Caltech to Offer Online Courses through edX

To expand its involvement in online learning, the California Institute of Technology will offer courses through the online education platform edX beginning this October.

The edX course platform is an online learning initiative launched in 2012 by founding partners Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Caltech's rigorous online course offerings will join those of 28 other prestigious colleges and universities in the edX platform's "xConsortium."

This new partnership with edX comes one year after Caltech offered three courses through the online learning platform Coursera in fall 2012. The Institute will now offer courses through both platforms.

"Coursera and edX have some foundational differences which are of interest to the faculty," says Cassandra Horii, director of teaching and learning programs at Caltech. Both organizations offer their courses at no cost to participating students; edX, however, operates as a nonprofit and plans to partner with only a small number of institutions, whereas Coursera—a for-profit, self-described "social entrepreneurship company"—partners with many institutions and state university systems.

The two platforms also emphasize different learning strategies, says Horii. "Coursera has a strong organizational principle built around lectures, so a lot of the interactivity is tied right into the video," she says. Though edX still enables the use of video lectures, a student can customize when he or she would like to take quizzes and use learning resources. In addition, edX allows faculty to embed a variety of learning materials—like textbook chapters, discussions, diagrams, and tables—directly into the platform's layout.

In the future, data collected from both platforms could provide valuable information about how students best learn certain material, especially in the sciences. "Caltech occupies this advanced, really rigorous scientific education space, and in general our interest in these online courses is to maintain that rigor and quality," Horii says. "So, with these learning data, we have some potential contributions to make to the general understanding of learning in this niche that we occupy."

Even before joining edX and Coursera, Caltech had already become an example in the growing trend of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). Yaser Abu-Mostafa, professor of electrical engineering and computer science, developed his own MOOC on machine learning, called "Learning from Data," and offered it on YouTube and iTunes U beginning in April 2012.

Since its debut, Abu-Mostafa's MOOC has reached more than 200,000 participants, and it received mention in the NMC Horizon Report: 2013 Higher Education Edition—the latest edition of an annual report highlighting important trends in higher education. The course will be offered again in fall 2013 on iTunes U, and is now also open for enrollment in edX.

Although Caltech is now actively exploring several outlets for online learning, the Institute's commitment to educational outreach is not a recent phenomenon. In the early 1960s, Caltech physicist Richard Feynman reorganized the Institute's introductory physics course, incorporating contemporary research topics and making the course more engaging for students. His lectures were recorded and eventually incorporated into a widely popular physics book, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, which has sold millions of copies in a dozen languages.

Continuing in the tradition set by Feynman, the MOOCs at Caltech seek to provide a high-quality learning environment that is rigorous but accessible. "No dumbing down of courses for popular consumption . . . no talking over people's heads either; at Caltech, we explain things well because we understand them well," adds Abu-Mostafa.

More information on Caltech's online learning opportunities is available on the Online Education website.

Exclude from News Hub: 
News Type: 
In Our Community
Friday, October 4, 2013

Undergraduate Teaching Assistant Orientation

Thursday, September 26, 2013

Graduate TA Orientation & Teaching Conference

Psychology Influences Markets

When it comes to economics versus psychology, score one for psychology.

Economists argue that markets usually reflect rational behavior—that is, the dominant players in a market, such as the hedge-fund managers who make billions of dollars' worth of trades, almost always make well-informed and objective decisions. Psychologists, on the other hand, say that markets are not immune from human irrationality, whether that irrationality is due to optimism, fear, greed, or other forces.

Now, a new analysis published the week of July 1 in the online issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) supports the latter case, showing that markets are indeed susceptible to psychological phenomena. "There's this tug-of-war between economics and psychology, and in this round, psychology wins," says Colin Camerer, the Robert Kirby Professor of Behavioral Economics at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) and the corresponding author of the paper.

Indeed, it is difficult to claim that markets are immune to apparent irrationality in human behavior. "The recent financial crisis really has shaken a lot of people's faith," Camerer says. Despite the faith of many that markets would organize allocations of capital in ways that are efficient, he notes, the government still had to bail out banks, and millions of people lost their homes.

In their analysis, the researchers studied an effect called partition dependence, in which breaking down—or partitioning—the possible outcomes of an event in great detail makes people think that those outcomes are more likely to happen. The reason, psychologists say, is that providing specific scenarios makes them more explicit in people's minds. "Whatever we're thinking about, seems more likely," Camerer explains.

For example, if you are asked to predict the next presidential election, you may say that a Democrat has a 50/50 chance of winning and a Republican has a 50/50 chance of winning. But if you are asked about the odds that a particular candidate from each party might win—for example, Hillary Clinton versus Chris Christie—you are likely to envision one of them in the White House, causing you to overestimate his or her odds.

The researchers looked for this bias in a variety of prediction markets, in which people bet on future events. In these markets, participants buy and sell claims on specific outcomes, and the prices of those claims—as set by the market—reflect people's beliefs about how likely it is that each of those outcomes will happen. Say, for example, that the price for a claim that the Miami Heat will win 16 games during the NBA playoffs is $6.50 for a $10 return. That means that, in the collective judgment of the traders, Miami has a 65 percent chance of winning 16 games.

The researchers created two prediction markets via laboratory experiments and studied two others in the real world. In one lab experiment, which took place in 2006, volunteers traded claims on how many games an NBA team would win during the 2006 playoffs and how many goals a team would score in the 2006 World Cup. The volunteers traded claims on 16 teams each for the NBA playoffs and the World Cup.

In the basketball case, one group of volunteers was asked to bet on whether the Miami Heat would win 4–7 playoff games, 8–11 games, or some other range. Another group was given a range of 4–11 games, which combined the two intervals offered to the first group. Then, the volunteers traded claims on each of the intervals within their respective groups. As with all prediction markets, the price of a traded claim reflected the traders' estimations of whether the total number of games won by the Heat would fall within a particular range.

Economic theory says that the first group's perceived probability of the Heat winning 4–7 games and its perceived probability of winning 8–11 games should add up to a total close to the second group's perceived probability of the team winning 4–11 games. But when they added the numbers up, the researchers found instead that the first group thought the likelihood of the team winning 4–7 or 8–11 games higher than did the second group, which was asked about the probability of them winning 4–11 games. All of this suggests that framing the possible outcomes in terms of more specific intervals caused people to think that those outcomes were more likely.

The researchers observed similar results in a second, similar lab experiment, and in two studies of natural markets—one involving a series of 153 prediction markets run by Deutsche Bank and Goldman Sachs, and another involving long-shot horses in horse races.

People tend to bet more money on a long-shot horse, because of its higher potential payoff, and they also tend to overestimate the chance that such a horse will win. Statistically, however, a horse's chance of winning a particular race is the same regardless of how many other horses it's racing against—a horse who habitually wins just five percent of the time will continue to do so whether it is racing against fields of 5 or of 11. But when the researchers looked at horse-race data from 1992 through 2001—a total of 6.3 million starts—they found that bettors were subject to the partition bias, believing that long-shot horses had higher odds of winning when they were racing against fewer horses.

While partition dependence has been looked at in the past in specific lab experiments, it hadn't been studied in prediction markets, Camerer says. What makes this particular analysis powerful is that the researchers observed evidence for this phenomenon in a wide range of studies—short, well-controlled laboratory experiments; markets involving intelligent, well-informed traders at major financial institutions; and nine years of horse-racing data.

The title of the PNAS paper is "How psychological framing affects economic market prices in the lab and field." In addition to Camerer, the other authors are Ulrich Sonnemann and Thomas Langer at the University of Münster, Germany, and Craig Fox at UCLA. Their research was supported by the German Research Foundation, the National Science Foundation, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, and the Human Frontier Science Program.

Marcus Woo
Exclude from News Hub: 
News Type: 
Research News
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Dabney Hall, Lounge – Dabney Hall

Free jazz demonstration and concert

Caltech Senior Wins Gates Cambridge Scholarship

Catherine Bingchan Xie, a senior bioengineering major and English minor at Caltech, has been selected to receive a Gates Cambridge Scholarship, which will fund her graduate studies at the University of Cambridge for the next academic year. Xie, a Canadian citizen, is one of 51 new international recipients selected from a pool of more than 4,000 applicants based not only on intellectual ability, but also on leadership capacity and a commitment to improving the lives of others.

As a Gates Cambridge Scholar, Xie, 20, will pursue a Master of Philosophy in translational medicine and therapeutics. "The research program and the knowledge that I'm going to gain will provide me with an essential foundation for becoming a physician-scientist, translating research findings in the lab into revolutionary therapies," she says. "I'm really excited to join the Gates Cambridge community and be surrounded by people like me who want to make an impact on other people by taking on important roles and issues in society. I think the energy and enthusiasm of rising toward this common goal will be really invigorating."

Having lived in China, Australia, Canada, and the United States, Xie has been exposed to a variety of cultures—something that she says motivated her to want to become a highly involved leader in a diverse and multicultural society.

As an undergraduate student, Xie has taken full advantage of opportunities to pursue research projects in the laboratory with outstanding scientists. During her freshman year, she began working in the lab of Frances Arnold, the Dick and Barbara Dickinson Professor of Chemical Engineering, Bioengineering and Biochemistry, engineering ways to improve the thermostability of enzymes used to make biofuels. The summer following her sophomore year, Xie joined the lab of C. Garrison Fathman, professor of medicine and chief of the Division of Immunology and Rheumatology at the Stanford School of Medicine, to study a novel transcription factor regulator involved in the pathogenesis of Type I diabetes. When she returned to Caltech, she immediately joined the lab of David Baltimore, the Robert Andrews Millikan Professor of Biology, where she is currently working. There, her research focuses on microRNAs—tiny snippets of RNA that are only about 20 nucleotides long—and the regulatory role they play in the development of leukemia. 

"Catherine is a student with broad interests, an engaging personal style, and great effectiveness," Baltimore says. "She has been a pleasure to have in the laboratory, and I am not surprised that she has won this prestigious scholarship and chosen to broaden her knowledge by focusing on public health issues while she is at Cambridge."

Xie says her ultimate goal in life "is to be able to not only improve our understanding of disease mechanisms, but also to be able to use that understanding to create novel, innovative therapies in order to help people battle their diseases."

Xie's desire to help others was clear during her time at Caltech—she led Caltech Y service trips, during which she and other students helped to rebuild houses for low-income families, assisted in beach and riverbed cleanups, and worked at a homeless shelter. As a freshman, she started the annual Caltech Student Health Fair to make students more aware of the physical, mental, and emotional health resources on campus and throughout the community. She has also served on campus as the vice chair of the Academics and Research Committee and as a member of the Caltech Y Student Executive Committee.

"I'm so excited that Catherine has been chosen to receive this fellowship," says Athena Castro, executive director of the Caltech Y. "I just love her. She's enthusiastic, dedicated, positive, thoughtful, and committed."

In the summer of 2012, Xie broadened her horizons even more when she traveled to Switzerland as a recipient of Caltech's SanPietro Travel Prize. "Catherine demonstrated her ability to adapt quickly and truly engage in another culture on that trip," says Lauren Stolper, director of fellowships advising and study abroad. "She will represent Caltech well as a Gates Cambridge Scholar."

Xie says she is thankful to everyone who has contributed to her experience at Caltech. "My achievements wouldn't have been possible without people giving me opportunities, encouraging me, and providing me with feedback, allowing me to grow as a scientist and as an individual," she says. "Caltech has shown me that intellectual curiosity and passion are vital driving forces behind finding innovative solutions that will have a profound and meaningful impact on solving issues that confront society."

The 51 newly announced international scholars will join 39 new American Gates Cambridge Scholars. The Gates Cambridge Scholarship program was established in 2000 through a donation from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to the University of Cambridge. Xie is the sixth Caltech undergraduate student to receive the fellowship. 

Kimm Fesenmaier
Exclude from News Hub: 
News Type: 
In Our Community
Monday, April 1, 2013
Center for Student Services, 3rd Floor, Brennan Conference Room – Center for Student Services

Head TA Network Kick-off Meeting & Happy Hour

For Love or Money: Marriage and Economic Development in the Past

Watson Lecture Preview

Getting married and moving out of your parents' house may be key to your personal economic development, but are marriage patterns key to an entire society's development as well? Professor of Social Science History Tracy Dennison tells us what love's got to do with it at 8:00 p.m. on Wednesday, January 30, 2013, in Caltech's Beckman Auditorium. Admission is free.


Q: What do you do?

A: I'm interested in the way societies worked in the past, and how the complex of rules that governed a society and its markets affected the decisions ordinary people make. Not just economic transactions, but where to live, when to marry, how many children to have. Whether to live with your in-laws or strike out on your own.

We imagine that the modern world after the industrial revolution is a sharp break with the past. But many things we associate with "modern" society are quite old. In England, the "nuclear" household—parents and children, no grandparents, no cousins—goes back to at least the 15th century, and people married surprisingly late. Age 25 or 26 for women and 28 for men, in a society where your life expectancy at birth was in the low 30s. But if you managed to survive childhood, you were pretty likely to get to your 50s or 60s.

Since England and the Netherlands, which also had late marriage and nuclear-family households, were economically precocious, many people think those places had some set of virtuous cultural norms that translated into rapidly developing economies. But when we look more closely, we find that other parts of Europe had that same marriage pattern and no economic growth. So the marriage pattern is not a silver bullet.

Instead, family patterns fit into larger social and economic structures. In a society with more economic opportunities, people are less dependent on their kin. A maiden aunt in England could earn a living on her own as a wage laborer and have an independent household. But in a place like Russia the family played a much larger role in providing for her welfare because landlords, communes, and guilds constrained her participation in the economy. Not surprisingly, larger, multigenerational families were more common in premodern Russia.


Q: How do you discover this sort of thing?

A: I do most of my research in Russia, where serfdom didn't end until 1861. Every landlord ran his estate as he saw fit, and that included running the villages on his land. The rules and regulations differed from estate to estate, so there's a lot to compare. And they kept really, really detailed records—I mean, really detailed records. We know what people's occupations were, whether they paid their taxes punctually, and whether there were any conflicts with other members of the society. I work with censuses and land surveys, petitions to the landlord, and various reports from the estate management. There was even a court system of sorts, so there are transcripts in which you hear the peasants' own voices. There was usually a literate peasant who worked as a scribe. Usually the estate's bailiff was chosen from among the peasantry, and that person would have been literate as well.

The back rooms of the regional archives are filled with bundles of papers. It's often old, acidic paper that crumbles in your hands when you touch it, but if the archivist determines that the document's in decent shape, you can take it out to the reading room. Then you try to decipher the handwriting, which changes quite a bit from generation to generation. And because the region was so poor, they often reused the paper, and there's writing on top of writing—two sets of script, and you have to figure out which one's newer by the style of the handwriting. Trying to read the one underneath is pretty exciting.


Q: How did you get into this line of work?

A: I came to it in a roundabout way. I did Russian literature as an undergraduate, and I went to Russia with the idea that if I was going to be a graduate student in literature I had to learn Russian properly. But I was so struck by the society itself—why it was the way it was, and how it got there—that I got interested in history.

The past is not a foreign country. People then were very much like us—they worked, they socialized, they fell in love, they got married, they had children. They just had to do these things in much harsher conditions. You can look at what seems to us like very odd behavior and say, "Wow, they had weird ideas." We look more closely and say, "Oh. They're marrying young and staying home because of the very harsh penalties for not doing so. It's not because they loved having kids while living with all their relatives." If they're farming with really primitive tools, we can see this as a response to the cost of adopting new technology, or to the policy of a landlord who confiscates any surplus you produce. It wasn't a lack of interest or creativity; in fact, people were pretty creative at improving their lives.

There is this impression of ordinary people in the past—not the kings and queens, not the rich people—that they prayed, they accepted their lot, they were fatalistic. That is not what we see. We see people struggling against the constraints of their world all the time.


Named for the late Caltech professor Earnest C. Watson, who founded the series in 1922, the Watson Lectures present Caltech and JPL researchers describing their work to the public. Many past Watson Lectures are available online at Caltech's iTunes U site.

Douglas Smith
Listing Title: 
Watson Lecture: "For Love or Money: Marriage and Economic Development in the Past"
Exclude from News Hub: 
News Type: 
In Our Community
Friday, January 25, 2013

Course Ombudspeople Lunch

TEDxCaltech: If You Click a Cookie with a Mouse

This week we will be highlighting the student speakers who auditioned and were selected to give five-minute talks about their brain-related research at TEDxCaltech: The Brain, a special event that will take place on Friday, January 18, in Beckman Auditorium. 

In the spirit of ideas worth spreading, TED has created a program of local, self-organized events called TEDx. Speakers are asked to give the talk of their lives. Live video coverage of the TEDxCaltech experience will be available during the event at

When offered spinach or a cookie, how do you decide which to eat? Do you go for the healthy choice or the tasty one? To study the science of decision making, researchers in the lab of Caltech neuroeconomist Antonio Rangel analyze what happens inside people's brains as they choose between various kinds of food. The researchers typically use functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to measure the changes in oxygen flow through the brain; these changes serve as proxies for spikes or dips in brain activity. Recently, however, investigators have started using a new technique that may better tease out how you choose between the spinach or the cookie—a decision that's often made in a fraction of a second.

While fMRI is a powerful method, it can only measure changes in brain activity down to the scale of a second or so. "That's not fast enough because these decisions are made sometimes within half a second," says Caltech senior Joy Lu, who will be talking about her research in Rangel's lab at TEDx Caltech. Instead of using fMRI, Lu—along with postdoctoral scholar Cendri Hutcherson and graduate student Nikki Sullivan—turned to the standard old computer mouse.

During the experiments—which are preliminary, as the researchers are still conducting and refining them—volunteers rate 250 kinds of food for healthiness and tastiness. The choices range from spinach and cookies to broccoli and chips. Then, the volunteers are given a choice between two of those items, represented by pictures on a computer screen. When they decide which option they want, they click with their mouse. But while they mull over their choices, the paths of their mouse cursor are being tracked—the idea being that the cursor paths may reveal how the volunteers arrive at their final decisions.

For example, if the subject initially feels obligated to be healthy, the cursor may hover over the spinach a moment before finally settling on the cookie. Or, if the person is immediately drawn to the sweet treat before realizing that health is a better choice, the cursor may hover over the cookie first.

Lu, Hutcherson, and Sullivan are using computer models to find cursor-path patterns or trends that may offer insight into the factors that influence such decisions. Do the paths differ between those who value health over taste and those who favor taste more?

Although the researchers are still refining their computer algorithms and continuing their experiments, they have some preliminary results. They found that with many people, for example, the cursor first curves toward one choice before ending up at the other. The time it takes for someone's health consciousness to kick in seems to be longer than the time it takes for people to succumb to cravings for something delicious.

After graduation, Lu plans to go to graduate school in marketing, where she'll use not only neuroscience techniques but also field studies to investigate consumer behavior. She might even compare the two methods. "Using neuroscience in marketing is a very new thing," she says. "That's what draws me toward it. We can't answer all the questions we want to answer just using field studies. You have to look at what's going on in a person's mind."

Marcus Woo
Exclude from News Hub: 
News Type: 
In Our Community