1. I agree with Hal that "wetware upgrade" is too cute by way too much.
2. I don't agree with Hal that the committee's notion of an "extended
relationship" (in time and space) with our students is inadequately
represented. In particular, the long term recommendation addresses this
issue relatively clearly. I would include a comment, however, that the
benefits are "two-way", that ties with our graduated students (e.g., in
industry) will, through more ready "real-world" feedback, improve both
the education we give our on-campus students and our research programs.
3. I do think that Dick's several elegant descriptions of the
technology--induced change in the educational landscape --- and what
that means for M.I.T.'s place in the world --- do belong somewhere,
though perhaps not as a recommendation.
4. Some of the recommendations are not concrete enough, in particular,
those related to curriculum development. If education is M.I.T's
business, we need to be ready to invest our own resources in this area.
Saying that some existing curriculum development funds should be set
aside for this purpose is not adequate, since these funds tend to be
minimal, equally distributed amongst departments, already committed to
other projects (e.g., new degree programs, ongoing curriculum reform
efforts,...). Furthermore, funding through outside sources tends to be
dicey, since often the education directorates (e.g., of the NSF) are
dominated by the more formal pedagogy types who require a very different
kind of proposal than most of our faculty would write.
So I would propose we recommend that new funds be raised or dedicated
to sponsor 5-10 projects that, based on assumed--realized short--term
recommendations, realize the medium-- and long--term recommendations.
Each would be amply funded (I estimate on the order of two-faculty years
and several hundred thousand dollars), and would receive scrutiny
directly from Academic Council and the relevant school council (e.g.,
Engineering Council). In particular, in order to ensure that the charter
remain clear, the funds should not be awarded, distributed, or monitored
through an existing organization (which, perforce, has several agendas,
constituencies,...).
Tony