Letters

To the editor:

As a fourth-generation WPI graduate (great-grandfather Albert E. Fay, Class of 1895; grandfather Luther B. Martin '25; father Christopher F. Martin '53; brother James F. Martin '88), I take pride in WPI's history. Unfortunately, I am very concerned about its future.

In general, I thought your series on the WPI Plan ("Miracle at Worcester," October 1996; "The Best Laid Plans," Spring 1997) was informative and fair. While I don't feel I participated in the Plan as it was originally designed, I was, through my brother's tenure, privy to the changes, which in my estimation, brought about its demise.

As for my own experience, I did not feel my IQP and Sufficiency were taken seriously, and certainly did not capture the spirit that motivated their design. My MQP, on the other hand, played a pivotal role in my decision to attend graduate school, one of the most important decisions I have ever made.

I suppose I take my opinion of the current Plan from Professor Emeritus Jack Boyd. I hold Professor Boyd in the highest esteem. When I was working toward my M.S. at WPI, he gave a talk on the state of the Plan. Any attempt I could muster to explain how I feel about the WPI curricula would pale in comparison to his words:

"Another critical part of the environment at WPI is that we seem to have no history of the last 20 years," he said. "It is as talking to children to discuss educational concepts, needs and opportunities with most of our younger (and some of our older) faculty. They have no insight into educational values and process; they want simply to replicate their own experience. They have no idea of the goals, criteria and process of the last 20 years.

"The level of conversation for the most part is what to put into, or take out of a course or a curriculum, or what are the current needs and fads of industry. This superficiality is due in great part to the fact that our young faculty have no idea what the WPI Plan was. We trumpet the notion that it is in place, when in fact the metaphysical and pedagogical benchmarks were razed a decade or more ago, and we have left only some half-ruined structures, the MQP, IQP, etc., with no life in them. In many respects we have the worst of both worlds, neither the discipline of a traditional program or the flexibility of the original WPI Plan."

I don't have a sound footing on which to discuss the details of the Plan, and how to improve it. The real reason I write is to make two points that have troubled me since my years as a graduate student. It was during those years that I realized that the current tenure system, in effect, encourages poor teaching. The need to publish and to acquire research moneys forces professors to lower the value and priority they place on teaching

To me, Professor Boyd exemplified the ideal professor. He was dedicated not only to academic pursuit, but more importantly and passionately, to the study of how to teach. I regard the tenure system as backwards; rather than being free to teach (i.e., receive tenure) only after one has demonstrated the ability to adequately research and publish, one should be free to perform research only after one has demonstrated the ability to adequately teach. It is my contention that the current system leads to professors who are so concentrated on publishing, they are ill-prepared to teach. I have met few who have done both well.

Finally, as mentioned in the corollary to the Spring 1997 Plan article, I too am concerned about how well WPI teaches fundamentals. Basic engineering mathematics, for example, forms the foundation upon which all practical engineering skills are built. There is far too little emphasis given to mathematics. Perhaps Galileo said it best: "Philosophy is written in this one grand book - I mean the Universe - which stands continually open to our gaze, but it cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language and interpret the characters in which it is written. It is written in the language of mathematics."

Richard Martin '91
Worcester, Mass.

To the Editor:

I have been away from the Plan for over 10 years now, but at one time I was closely involved in the struggle to preserve it. So I found Part 2 of your series "The Story of the WPI Plan" (Spring 1997) very interesting reading.

But I had a more personal connection to the article than most readers, as I wrote the Newspeak editorial "We've Been Lied to and Now the Plan Is Dead," which you cited in your article.

I was one of many students proud to be associated with top-flight teachers at WPI - teachers like Jack Boyd in mechanical engineering and Tom Keil in physics. Because the Plan, as it was then configured, supported their efforts to be good teachers (which many universities fail to do), I struggled to defend it.

Many of the editorials I wrote for Newspeak during 1985, when I was editor-in-chief, were directed toward preserving the Plan and encouraging everyone to become involved in discussions about its future. But I felt as though the outcome of the battle had been carefully engineered long before the issues were made public.

By 1986, as ex officio associate editor, I continued to write the occasional editorial. "We've Been Lied to and Now the Plan Is Dead" - perhaps one of my strongest statements - was from that period. As the title indicates, I felt the battle to save the Plan had been lost by then.

But after reading your article, I find my interest in the academic atmosphere at WPI rekindled. While I continue to believe the Plan before the mid-1980s changes was an outstandingly strong educational program,

I see indications that teaching and whole-brained intellectual development are still valued at WPI. I hope I'm correct. If I am, WPI may regain some of the luster it lost, in my view, when the Competency Exam was eliminated and the grading system was modified for conformity.

I was pleased to hear from my friend John Rulnick, who last year accepted a position as assistant professor of electrical and computer engineering at WPI, that teaching is still valued more highly at WPl than at most any other leading technical university. I conclude that WPI has made a renewed commitment to a pro-teaching philosophy, a move I applaud with gusto.

As Jack Boyd said in your article, "We live in an era of technology, and there is a tremendous need to educate technologists who are sensitive to the consequences of technology." And if WPI can continue to attract and retain technically skilled teachers, who have strong capabilities in many areas within and outside their specialties, then my alma mater may be on its way to becoming, once again, an institution that provides high-quality technological education with a conscience.

Howard B. Bernard '86
West Springfield, Mass.

To the Editor:

The series on the WPI Plan by Michael Dorsey constituted the best articles published in the Journal in the 19 years I have been receiving this periodical. As a high school student in 1973, interested in engineering, the revolutionary nature of the Plan attracted me to WPI over many "traditional" programs, such as those at RPI and VPI. The ability to self-start and work on projects as part of an undergraduate education were integral to my future career responsibilities.

Yes, the seven-week term was intense, especially since the exams tended to be bunched together. The commitment required to succeed and the 50 hours of studying each week stood me in good stead for the "crunch time" that so often occurs in the "outside world." It was also important to have fun and outlets such as the Goat's Head Pub and Spree Day were key to good morale.

I, too, was saddened by the closure of the Plan in 1986. Loss of the Competency Exam and Intersession, and the return to a "normal" grading system, removed many of the positive concepts that attracted me to WPI in the first place. Yes, the Comp was hard, but I am glad to have gone through the experience. And no one can forget a two-week experience with Doc Wagner in the Maine woods in winter! Not to mention the fact that having to provide a proper and clear explanation of the WPI Plan during job interviews built character.

So, kudos on an excellent series!

Chris James '78
New Hartford, Conn.

To the Editor:

The two WPI Plan special issues were exciting and well-organized, bringing back vivid memories of the Plan and the people who worked for it and with it. You and your staff deserve congratulations and thanks for an outstanding service.

Kay W. Draper

Editor's Note: Draper taught public speaking at WPI from 1973 to 1985. "During those years," she says, "I was privileged to teach some marvelous young men and women, and it would be a joy to hear from some of them." Correspondence can be sent to her at Shindagin Road, Wilmot Flats, NH, 03287.

Keeping the Millennial Faith

To the Editor:

I was pleased to note in the Spring 1997 issue two references to the new century and millennium as beginning in 2001.

In "The Class of Aught Aught," Joe Parker noted that "the last class in the 20th century will graduate in June 2000."

In "A New Global Era," Michael Dorsey wrote that "in less than four years clocks will tick off the last seconds of the 20th century and a new millennium will officially begin."

The WPI Journal has been consistent in this. In the Winter 1990 issue, it was stated, "In only 10 years a new millennium comes to pass." I check millennium references carefully.

As an old calendar buff, I am dismayed at the media's wide acceptance of the notion of the year 2000 being the beginning of the next century and millennium. For example, Time magazine, in a response to a letter I wrote to the editor, defended the "decade of the '90s" concept as defining not only style and pop culture, but the whole calendar. An editorial in the Cape Cod Times derides the "small legion of the faithful" as "intransigents" who do not accept the zero year as the beginning of a decade. The author of a letter on this subject to the Cape Cod Times was dismissed as "coming out of the woodwork." The Times even derided Noah Webster for "confusing things" when he defined a decade as the years 1 to 10.

The front page of The New York Times for Jan. 1, 1901, is in front of me. The top of the right hand column is devoted to a story celebrating the beginning of the 20th century on that day. If the Cape Cod Times is to believed, the 20th century is to have just 99 years.

This issue needs airing and publicity, but the media, in the service of our pop culture, is a most awesome force. Writers whom I respect, like William Safire and Stephen Jay Gould, are well aware of the calendar problem, but seem to shrug at the big parties to come on Dec. 31, 1999, saying, in effect, that it is all part of life's rich pageant.

Thanks to the Journal for keeping the faith!

Russell A. Lovell Jr. '40
Sandwich, Mass.