I largely agree with the remarks of Dick and Hal. I think much of the
beginning of the report is valuable background, but, as background,
should appear later in the text or as an appendix. I think the important
part of the report is our "premise," and the recommendations that
follow, all of which should take no more than, say, 3 or 4 pages, and
should be prominently placed at the very beginning of the document.
As regards the "premise," I think the current "vision" link comes close
to, but does not capture strongly enough, the notion of M.I.T. extending
its relationship with students/alumni in time and space. The committee
seemed to unanimously agree that this is an exciting way to preserve AND
enhance M.I.T's traditional and residential strengths. But I think the
report should also then include the ramifications, in terms of new
interactions, new programs and degrees, new definitions of community,
new pedagogical approaches, new curricula, new scholarly activities, new
academia--industry links, new technological requirements,...
This would then lead naturally into our recommendations. I think the
recommendations should be high-level, related to policy, incentive
structures, and prescriptive guidelines. Descriptive blueprints,
particular technology choices, etc. should be left to the organizations
within M.I.T. charged to implement such matters.
Tony Patera