Good. Universities shouldn’t be bankrupting their futures to avoid short-term inconvenience.
Rock-n-roll-Kevin on
MIT’s Rejection letter to Trump Education Secretary Linda McMahon:
Dear Madam Secretary,
I write in response to your letter of October 1, inviting MIT to review a “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education.” I acknowledge the vital importance of these matters.
I appreciated the chance to meet with you earlier this year to discuss the priorities we share for American higher education.
As we discussed, the Institute’s mission of service to the nation directs us to advance knowledge, educate students and bring knowledge to bear on the world’s great challenges. We do that in line with a clear set of values, with excellence above all. Some practical examples:
* **MIT prides itself on rewarding merit.** Students, faculty and staff succeed here based on the strength of their talent, ideas and hard work. For instance, the Institute was the first to reinstate the SAT/ACT requirement after the pandemic. And MIT has never had legacy preferences in admissions.
* **MIT opens its doors to the most talented students regardless of their family’s finances.** Admissions are need-blind. Incoming undergraduates whose families earn less than $200,000 a year pay no tuition. Nearly 88% of our last graduating class left MIT with no debt for their education. We make a wealth of free courses and low-cost certificates available to any American with an internet connection. Of the undergraduate degrees we award, 94% are in STEM fields. And in service to the nation, we cap enrollment of international undergraduates at roughly 10%.
* **We value free expression**, as clearly described in the MIT Statement on Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom. We must hear facts and opinions we don’t like – and engage respectfully with those with whom we disagree.
These values and other MIT practices meet or exceed many standards outlined in the document you sent. We freely choose these values because they’re right, and we live by them because they support our mission – work of immense value to the prosperity, competitiveness, health and security of the United States. And of course, MIT abides by the law.
The document also includes principles with which we disagree, including those that would restrict freedom of expression and our independence as an institution. **And fundamentally, the premise of the document is inconsistent with our core belief that scientific funding should be based on scientific merit alone.**
In our view, America’s leadership in science and innovation depends on independent thinking and open competition for excellence. In that free marketplace of ideas, the people of MIT gladly compete with the very best, without preferences. Therefore, with respect, we cannot support the proposed approach to addressing the issues facing higher education.
As you know, MIT’s record of service to the nation is long and enduring. Eight decades ago, MIT leaders helped invent a scientific partnership between America’s research universities and the U.S. government that has delivered extraordinary benefits for the American people. We continue to believe in the power of this partnership to serve the nation.
Sincerely,
Sally Kornbluth
MIT President
donalanw on
All this because Harvard rejected Barron
tuframnedox on
In the words of a former MIT janitor, “How do you like them apples?”
JWTS6 on
Take note of MIT not bending the knee.
Ornery-Ticket834 on
Why would they pay any attention to this AH?
dirtyrounder on
Georgia Tech of the North stepping up!! Fuck yeah
supes1 on
Good for them. Hopefully them being willing to reject it will make other schools feel more comfortable responding in kind. Quick question, has any school *accepted* the proposal?
Crio121 on
The way to go
black_flag_4ever on
This is what every university should be doing. The Trump Admin keeps threatening to destroy the Dept. of Ed. and keeps arbitrarily withholding funds in violation of the law. There’s no upside to agreeing to any of this stuff when the Trump Administration is going to pull the rug out anyway and if they do agree, they could waiving important legal rights if there’s a lawsuit in the future.
Cute-Ad2879 on
The momentum shift since the lockdown has been palatable.
And to think, people were worried the dems were playing into his hands.
juiceboxedhero on
New Trump lore incoming. “My uncle never taught at MIT. Theodore Kaszynski who?”
BotherResponsible378 on
Bravo!
Lontology on
Good. It only takes a single school to stand up to the Trump admin for more to follow.
faith_apnea on
I completely understand how MAGA weaponized a pop culture narrative to dismiss the warnings written in to Ayn Rand’s works.
Here we are at the first days of “Where is John Galt?”; anyone who refuses to lick the boots of the administration will have to fight, disappear or get disappeared.
Alternatively you could vote out these Anti-American Techno-Authoritarianists.
Simpicity on
Good for them. Every single one should reject it.
Schiffy94 on
All it takes is someone willing to be first.
Figures it’d be the ones who can probably build a fully functional set of robotic testicles.
17 Comments
Good. Universities shouldn’t be bankrupting their futures to avoid short-term inconvenience.
MIT’s Rejection letter to Trump Education Secretary Linda McMahon:
Dear Madam Secretary,
I write in response to your letter of October 1, inviting MIT to review a “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education.” I acknowledge the vital importance of these matters.
I appreciated the chance to meet with you earlier this year to discuss the priorities we share for American higher education.
As we discussed, the Institute’s mission of service to the nation directs us to advance knowledge, educate students and bring knowledge to bear on the world’s great challenges. We do that in line with a clear set of values, with excellence above all. Some practical examples:
* **MIT prides itself on rewarding merit.** Students, faculty and staff succeed here based on the strength of their talent, ideas and hard work. For instance, the Institute was the first to reinstate the SAT/ACT requirement after the pandemic. And MIT has never had legacy preferences in admissions.
* **MIT opens its doors to the most talented students regardless of their family’s finances.** Admissions are need-blind. Incoming undergraduates whose families earn less than $200,000 a year pay no tuition. Nearly 88% of our last graduating class left MIT with no debt for their education. We make a wealth of free courses and low-cost certificates available to any American with an internet connection. Of the undergraduate degrees we award, 94% are in STEM fields. And in service to the nation, we cap enrollment of international undergraduates at roughly 10%.
* **We value free expression**, as clearly described in the MIT Statement on Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom. We must hear facts and opinions we don’t like – and engage respectfully with those with whom we disagree.
These values and other MIT practices meet or exceed many standards outlined in the document you sent. We freely choose these values because they’re right, and we live by them because they support our mission – work of immense value to the prosperity, competitiveness, health and security of the United States. And of course, MIT abides by the law.
The document also includes principles with which we disagree, including those that would restrict freedom of expression and our independence as an institution. **And fundamentally, the premise of the document is inconsistent with our core belief that scientific funding should be based on scientific merit alone.**
In our view, America’s leadership in science and innovation depends on independent thinking and open competition for excellence. In that free marketplace of ideas, the people of MIT gladly compete with the very best, without preferences. Therefore, with respect, we cannot support the proposed approach to addressing the issues facing higher education.
As you know, MIT’s record of service to the nation is long and enduring. Eight decades ago, MIT leaders helped invent a scientific partnership between America’s research universities and the U.S. government that has delivered extraordinary benefits for the American people. We continue to believe in the power of this partnership to serve the nation.
Sincerely,
Sally Kornbluth
MIT President
All this because Harvard rejected Barron
In the words of a former MIT janitor, “How do you like them apples?”
Take note of MIT not bending the knee.
Why would they pay any attention to this AH?
Georgia Tech of the North stepping up!! Fuck yeah
Good for them. Hopefully them being willing to reject it will make other schools feel more comfortable responding in kind. Quick question, has any school *accepted* the proposal?
The way to go
This is what every university should be doing. The Trump Admin keeps threatening to destroy the Dept. of Ed. and keeps arbitrarily withholding funds in violation of the law. There’s no upside to agreeing to any of this stuff when the Trump Administration is going to pull the rug out anyway and if they do agree, they could waiving important legal rights if there’s a lawsuit in the future.
The momentum shift since the lockdown has been palatable.
And to think, people were worried the dems were playing into his hands.
New Trump lore incoming. “My uncle never taught at MIT. Theodore Kaszynski who?”
Bravo!
Good. It only takes a single school to stand up to the Trump admin for more to follow.
I completely understand how MAGA weaponized a pop culture narrative to dismiss the warnings written in to Ayn Rand’s works.
Here we are at the first days of “Where is John Galt?”; anyone who refuses to lick the boots of the administration will have to fight, disappear or get disappeared.
Alternatively you could vote out these Anti-American Techno-Authoritarianists.
Good for them. Every single one should reject it.
All it takes is someone willing to be first.
Figures it’d be the ones who can probably build a fully functional set of robotic testicles.