Take the Department of Materials Science. From their web
site they note[1]:
MIT's DMSE, like the field of Materials Science and
Engineering, grew out of the studies of metallurgy and mining. When MIT opened
in 1865, Course 3 consisted of geology and mining. Later, the department's name
was changed to the Department of Mining and Metallurgy and over the next fifty
years, the disciplines of geology, mining, and metallurgy were repeatedly
joined and separated until in the 1940's, MIT discontinued the study of mining
engineering and Course 3 was named the Department of Metallurgy. In 1967 the
department name changed to the Department of Metallurgy and Materials Science
and in 1974 to the Department of Materials Science and Engineering. These name
changes reflect the growing awareness, both at MIT and in the field, that
materials should be studied in terms of their behavior and characteristics,
rather than by specific class.
There were Departments of Meteorology, Departments of Naval
Engineering, Departments of various types.
What was common were several things:
1. As technology changed Departments morphed to reflect the
change. Often leading the change.
2. As new Departments arose, the names were descriptive.
They were not reflective of the donor at the time.
3. Evolution of Departments was consistent in form, namely a
School and then a Department
4. Ad Hoc assemblies were set in Laboratories or Centers.
Thus RLE or the Media Lab. Innovation, research were allowed within these petri
dishes. Education in the more formal strictures.
5. MIT never was a University nor did it have Colleges. It
was reflective of the core technologies that it was a key player in creating
and promoting. MIT was in no way like an Oxford or Cambridge, the strictures
were loose, allowing for innovation.
6. Donors names got on buildings, not educational centers.
Now along comes a dramatic change. As MIT notes[2]:
MIT today announced a new $1 billion commitment to
address the global opportunities and challenges presented by the prevalence of
computing and the rise of artificial intelligence (AI). The initiative marks
the single largest investment in computing and AI by an American academic
institution, and will help position the United States to lead the world in
preparing for the rapid evolution of computing and AI. At the heart of this
endeavor will be the new MIT Stephen A. Schwarzman College of Computing, made
possible by a $350 million foundational gift from Mr. Schwarzman, the chairman,
CEO and co-founder of Blackstone, a leading global asset manager. Headquartered
in a signature new building on MIT’s campus, the new MIT Schwarzman College of
Computing will be an interdisciplinary hub for work in computer science, AI,
data science, and related fields. The College will: reorient MIT to bring the
power of computing and AI to all fields of study at MIT, allowing the future of
computing and AI to be shaped by insights from all other disciplines…give MIT’s
five schools a shared structure for collaborative education, research, and
innovation in computing and AI…
Now this is truly a dramatic change. First, it is the
creation of a "College", an entity never seen before. MIT had a
strong pragmatic sense, and this in essence changes this. Second, MIT named
things for what they did not who funded it. Recall the Metallurgy and Mining
efforts. Third, there appears to be an overwhelming unity of focus, AI,
whatever that may be.
Let me comment on each element. First names. Harvard is John
Harvard, Stanford is Leland Stanford, and Cornell is Ezra Cornell. Even Weill
Cornell Medical School is just a rebranding of a Medical School. If this had
become the "School of" perhaps some continuity. But why a College?
Second, the naming based upon what is done seems to be missing, but then again
this is less of a problem.
Finally, AI. I have seen and been a peripheral participant
in AI for half a century. In simple terms it is the application of computer
processing power, "tools" for measuring and observing, and "rules"
which may be adaptive, to effect actions from observations. AI is amorphic, it
lacks substance, as it should. It has become a catch phrase for anything that
uses computing and data to effect something. Take Watson and medicine. Physicians
are taught differential diagnosis and then an application of the most effective
remediation, if available. Yet as Osler noted more than a century ago, if all
else fails listen to the patient. Really listen. Watson does not do that and in
the age of the EHR many young physicians do not even have the skill. Thus we
all too often collect data and fail to listen to the patient.
Thus one should ask, is AI a unifying construct like the term physics or
mathematics or philosophy? Or is it as I suspect a catch all phrase for
"smart" programs which can "adapt" by measuring data and
responses and thus find some "optimal" result. It is akin to the
"chess program" that, if the computer is fast enough, stay a dozen
moves ahead of its opponent. It may win every time. On the other hand I can
think of a recent medical presentation where a patient presented with bleeding
gums, and this led to a urinalysis, a finding of blood, a cystoscopy, MRI, an
ultrasound, and so forth until someone remarked the patient is on warfarin,
check the INR! Yep, as suspected, too high, so titer down the warfarin. How
would Watson handle this? It may very well have demanded the same tests, after
all the more data the better the answer.
Thus AI as an organizing principle may have severe negative
effects. Namely its vagueness, its vagueness, and its vapidity.
Now to the term Computing. Perhaps this would be akin to a
College of Typing, or Shorthand. Computing is a tool a technique, and not every
Electrical Engineer is dominated by Computing. We no longer use slide rules,
and computing, as valued as it is, is also so broad a term, it is accepted as
an essential part of all that we do in the 21st century. My stethoscope
computes, my blood pressure cuff computes, my car computes, my stove computes,
in the broadest terms, but in all cases computing is a tool which facilitates
not defines. In an equal sense they all use electricity, all have materials of
so form, so why no collect those terms as well?
Thus, overall, I find this proposal a bit disconcerting. It
is dropped upon the alumni out of the blue. It will be interesting to see the
human dynamics as they evolve. Science and Technology are forever changing.
Just remember the old Departments above. Thus it is essential to embody that fluidity
of innovation, not immortalize it. Just some thoughts from an older alum.
Posts
