1997 WASC Proposal

WASC Home

This page contains excerpts from the 1997 Proposal to WASC for a topics-based review. The focus of these excerpts is on graduate education, which is closest to undergraduate education topic to be pursued this year. --Murray 13:12, 25 March 2006 (PST)

I. Introduction

The California Institute of Technology (Caltech) proposes to submit a topics-based review in preparation for the reaccreditation team visit scheduled fro 10-13 March 1998. The review will cover three special topics and will also include a Data Portfolio of documents and data relevant to reaccreditation. The three topics proposed for study are:

1. The Honor Code and Its Effect on Student Life and Students' Lives
2. Undergraduate Research and Its Relation to Undergraduate Education
3. Graduate education

In addition there will be a description of the evolution and status of the new Core Curriculum, and a Data Portfolio will be prepared, guided by the spirit and intent of the nine accreditation standards described in the WASC Handbook of Accredditation.

This proposal is organized as follows: Section II presents a description of each of the three topics, explaining why each is both timely and important to Caltech. These descriptions will form part of the charges to the committees that will be appointed to study these topics. Section III discusses the methods to be used in preparing gthe committee reports and assembling and diffusing the review before submission to WASC, and Section IV is a timeline for preparation of the review and the team visit.

II. Topics

1. The Honor Code and Its Effects on Student Life and Students' Lives

Each year, approximately 215 of the best science and engineering prospects in the nation enter Caltech to begin thier undergraduate educations. Even before they start classes, they are taken on a retreat at a location remote from the campus to learn the essential principles of life at Caltech. Formeost among these is the Honor Code.

The Honor Code has profound influence on the way education is carried out at Caltehc. Fr example, proctored, in-class examinations are virtually nonexistent. The primary tenet of the Honor Code is that no member of the Caltech commmunity shall take unfair advantage of another. Alleged violations of the Honor Code are brought before a studen-elected body called the Board of Control for adjudication and disposition. Typically, one or two students per year leave Caltech as a consequence of actions taken by the Board of Control. There is general agreement that the Honor Code fosters mutual trust and confidence amoung students and faculty, and that it serves Caltech well.

Nevertheless, there are reasons for concern. The proceedings of the Board of Control are held in secret and have resulted in recent years in a number of decisions that have dismayed some faculty members. A few faculty members, after unsatisfactory experiences, have indicated that they might not be willing to refer future apparent violoations to the Board. Such a development is worrisome. If it were to become widespread the system would break down. The Institute also incurs legal liabilities if members of the faculty fail to honor its published rules. Morevover, some faculty members are concerned tha tthe secret judicial proceedings of the Board of Control are not compatible with the ideals of the larger society our studnets must eventually enter.

For these reasons, the Honor Code and all of its consequences are in need of careful study.

2. Undergraduate Research and Its Relation to Undergraduate Education

(omitted)

3. Graduate Education

Graduate education in science, mathematics and engineering has become the subject of an intense national debate. Reports have been issued recently by the National Academies, the National Science Foundation, and others, and there have been many articles in journals, newspapers and maganzines, exchanges via the internet and so on. The factor motivating these debates is primarily the scarcity of suitable jobs for Ph.D. graduates in many fields. The central issues in this debate include:

• Are we producing too many Ph.D.'s, and if so what ought we do about it?
• What is the effect on this situation of international graduate students (about half of all U.S. graduate students in this fields are from abroad)?
• Should the nature of Ph.D. education be altered in some fundamental way to meet the demands of the job marketplace?
• What is the role of temporary academic postdoctoral appointments?
• All of these issues resonate at Caltech, but sometimes in special ways not equal to the national situation. Moreover, there is an increasing tendency on the part of federal agencies to try to avoid paying the full cost of the research they support, particularly the tuition of graduate students working as Graduate Research Asssitants. This is a special problem for a private institution like Caltech, heavily dependent on federal research support.

Graduate education at Caltech needs to be studied in light of these developments. In some fields, a shift from graduate education to postdocotral scholars might be generally beneficial, while in others there might be abundant applicants and vigorous demand for graduates. It may be that in some cases, broadening the basic Ph.D. education, to include, say, courses in business and economics might be useful. Possibly, a new kind of degree at the masters level might be fruitful. On the other hand, it may just be the case that the kind and numbmers of Ph.D.'s that Caltech turns out is so critical to the future of the scientific enterprises, that any tampering at all would be profoundly unwise, and ways must be sought to preserve our Graduate Education just as it is.

All of these issues are in need of thorough examiniation.

III. Methods

Committees will be appointed to study each of the three topics, and a task force will be formed to assembly the Data Portfolio. Each of these groups will be chaired by a senior faculty member or administrator, and will include as deemed appropriate faculty members, students, staff, postdoctoral scholars, and alumni.

Both the composition and the working methods of each committee and the task force will be decided by the Accreditation Liaison Officer and the chair of that group, in consultation with the relevant standing committeees of the faculty, and deliberative bodies of the faculty and the Administration.

Each of the four groups will go through three stages of preparation before a draft review is presented to WASC: Information gathering, deliberation and writing of a report or assembly of a portfolio, and presentation of the report or portfolio to the faculty and Administration.

The information-gathering stage typically will involve one-on-one interviews of group members with relevant members of the Caltech community, interviews of individuals or groups of individuals with the entire committee or task force, and if appropriate, fact-finding missions to other institutions. The committees and task force will be provided with clerical support as needed.

When reports have been drafted to the satisfaction of the committeees, the reports and the data portfoio will be presented to the Faculty Board (an elected body that meets monthly) and the Institute Administration Council (a committee of senior administrators that meets monthly) for consideration and deliberation before being assembled for submission to WASC. The final review will be assembled, completed and edited by the Accreditation Liaison Officer in consultation with the chairs of the committees and the task force.

IV. Timeline

(omitted)