**Submitted by the MIT Alumni Association on behalf of david.dinhofer@dinhofer.net, Class of 1975.**

I would like to start by saying that my experience and memories at MIT are centered around three areas. One is the students and the other is the faculty. The last is the environment of educational freedom. The interaction of students with each other and interactions with the faculty in an open learning environment is what made MIT an exciting place for me. I think this model is timeless. Without human interaction we can grow but not with the same potential. We learn from each other and see our potential in how we learn in the context of our communications with others.

At a conference that I went to this week, the focus was on interdisciplinary research (SBP 2013). One of the participants, a recent graduate of MIT, said that MIT was good about allowing interdisciplinary studies. But, interdisciplinary work and education is not just about taking classes in another department, it is about the mingling and sharing of ideas. I see this as a need for team building in a world that increasingly has to solve big problems. So, a goal should be to foster team work without crushing individualism.

Not an easy problem to solve.... Alas, build a team!

The changing nature of education needs a fresh look. It will evolve on its own. As leaders we should be out front for using the new technology in education. We can mingle and share in person, on the web, or on a phone. Ideas come at any moment and may be unexpected and learning is multi-factorial. It is a mix of knowledge and understanding; quantity and quality; theory and science. Quantity can overwhelm and blind the student but can be a means to understanding and wisdom. Understanding and wisdom may not come without the facts needed to build a theoretical model. These two concepts of learning are tightly bound but can be limiting. My experience at MIT was to focus on the theory and not the facts. This allowed me room to grow. My experience at other institutions of high learning, the focus was on the facts not the theory. I feel that the fact based approach would be a bad primary focus. The key is how to integrate the changing technical world without loosing sight of the age old tools of learning. My ideas flow but I don't know if they are well represented in this paragraph. Feel free to contact me if they are unclear.

Lastly, we should never loose sight of humanity. We cannot learn to be social if we are locked in our rooms. This is one of the biggest criticisms that I hear about MIT grads. I don't think the way to change this criticism is by changing our admission criteria. I think we should change the learning environment to foster social learning. Maybe even make it a core course.

I would like to start by saying that my experience and memories at MIT are centered around three areas. One is the students and the other is the faculty. The last is the environment of educational freedom. The interaction of students with each other and interactions with the faculty in an open learning environment is what made MIT an exciting place for me. I think this model is timeless. Without human interaction we can grow but not with the same potential. We learn from each other and see our potential in how we learn in the context of our communications with others.

At a conference that I went to this week, the focus was on interdisciplinary research (SBP 2013). One of the participants, a recent graduate of MIT, said that MIT was good about allowing interdisciplinary studies. But, interdisciplinary work and education is not just about taking classes in another department, it is about the mingling and sharing of ideas. I see this as a need for team building in a world that increasingly has to solve big problems. So, a goal should be to foster team work without crushing individualism.

Not an easy problem to solve.... Alas, build a team!

The changing nature of education needs a fresh look. It will evolve on its own. As leaders we should be out front for using the new technology in education. We can mingle and share in person, on the web, or on a phone. Ideas come at any moment and may be unexpected and learning is multi-factorial. It is a mix of knowledge and understanding; quantity and quality; theory and science. Quantity can overwhelm and blind the student but can be a means to understanding and wisdom. Understanding and wisdom may not come without the facts needed to build a theoretical model. These two concepts of learning are tightly bound but can be limiting. My experience at MIT was to focus on the theory and not the facts. This allowed me room to grow. My experience at other institutions of high learning, the focus was on the facts not the theory. I feel that the fact based approach would be a bad primary focus. The key is how to integrate the changing technical world without loosing sight of the age old tools of learning. My ideas flow but I don't know if they are well represented in this paragraph. Feel free to contact me if they are unclear.

Lastly, we should never loose sight of humanity. We cannot learn to be social if we are locked in our rooms. This is one of the biggest criticisms that I hear about MIT grads. I don't think the way to change this criticism is by changing our admission criteria. I think we should change the learning environment to foster social learning. Maybe even make it a core course.

I would like to start by saying that my experience and memories at MIT are centered around three areas. One is the students and the other is the faculty. The last is the environment of educational freedom. The interaction of students with each other and interactions with the faculty in an open learning environment is what made MIT an exciting place for me. I think this model is timeless. Without human interaction we can grow but not with the same potential. We learn from each other and see our potential in how we learn in the context of our communications with others.

At a conference that I went to this week, the focus was on interdisciplinary research (SBP 2013). One of the participants, a recent graduate of MIT, said that MIT was good about allowing interdisciplinary studies. But, interdisciplinary work and education is not just about taking classes in another department, it is about the mingling and sharing of ideas. I see this as a need for team building in a world that increasingly has to solve big problems. So, a goal should be to foster team work without crushing individualism.

Not an easy problem to solve.... Alas, build a team!

The changing nature of education needs a fresh look. It will evolve on its own. As leaders we should be out front for using the new technology in education. We can mingle and share in person, on the web, or on a phone. Ideas come at any moment and may be unexpected and learning is multi-factorial. It is a mix of knowledge and understanding; quantity and quality; theory and science. Quantity can overwhelm and blind the student but can be a means to understanding and wisdom. Understanding and wisdom may not come without the facts needed to build a theoretical model. These two concepts of learning are tightly bound but can be limiting. My experience at MIT was to focus on the theory and not the facts. This allowed me room to grow. My experience at other institutions of high learning, the focus was on the facts not the theory. I feel that the fact based approach would be a bad primary focus. The key is how to integrate the changing technical world without loosing sight of the age old tools of learning. My ideas flow but I don't know if they are well represented in this paragraph. Feel free to contact me if they are unclear.

Lastly, we should never loose sight of humanity. We cannot learn to be social if we are locked in our rooms. This is one of the biggest criticisms that I hear about MIT grads. I don't think the way to change this criticism is by changing our admission criteria. I think we should change the learning environment to foster social learning. Maybe even make it a core course.