Faculty discuss new TFUAP curriculum proposal at February meeting
Reactions ranged from disappointment to enthusiasm
On Feb. 18, MIT faculty gathered in Huntington Hall (10-250) for the first faculty meeting of 2026, where they discussed the recent proposal released by the Task Force on the Undergraduate Academic Program (TFUAP). The set of recommendations, made public on Feb. 5, outlines sweeping changes to the Institute’s undergraduate curriculum.
In terms of its overarching goals, the TFUAP proposal seeks to “advance curriculum, align the Institute’s curriculum and policies with [its] aspirations, and adapt to the future.”
President Sally Kornbluth delivered opening remarks at the meeting, which was followed by a briefing on the proposal’s main recommendations from TFUAP Co-Chair and Biology Professor Adam Martin. The final hour was dedicated to faculty comments and open discussion.
“The curriculum belongs to the faculty,” Kornbluth began. She then pointed to MIT’s legacy of innovation in education and research to emphasize the importance of preparing students to be “well-educated, productive members of society.” Before passing the floor to Martin, Kornbluth also posed the central question of the meeting: “What does an educated MIT student need to know?”
In a rare exception at February's meeting, representatives from the Graduate Student Union (GSU) and undergraduate members of the Faculty Policy Committee were also permitted to speak if they wished.
Faculty reactions
Reactions among faculty were mixed, ranging from disappointment to enthusiasm.
“Physics is the beating heart of our institution,” said Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS) and Mechanical Engineering Steven Leeb, calling one semester of physics “not adequate.” Leeb also asserted that the TFUAP’s new governance structure of approving curriculum changes within subcommittees and by the Committee on Curricula (COC) would take away the faculty’s right to vote.
Some faculty also opposed the removal of the Institute Lab requirement. According to Assistant Professor of Physics Kevin Burdge ’15, such a change would be “doing the undergrads a great disservice,” especially now that students are spending more time on their devices and less time engaging in hands-on learning. Speaking as a faculty member, Kornbluth echoed Burdge’s sentiment.
Others voiced reservations about direct funding for faculty-student UROPs. Professor of Physics Anna Frebel said that this change would limit opportunities for graduate and PhD students to become “mentors and leaders,” while increasing the mental workload for faculty. Similarly, GSU President Teddy Warner G warned that prioritizing faculty-student UROPs would create a “loss of opportunities” for wet-lab research groups.
Meanwhile, EECS Professor Gerald Sussman did not think the proposal made enough changes. According to Sussman, the TFUAP’s current class structure reinforces the teaching of math as programming as mechanical skills, rather than as a higher-level way of thinking and a way to decode a “language.”
Several faculty in the Economics department expressed support for the TFUAP proposal. “I read the proposal with great delight,” Senior Lecturer in Economics Sarah Ellison said. “It has [the] potential to be a huge step forward.”
Professor of Economics Benjamin Olken and Associate Professor of Economics Frank Schilbach also stated their approval of the proposal, highlighting the cost-benefit analysis and policy changes to enforce in-person attendance, respectively.
Differing GIR requirements
Given the flexibility of the newly proposed Science, Math, and Computing (SMC) core, first-year students could face differing GIR pathways from their very first semester. While TFUAP recommendations still mandate 12 units of single-variable calculus, physics I, and multivariable calculus, it would allow students to have a more flexible choice between chemistry and biology, as well as computation and probability, statistics, and machine learning (PSM).
Notably, if a student uses AP or Advanced Standing Exam (ASE) credit to place out of Physics I, they would still be required to take another physics class. Professor of Physics Krishna Rajagopal said that some majors might require Physics II (8.02), while others would not. In addition, he hinted at the development of a new 8.02 variant that would focus on quantum information and entropy, which would be more geared towards biology or chemistry majors compared to the traditional 8.02 class.
This would be a significant change to the first-year experience, as noted by Leeb, who called it the breaking of “a hundred-year compact” with the incoming, undecided freshman. Rajagopal agreed with the magnitude of the change, adding that whether the change was good or bad “depends on perspective.”
Kornbluth emphasized that majors should maintain multiple paths so students could still switch majors freely. Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences (EAPS) Professor Andrew Babbin expressed a similar view. “The benefit of education is exploration,” he said. “You [should] always have that flexibility.”
Implementation strategy
Professor of Materials Processing W. Craig Carter suggested dividing the TFUAP proposal into smaller components. This would allow faculty to make decisions about areas with general agreement and deliberate more contentious sections. His remarks received a round of applause.
Following Carter, Professor of Sociology and Sloan Professor of Behavioral and Policy Sciences Susan Silbey urged faculty members to consider how they would meet the proposal’s requirements before voting, instead of voting first and creating a series of subcommittees to address problems that would arise later.
Professor of Chemistry Rick Danheiser also supported the idea of breaking up the TFUAP proposal, expressing concerns about policy changes and indicating a preference to consider them separately from the new curriculum.
In response, Martin emphasized that the current TFUAP recommendations are only a draft, and that it is unlikely there will be a single vote on the proposal in its entirety.
Student involvement
As an undergraduate member of the Faculty Policy Committee, Aarushi Mehrotra ’26 spoke to summarize undergraduate feedback gathered through a dormspam survey, mentioning support for earlier syllabi posting, interim grades before the drop date, and the removal of the REST requirement. However, she also brought up concerns that certain policy changes could diminish MIT’s unique culture and limit students’ personal choices.
In addition to the involvement of the Registrar’s Office and other relevant units, Rajagopal advocated for input from current undergraduate students. “We need [these students] to be involved to the point where they can stand in front of the faculty and say they’re coauthors of this proposal,” he said.
Upcoming town halls
The Feb. 23 and Feb. 24 town halls have been postponed to a later date due to a campus-wide snow closure that was in effect from 11 p.m. on Feb. 22 through 7 a.m. on Feb. 25. Rescheduled dates have not yet been announced; in the meantime, TFUAP is encouraging MIT students to fill out a feedback form.
The March 2 town hall will still be held from 11 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. in 4-370.