In three major surveys of MIT faculty, alumni/ae and 
undergraduates  over the past year, most respondents report they are 
satisfied with the In-stitute's academic environment but also pinpointed 
some areas in which MIT could improve.
        Asked to rate their overall college experience, 90 percent of MIT 
undergraduates were satisfied or very satisfied. Eighty-seven percent 
gave the same rating for their academic experience and residential life. 
MIT compared favorably with other universities in the areas of academic 
advising, social life, on-campus jobs and internships, career 
development office, health services, student accounts, and athletic 
programs. MIT students also compared favorably in the areas of career 
preparation, understanding the nature of science and experimentation, 
thinking analytically and logically, organizing their time, and 
quantitative thinking.
         MIT compared less favorably in the areas of faculty 
accessibility, residential life office, student governance system, 
library services and resources, size of classes, and foreign study 
opportunities. The Institute compared unfavorably in the areas of 
gaining a broad education, writing clearly and effectively, becoming 
aware of different philosophies, and developing an understanding and 
enjoyment of the arts.
        The 1996 Survey of Enrolled Undergraduates, which was part of a 
larger effort coordinated by the Consortium on the Financing of Higher 
Education, provided information on MIT undergraduates' opinions as well 
as comparative data for several peer institutions. Surveys sent to 4,500 
students in March asked about student satisfaction with various offices 
and areas at MIT; about 20 percent responded. Lydia Snover, senior 
planning officer for institutional research in the Planning Office, has 
staffed these surveys and is continuing to analyze the data.
FACULTY SURVEY
        MIT faculty said in their own survey answers that their four most 
important goals for undergraduates were to develop students' ability to 
think clearly, increase their self-directed learning, and to prepare 
them for graduate education and employment. Two-thirds of those who 
responded said MIT is doing an adequate to excellent job in preparing 
graduate students to teach and helping students to understand the world 
they will enter. More than half said MIT is doing above average or very 
well in preparing undergraduates for professional practice and 
developing and delivering professional education.
        The majority were very satisfied or satisfied with all aspects of 
their position. Primary reasons that MIT faculty have pursued academic 
careers are intellectual challenge (97 percent), intellectual freedom 
(92 percent), freedom to pursue their own interests (87 percent), and 
opportunities for research (86 percent). 
        The faculty survey was part of a nationwide survey conducted by 
the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA. 
        The least satisfying aspects of their jobs, they said, are social 
relationships with other faculty (55 percent were satisfied), 
relationships with the administration (69 percent), and salary and 
fringe benefits (73 percent). Seventeen percent said they considered 
early retirement in the last two years, and almost 50 percent plan to 
work beyond the age of 70. 
        The four highest sources of stress for the faculty as a whole were 
time pressures, lack of personal time, research/publishing demands and 
household responsibilities. Almost 61 percent of women respondents 
(compared to 34 percent of the men) reported that the promotion and 
tenure process was a source of stress. 
Other faculty highlights:
- 43 percent find MIT's international initiatives important and want to participate.
 - Approximately 62 percent said post-tenure performance review should be based on all aspects of faculty responsibility: research, publication, teaching and committee participation.
 - 75 percent of the faculty plan to do part-time teaching and/or research at MIT after they formally retire.
 - Almost 43 percent said MIT was not doing well in reducing administrative burdens on the faculty.
 
        Questionnaires were sent to 900 faculty in October 1995 and again 
in February 1996. Respondents were asked about how they spend their 
time, educational goals for undergraduates, personal goals, satisfaction 
with various aspects of their jobs, perception of institutional 
priorities, stress, and teaching techniques and evaluation methods.
ALUMNI/AE POLLED
        Results of a third survey sent to the 3,600 graduates of the 
classes of '77, '82, '87 and '92 in February are providing insights in 
MIT students' post-graduation education and career paths, as well what 
skills they use most after they leave the Institute.  
        On average, 82 percent of the alumni/ae were generally or very 
satisfied with their undergraduate education, with less than 3 percent 
being generally or very dissatisfied. Seventy-six percent received or 
are pursuing additional degrees beyond their SB. Eighty-one percent are 
now working for pay, 10 percent are studying for a degree and only 1 
percent are looking for employment. Respondents said that the most 
important aspects of a job are enjoyment of work, intellectual challenge 
and the opportunity to grow professionally.
        Of the possible outcomes of an undergraduate education, the most 
important for alumni/ae were analytical and problem-solving skills, 
ability to think critically, capacity for lifelong learning, and writing 
clearly and effectively. The least important were knowledge of social 
and political issues, appreciation of arts and literature, religious 
beliefs and convictions, and foreign language ability. 
        Asked what they believed MIT should most strongly emphasize, 
alumni/ae targeted the quality of their major, provision of high-quality 
facilities, the value of undergraduate education and faculty emphasis on 
research. Respondents also said they felt MIT's true priorities also 
included faculty research and commitment to academic freedom. 
A version of this article appeared in MIT Tech Talk on December 18, 1996.