by students. The second can be done
by paid labor. Another NomComm example - processing and organizing
applications can be done by staff, while designing the application
should be done by students.
Chris
At 03:50 PM 7/10/2006, Jessica H Lowell wrote:
>What sort of staffing are we referring to? There's the office managers...but
>other than that who else has been paid in the past? If I remember correctly,
>SCEP might have paid students this year to help them with processing midterm
>evaluations.
>
>The UA's budget has gone up from years ago, but I gather from talking to alums
>that the committees are also doing more that requires money than they used to.
>
>Of course spending lots of money on the operations of the UA also leaves you
>open to attack ediorials from the Tech...</bitter> The general trend lately
>has been to move away from that and give a higher percentage of the money to
>Finboard for allocations. Paying more people to help the UA probably wouldn't
>go over well.
>
>- Jessie
>
>Quoting Chris Rezek <crezek@alum.mit.edu>:
>
>>Somewhat on topic - what is the current state of UA staffing/admin support?
>>
>>The effectiveness of the UA [and student gov't generally] often
>>depends on how much its students are willing to put aside their
>>class work for the greater good. With strong paid support some of
>>that effort can shift away from volunteers. This can be some
>>combination of MIT-paid and UA-paid staffing. I know the UA's
>>budget has gone up significantly in the last 10 years and I believe
>>its staff support has declined, but I admit that I don't know the
>>current state.
>>
>>Chris
>>
>>At 12:08 PM 7/7/2006, Chris Rezek wrote:
>>>The SAC proposal and other documents are here for reference:
>>>
>>> http://web.mit.edu/advise/unifiedproposal/
>>>
>>>Students can get a lot done when they are active and informed and
>>>coordinated.
>>>
>>>Chris
>>>
>>>At 03:50 AM 7/4/2006, Jessica H Lowell wrote:
>>> >While there are certainly benefits to having a group that
>>> includes admins and
>>> >faculty as well as students, I would point out that some very successful
>>> >groups, for instance the group that wrote the SAC Unified
>>> Proposal, were made
>>> >up of students. I would venture to say that the Unified
>>> Proposal was pretty
>>> >effective at shaping policy.
>>> >
>>> >If you make it into an Institute or Presidential Committee, you
>>> reduce student
>>> >represenation to a small percentage of the committee. And just
>>> as admins who
>>> >are so inclined can give only lip service to a student committee, they
>>> >can also
>>> >give lip service to student reps on a mixed committee.
>>> >
>>> >As to your other point, accountability for student reps has been
>>> discussed ad
>>> >nauseum within the UA over the last several months. I believe
>>> there are some
>>> >plans to have regular or semi-regular updates next year.
>>> >
>>> >- Jessie
>>> >
>>> >Quoting Jacob Faber <faber@alum.mit.edu>:
>>> >
>>> > > I'm separating threads here so folks can choose what they want to
>>> > read about.
>>> > >
>>> > > "By keeping SCATR a student oriented committee with lesser ties to the
>>> > > administration and strong ties to student representation, it can more
>>> > > effectively evaluate student opinion, persist in the long term, and
>>> > > avoid administrative political maneuvering."
>>> > >
>>> > > While I agree that a student oriented committee has its advantages,
>>> > > such as its ability to gather and evaluate student opinion, legitimacy
>>> > > really is at issue. Admins really only give lip service to most
>>> > > student committees, where institute and presidential committees can
>>> > > (and have) shape policy. The sad fact is that most admins see
>>> > > students as children.
>>> > >
>>> > > I also realize there are issues with having a mixed group, such as the
>>> > > resume-padding problem and the fact that you can easily choose the
>>> > > wrong people for these important committees. For example, I was on
>>> > > the Committee on Campus Race Relations with a student member who
>>> > > refused to admit racism still existed. Why was he/she on this
>>> > > committee? To this day I have no idea.
>>> > >
>>> > > Also, in theory student members of institute/presidential committees
>>> > > stay in contact with other student representatives. Undergrads are
>>> > > selected by the UA and there is supposed to be accountability there.
>>> > > (I know that I failed at this when I was in office, but it would be a
>>> > > great thing to see regular reports from committee members to the
>>> > > cabinet/senate/cocomm/someone/anyone/bueller?)
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > On 7/3/06, Steven M Kelch <kelch@mit.edu> wrote:
>>> > >> That's essentially the idea behind SCATR, but a little less
>>> formalized.
>>> > >> The difficulty in creating a committee where *everything* has to come
>>> > >> through is that there are a lot of decisions made every day,
>>> from minor
>>> > >> ones to major ones. Where do you draw the line? Who decides
>>> when someone
>>> > >> has gone over the line? There will be just as much controversy.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> By keeping SCATR a student oriented committee with lesser ties to the
>>> > >> administration and strong ties to student representation, it can more
>>> > >> effectively evaluate student opinion, persist in the long
>>> term, and avoid
>>> > >> administrative political maneuvering.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> skelch
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> On Mon, 3 Jul 2006, Dheera Venkatraman wrote:
>>> > >>
>>> > >> > a nice thing to have would be some sort of committee of students and
>>> > >> > faculty members that such changes would be *required* to
>>> be proposed to.
>>> > >> > basically, say, any infrastructure changes, major art
>>> installations, and
>>> > >> > changes to the campus that are not time-sensitive repairs
>>> should need to
>>> > >> > be signed off by them. kind of some sort of congress deal.
>>> like say if
>>> > >> > MIT comes up to us next week saying they want to cut down
>>> the trees in
>>> > >> > the EC courtyard and install another transparent horizons, and they
>>> > >> > don't get the signatures needed, they shouldn't be allowed
>>> to do it. and
>>> > >> > if they wanted to make a curriculum change but didn't get
>>> say over half
>>> > >> > the students' approval, it shouldn't be allowed to happen.
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > i don't know. very cursory idea here, not sure how to
>>> properly formulate
>>> > >> > this, but basically, there needs to be some sort of check
>>> system on the
>>> > >> > administration.
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > -dheera
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > --------------------------------
>>> > >> > dheera venkatraman
>>> > >> > http://dheera.net/
>>> > >> > dheera@dheera.net
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > On Mon, 3 Jul 2006, grace wrote:
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >> ...and we're not going to get a chance to learn until it's already
>>> > >> >> official. note that this was announced in the summer,
>>> when the UA or
>>> > >> >> dormcon can't investigate and [if needed] protest. look
>>> - the admins
>>> > >> >> aren't afraid of our horrible harsh criticism. they're afraid of
>>> > >> >> having
>>> > >> >> to waste time on meetings with students, lying about how much they
>>> > >> >> value
>>> > >> >> our opinions. the things that we bitch about being half-baked are
>>> > >> >> generally actually near-finalized policies that got leaked. yeah,
>>> > >> >> often
>>> > >> >> times we have only partial information, but by the time
>>> we have full
>>> > >> >> information, things'll have reached the point where the admins will
>>> > >> >> inform
>>> > >> >> us that such and such a policy has been in the works for
>>> years, and of
>>> > >> >> course the single student committee member was an adequate
>>> > >> >> representation
>>> > >> >> of the student body's desires, and blah blah blah. it's not our
>>> > >> >> criticism
>>> > >> >> that they're afraid of, it's the fact that we might find
>>> out in time
>>> > >> >> to
>>> > >> >> stop things.
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >> and bullshit - it's not too late to delete the accounts
>>> from the card
>>> > >> >> office servers. we're talking bits and bytes here, not
>>> stuff that's
>>> > >> >> really irrevocable. now, will they reconsider, or at
>>> least listen to
>>> > >> >> criticism? probably not, since without dormcon & the ua to raise a
>>> > >> >> hue
>>> > >> >> and cry, odds are we won't even be able to get them to talk to us
>>> > >> >> until
>>> > >> >> after it goes live. but nothing's actually irrevocable until it
>>> > >> >> starts
>>> > >> >> happening, and some stuff [policies and non-physical
>>> stuff like this]
>>> > >> >> can
>>> > >> >> be changed even afterwards.
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >> -grace
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >> gibbering like hunter thompson on a revolutionary drug,
>>> kelch@MIT.EDU
>>> > >> >> said:
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >>> This has not yet proven to be a "stupid idea". None of us knows
>>> > >> >>> enough about
>>> > >> >>> it to pass judgment. Many of the problems we chalk up to the
>>> > >> >>> administration
>>> > >> >>> are actually students jumping to conclusions. We
>>> complain when they
>>> > >> >>> don't
>>> > >> >>> come to us with brand new, unrefined ideas for our input, but when
>>> > >> >>> they do we
>>> > >> >>> attack them for being half-baked. Is it any wonder we don't hear
>>> > >> >>> about things
>>> > >> >>> until they are so far in development?
>>> > >> >>>
>>> > >> >>> From what I have been told, the accounts are already
>>> created, they go
>>> > >> >>> live in
>>> > >> >>> less than a month. Whether or not students use the accounts is one
>>> > >> >>> thing, but
>>> > >> >>> to my knowledge the accounts already exist on the servers and so a
>>> > >> >>> reversal
>>> > >> >>> isn't possible or logical.
>>> > >> >>>
>>> > >> >>> skelch
>>> > >> >>>
>>> > >> >>>
>>> > >> >>>
>>> > >> >>> On Mon, 3 Jul 2006, David Glasser wrote:
>>> > >> >>>
>>> > >> >>>> On 7/3/06, Steven M Kelch <kelch@mit.edu> wrote:
>>> > >> >>>>> I am going to push Rich Berlin for a press release of some sort
>>> > >> >>>>> (which
>>> > >> >>>>> they may already have prepared). Hopefully we can find
>>> out more in
>>> > >> >>>>> the
>>> > >> >>>>> next few days.
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> Why is this useful? It seems to me that once MIT has
>>> put out a press
>>> > >> >>>> release saying they're going to do something stupid,
>>> they have even
>>> > >> >>>> more of an excuse to not reverse themselves.
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> --dave
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> --
>>> > >> >>>> David Glasser | glasser@mit.edu | http://www.davidglasser.net/
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>
>>> > >> >> _______________________________________________
>>> > >> >> MIT-talk mailing list
>>> > >> >> MIT-talk@mit.edu
>>> > >> >> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> _______________________________________________
>>> > >> MIT-talk mailing list
>>> > >> MIT-talk@mit.edu
>>> > >> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
>>> > >>
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > --
>>> > > Jacob W. Faber
>>> > > Phone: 857.928.2838
>>> > > _______________________________________________
>>> > > MIT-talk mailing list
>>> > > MIT-talk@mit.edu
>>> > > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >Quoting Jacob Faber <faber@alum.mit.edu>:
>>> >
>>> > > I'm separating threads here so folks can choose what they want to
>>> > read about.
>>> > >
>>> > > "By keeping SCATR a student oriented committee with lesser ties to the
>>> > > administration and strong ties to student representation, it can more
>>> > > effectively evaluate student opinion, persist in the long term, and
>>> > > avoid administrative political maneuvering."
>>> > >
>>> > > While I agree that a student oriented committee has its advantages,
>>> > > such as its ability to gather and evaluate student opinion, legitimacy
>>> > > really is at issue. Admins really only give lip service to most
>>> > > student committees, where institute and presidential committees can
>>> > > (and have) shape policy. The sad fact is that most admins see
>>> > > students as children.
>>> > >
>>> > > I also realize there are issues with having a mixed group, such as the
>>> > > resume-padding problem and the fact that you can easily choose the
>>> > > wrong people for these important committees. For example, I was on
>>> > > the Committee on Campus Race Relations with a student member who
>>> > > refused to admit racism still existed. Why was he/she on this
>>> > > committee? To this day I have no idea.
>>> > >
>>> > > Also, in theory student members of institute/presidential committees
>>> > > stay in contact with other student representatives. Undergrads are
>>> > > selected by the UA and there is supposed to be accountability there.
>>> > > (I know that I failed at this when I was in office, but it would be a
>>> > > great thing to see regular reports from committee members to the
>>> > > cabinet/senate/cocomm/someone/anyone/bueller?)
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > On 7/3/06, Steven M Kelch <kelch@mit.edu> wrote:
>>> > >> That's essentially the idea behind SCATR, but a little less
>>> formalized.
>>> > >> The difficulty in creating a committee where *everything* has to come
>>> > >> through is that there are a lot of decisions made every day,
>>> from minor
>>> > >> ones to major ones. Where do you draw the line? Who decides
>>> when someone
>>> > >> has gone over the line? There will be just as much controversy.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> By keeping SCATR a student oriented committee with lesser ties to the
>>> > >> administration and strong ties to student representation, it can more
>>> > >> effectively evaluate student opinion, persist in the long
>>> term, and avoid
>>> > >> administrative political maneuvering.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> skelch
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> On Mon, 3 Jul 2006, Dheera Venkatraman wrote:
>>> > >>
>>> > >> > a nice thing to have would be some sort of committee of students and
>>> > >> > faculty members that such changes would be *required* to
>>> be proposed to.
>>> > >> > basically, say, any infrastructure changes, major art
>>> installations, and
>>> > >> > changes to the campus that are not time-sensitive repairs
>>> should need to
>>> > >> > be signed off by them. kind of some sort of congress deal.
>>> like say if
>>> > >> > MIT comes up to us next week saying they want to cut down
>>> the trees in
>>> > >> > the EC courtyard and install another transparent horizons, and they
>>> > >> > don't get the signatures needed, they shouldn't be allowed
>>> to do it. and
>>> > >> > if they wanted to make a curriculum change but didn't get
>>> say over half
>>> > >> > the students' approval, it shouldn't be allowed to happen.
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > i don't know. very cursory idea here, not sure how to
>>> properly formulate
>>> > >> > this, but basically, there needs to be some sort of check
>>> system on the
>>> > >> > administration.
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > -dheera
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > --------------------------------
>>> > >> > dheera venkatraman
>>> > >> > http://dheera.net/
>>> > >> > dheera@dheera.net
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > On Mon, 3 Jul 2006, grace wrote:
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >> ...and we're not going to get a chance to learn until it's already
>>> > >> >> official. note that this was announced in the summer,
>>> when the UA or
>>> > >> >> dormcon can't investigate and [if needed] protest. look
>>> - the admins
>>> > >> >> aren't afraid of our horrible harsh criticism. they're afraid of
>>> > >> >> having
>>> > >> >> to waste time on meetings with students, lying about how much they
>>> > >> >> value
>>> > >> >> our opinions. the things that we bitch about being half-baked are
>>> > >> >> generally actually near-finalized policies that got leaked. yeah,
>>> > >> >> often
>>> > >> >> times we have only partial information, but by the time
>>> we have full
>>> > >> >> information, things'll have reached the point where the admins will
>>> > >> >> inform
>>> > >> >> us that such and such a policy has been in the works for
>>> years, and of
>>> > >> >> course the single student committee member was an adequate
>>> > >> >> representation
>>> > >> >> of the student body's desires, and blah blah blah. it's not our
>>> > >> >> criticism
>>> > >> >> that they're afraid of, it's the fact that we might find
>>> out in time
>>> > >> >> to
>>> > >> >> stop things.
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >> and bullshit - it's not too late to delete the accounts
>>> from the card
>>> > >> >> office servers. we're talking bits and bytes here, not
>>> stuff that's
>>> > >> >> really irrevocable. now, will they reconsider, or at
>>> least listen to
>>> > >> >> criticism? probably not, since without dormcon & the ua to raise a
>>> > >> >> hue
>>> > >> >> and cry, odds are we won't even be able to get them to talk to us
>>> > >> >> until
>>> > >> >> after it goes live. but nothing's actually irrevocable until it
>>> > >> >> starts
>>> > >> >> happening, and some stuff [policies and non-physical
>>> stuff like this]
>>> > >> >> can
>>> > >> >> be changed even afterwards.
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >> -grace
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >> gibbering like hunter thompson on a revolutionary drug,
>>> kelch@MIT.EDU
>>> > >> >> said:
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >>> This has not yet proven to be a "stupid idea". None of us knows
>>> > >> >>> enough about
>>> > >> >>> it to pass judgment. Many of the problems we chalk up to the
>>> > >> >>> administration
>>> > >> >>> are actually students jumping to conclusions. We
>>> complain when they
>>> > >> >>> don't
>>> > >> >>> come to us with brand new, unrefined ideas for our input, but when
>>> > >> >>> they do we
>>> > >> >>> attack them for being half-baked. Is it any wonder we don't hear
>>> > >> >>> about things
>>> > >> >>> until they are so far in development?
>>> > >> >>>
>>> > >> >>> From what I have been told, the accounts are already
>>> created, they go
>>> > >> >>> live in
>>> > >> >>> less than a month. Whether or not students use the accounts is one
>>> > >> >>> thing, but
>>> > >> >>> to my knowledge the accounts already exist on the servers and so a
>>> > >> >>> reversal
>>> > >> >>> isn't possible or logical.
>>> > >> >>>
>>> > >> >>> skelch
>>> > >> >>>
>>> > >> >>>
>>> > >> >>>
>>> > >> >>> On Mon, 3 Jul 2006, David Glasser wrote:
>>> > >> >>>
>>> > >> >>>> On 7/3/06, Steven M Kelch <kelch@mit.edu> wrote:
>>> > >> >>>>> I am going to push Rich Berlin for a press release of some sort
>>> > >> >>>>> (which
>>> > >> >>>>> they may already have prepared). Hopefully we can find
>>> out more in
>>> > >> >>>>> the
>>> > >> >>>>> next few days.
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> Why is this useful? It seems to me that once MIT has
>>> put out a press
>>> > >> >>>> release saying they're going to do something stupid,
>>> they have even
>>> > >> >>>> more of an excuse to not reverse themselves.
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> --dave
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> --
>>> > >> >>>> David Glasser | glasser@mit.edu | http://www.davidglasser.net/
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>
>>> > >> >> _______________________________________________
>>> > >> >> MIT-talk mailing list
>>> > >> >> MIT-talk@mit.edu
>>> > >> >> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> _______________________________________________
>>> > >> MIT-talk mailing list
>>> > >> MIT-talk@mit.edu
>>> > >> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
>>> > >>
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > --
>>> > > Jacob W. Faber
>>> > > Phone: 857.928.2838
>>> > > _______________________________________________
>>> > > MIT-talk mailing list
>>> > > MIT-talk@mit.edu
>>> > > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >_______________________________________________
>>> >MIT-talk mailing list
>>> >MIT-talk@mit.edu
>>> >http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>MIT-talk mailing list
>>>MIT-talk@mit.edu
>>>http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
>>
>
_______________________________________________
MIT-talk mailing list
MIT-talk@mit.edu
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
