Caltech Interns Summer in Japan

In August, five Caltech undergraduates returned from a summer in Japan, where they worked as interns for Mitsubishi's Advanced Technology and Information Technology R&D centers; for Kaneka, a chemical manufacturing company; and for NTT DoCoMo, Japan's largest mobile phone carrier. All study Japanese language at Caltech with Kayoko Hirata, lecturer in Japanese. According to Hirata, these internships "mostly go to second year or third year students of Japanese." Typically about half of the students intern for companies in Tokyo, while the other half are located in the Kyoto/Osaka area.

The Caltech–Japan Internship Program was started in 1994. "There are over 150 alumni of the program now," says Hirata. In earlier years, Hirata says, students were drawn to Japanese language study from a point of view having more to do with science and technology. Today, she says, "their interest in Japanese culture often begins in childhood; with the influence of comics and movies, anime and games at that age, we see more students coming to college with an desire to study the Japanese language."

As interns, students collaborate on industrial projects with Japanese companies, usually living in company-owned dormitory housing. They are immersed in Japanese business culture while simultaneously honing their language skills. Language learning in the Caltech–Japan Internship Program is reciprocal: Caltech students go to Japan to converse in Japanese, and, says Hirata, "often the reason the Japanese companies want interns from the United States is that they want to communicate in English."

In late July, this year's interns met in Tokyo with their employer representatives and with Barbara Green, interim dean of undergraduate students. They had an opportunity there to share stories and reconnect midway through their internships. "Dr. Hirata's dedication to the Japan internship program has made it a real success over the years, and it has been very beneficial to our students," says Green. "Students expand their horizons by living in another culture for an entire summer and also improve their Japanese language skills. The opportunity to work for a large Japanese corporation gives the interns an experience that may serve them very well in the future."

Over the course of the summer, the interns also set out on their own travels. Senior in physics Dryden Bouamalay, an intern with Mitsubishi Advanced Technology R&D, reports that one of the most compelling places he visited was Hiroshima. "I think it was really important to visit Hiroshima because of the war's enormous impact on Japanese culture. It wasn't a 'fun' visit, but it felt necessary," says Bouamalay. He also had the opportunity to savor a local specialty: okonomiyaki, sometimes described as "Japanese pizza," a thin pancake topped with grilled vegetables, seafood, or meat.

This October, the Caltech–Japan interns will present slides and brief talks about their experiences with the program to an audience of Caltech faculty, staff, and students—many of whom are considering applying to the program next year—as well a representative or two from local Japanese companies.

Exclude from News Hub: 
News Type: 
In Our Community

Why Did Western Europe Dominate the Globe?

Although Europe represents only about 8 percent of the planet's landmass, from 1492 to 1914, Europeans conquered or colonized more than 80 percent of the entire world. Being dominated for centuries has led to lingering inequality and long-lasting effects in many formerly colonized countries, including poverty and slow economic growth. There are many possible explanations for why history played out this way, but few can explain why the West was so powerful for so long.

Caltech's Philip Hoffman, the Rea A. and Lela G. Axline Professor of Business Economics and professor of history, has a new explanation: the advancement of gunpowder technology. The Chinese invented gunpowder, but Hoffman, whose work applies economic theory to historical contexts, argues that certain political and economic circumstances allowed the Europeans to advance gunpowder technology at an unprecedented rate—allowing a relatively small number of people to quickly take over much of the rest of the globe.

Hoffman's work is published in a new book titled Why Did Europe Conquer the World? We spoke with him recently about his research interests and what led him to study this particular topic.

You have been on the Caltech faculty for more than 30 years. Are there any overarching themes to your work?

Over the years I've been interested in a number of different things, and this new work puts together a lot of bits of my research. I've looked at changes in technology that influence agriculture, and I've studied the development of financial markets, and in between those two, I was also studying why financial crises occur. I've also been interested in the development of tax systems. For example, how did states get the ability to impose heavy taxes? What were the politics and the political context of the economy that resulted in this ability to tax?

What led you to investigate the global conquests of western Europe?

It's just fascinating. In 1914, really only China, Japan, and the Ottoman Empire had escaped becoming European colonies. A thousand years ago, no one would have ever expected that result, for at that point western Europe was hopelessly backward. It was politically weak, it was poor, and the major long-distance commerce was a slave trade led by Vikings. The political dominance of western Europe was an unexpected outcome and had really big consequences, so I thought: let's explain it.


Many theories purport to explain how the West became dominant. For example, that Europe became industrialized more quickly and therefore became wealthier than the rest of the world. Or, that when Europeans began to travel the world, people in other countries did not have the immunity to fight off the diseases they brought with them. How is your theory different?

Yes, there are lots of conventional explanations—industrialization, for example—but on closer inspection they all fall apart. Before 1800, Europe had already taken over at least 35 percent of the world, but Britain was just beginning to industrialize. The rest of Europe at that time was really no wealthier than China, the Middle East, or South Asia. So as an explanation, industrialization doesn't work.

Another explanation, described in Jared Diamond's famous book [Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies], is disease. But something like the smallpox epidemic that ravaged Mexico when the Spanish conquistador Hernán Cortés overthrew the Aztec Empire just isn't the whole story of Cortés's victory or of Europe's successful colonization of other parts of the world. Disease can't explain, for example, the colonization of India, because people in southeast Asia had the same immunity to disease that the Europeans did. So that's not the answer—it's something else.


What made you turn to the idea of gunpowder technology as an explanation?

It started after I gave an undergraduate here a book to read about gunpowder technology, how it was invented in China and used in Japan and Southeast Asia, and how the Europeans got very good at using it, which fed into their successful conquests. I'd given it to him because the use of this technology is related to politics and fiscal systems and taxes, and as he was reading it, he noted that the book did not give the ultimate cause of why Europe in particular was so successful. That was a really great question and it got me interested.


What was so special about gunpowder?

Gunpowder was really important for conquering territory; it allows a small number of people to exercise a lot of influence. The technology grew to include more than just guns: armed ships, fortifications that can resist artillery, and more, and the Europeans became the best at using these things.

So, I put together an economic model of how this technology has advanced to come up with what I think is the real reason why the West conquered almost everyone else. My idea incorporates the model of a contest or a tournament where your odds of winning are higher if you spend more resources on fighting. You can think of that as being much like a baseball team that hires better players to win more games, but in this case, instead of coaches, it's political leaders and instead of games there are wars. And the more that the political leaders spend, the better their chances of defeating other leaders and, in the long run, of dominating the other cultures.


What kinds of factors are included in this model?

One big factor that's important to the advancement of any defense technology is how much money a political leader can spend. That comes down to the political costs of raising revenue and a leader's ability to tax. In the very successful countries, the leaders could impose very heavy taxes and spend huge sums on war.

The economic model then connected that spending to changes in military technology. The spending on war gave leaders a chance to try out new weapons, new armed ships, and new tactics, and to learn from mistakes on the battlefield. The more they spent, the more chances they had to improve their military technology through trial and error while fighting wars. So more spending would not only mean greater odds of victory over an enemy, but more rapid change in military technology.

If you think about it, you realize that advancements in gunpowder technology—which are important for conquest—arise where political leaders fight using that technology, where they spend huge sums on it, and where they're able to share the resulting advances in that technology. For example, if I am fighting you and you figure out a better way to build an armed ship, I can imitate you. For that to happen, the countries have to be small and close to one another. And all of this describes Europe.


What does this mean in a modern context?

One lesson the book teaches is that actions involving war, foreign policy, and military spending can have big, long-lasting consequences: this is a lesson that policy makers should never forget. The book also reminds us that in a world where there are hostile powers, we really don't want to get rid of spending on improving military technology. Those improvements can help at times when wars are necessary—for instance, when we are fighting against enemies with whom we cannot negotiate. Such enemies existed in the past—they were fighting for glory on the battlefield or victory over an enemy of the faith—and one could argue that they pose a threat today as well.

Things are much better if the conflict concerns something that can be split up—such as money or land. Then you can bargain with your enemies to divvy up whatever you disagree about and you can have something like peace. You'll still need to back up the peace with armed forces, but you won't actually fight all that much, and that's a much better outcome.

In either case, you'll still be spending money on the military and on military research. Personally, I would much rather see expenditures devoted to infrastructure, or scientific research, or free preschool for everybody—things that would carry big economic benefits—but in this world, I don't think you can stop doing military research or spending money on the military. I wish we did live in that world, but unfortunately it's not realistic.

Exclude from News Hub: 
News Type: 
Research News

High School Students Visit for Women in STEM Preview Day

On Friday, August 7, 104 female high school seniors and their families visited Caltech for the fourth annual Women in STEM (WiSTEM) Preview Day, hosted by the undergraduate admissions office. The event was designed to explore the accomplishments and continued contributions of Caltech women in the disciplines of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM).

The day opened with a keynote address by Marianne Bronner, the Albert Billings Ruddock Professor of Biology and executive officer for neurobiology. Bronner, who studies the development of the central nervous system, spoke about her experiences in science and at Caltech.

"Caltech is an exciting place to be. It's a place where you can be creative and think outside the box," she said. "My advice to you would be to try different things, play around, and do what makes you happy." Bronner ended her address by noting the pleasure she takes in mentoring young scientists, and especially young women. "I was just like you," she said.

Over the course of the day, students and their families attended panels on undergraduate research opportunities and participated in social events where current students shared their experiences of Caltech life. They also listened to presentations from female scientists and engineers of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

"I really love science, and it's so exciting to be around all of these other people who share that," says Sydney Feldman, a senior from Maryland. "I switched around my whole summer visit schedule to come to this event and I'm having such a great time."

The annual event began four years ago with the goal of encouraging interest in STEM in high school women and ultimately increasing applications to Caltech by female candidates. In 2009, a U.S. Department of Commerce study showed that women make up 24 percent of the STEM workforce and hold a disproportionately low share of undergraduate degrees in STEM fields.

"Women are seriously underrepresented in these fields," says Caltech admissions counselor and WiSTEM coordinator Abeni Tinubu. "Our event really puts emphasis on how Caltech supports women on campus, and we want to show prospective students that."

This year, the incoming freshman class is a record 47 percent female students. "This is hugely exciting," says Jarrid Whitney, the executive director of admissions and financial aid. "We've been working hard toward our goal of 50 percent women, and it is clearly paying off thanks to the support of President Rosenbaum and the overall Caltech community."

Home Page Title: 
Women in STEM Preview Day
Listing Title: 
Women in STEM Preview Day
Exclude from News Hub: 
News Type: 
In Our Community

Creating Generosity

Researchers have long wondered what mechanisms and motives underlie altruism and what can be done to increase generous behavior. Looking for new insights in these basic questions, Caltech researchers used functional brain imaging to study neural activity in test subjects during generous or selfish choices that involve monetary rewards. They found that altruistic behavior could be explained and predicted by a simple computational model in which individuals make choices by weighting the impact of their decisions on themselves and others.

A paper about the work appears in the July 15 issue of the journal Neuron.

"Generosity does not have to be a difficult decision," says study lead Cendri Hutcherson, an assistant professor at the University of Toronto. Indeed, altruism becomes easier, the study found, when decision-makers consider how their actions will benefit the other person. The study also found that quick decisions led to more generous behavior— and less financial gain for the person making the choices.

Hutcherson conducted the work as a postdoctoral researcher in the laboratory of Antonio Rangel (BS '93), the Bing Professor of Neuroscience, Behavioral Biology, and Economics at Caltech.

Past research has supported seemingly opposing views about whether or not altruism is an innate behavior or one that requires effort. For example, some psychologists argue that human beings are intrinsically selfish. Others say that we are by nature prosocial and only selfish when we take time to realize we can get away with selfishness. And still others argue that willpower plays a role in altruism—in other words, that we need to exercise self-control to be generous. But the question remains open, and just what mechanisms in the brain affect this kind of decision-making has been unclear.

To find out, Hutcherson, Rangel, and colleague Benjamin Bushong (PhD '13), a visiting professor at the Harvard Business School, used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to examine the brain activity of 51 subjects as they decided to make either generous or selfish choices under a variety of conditions.

The decisions of the subjects resulted in either financial gain or loss for themselves or another person, who would remain anonymous to the subject. The amount of money in question ranged from $0 to $100.

The study falls within the scope of a discipline known as neuroeconomics, which seeks to characterize the computations made by the brain to make different classes of decisions as well as the neural circuits that implement those computations.

The researchers used an experimental paradigm from economics called the Dictator Game. They asked the subjects to choose between actions that either result in their own economic gain, in a financial reward for another person, or some combination of the two. For example, the subject might be asked to sacrifice $25 so that the other person might gain $100. If the proposal was rejected there was a default award of $50 for each. To keep the decision making simple, subjects were given a four-second limit in which to make their choices.

The study was also able to determine under what circumstances generous choices occurred and whether they were made more rapidly than selfish ones or vice versa.

Academics have long debated the origins and biological underpinnings of altruism. "One of the big debates has been about whether human beings are, by nature, selfish and require self-control or willpower in order to inhibit these selfish impulses," Hutcherson says. "Some people have suggested that if a generous choice is faster, it is automatic, intuitive, and that you didn't need self-control to do it. If, however, more time is required to make a generous choice, that would be evidence that we have to override our selfish tendencies to be generous—that it takes more mental 'machinery.'"

"You can come up with counterexamples to either argument," Hutcherson explains. "We have all had experiences where it felt hard to be nice to others, but we can also come up with examples where people have been extraordinarily altruistic. You hear about people who run into burning buildings to save complete strangers and said that they didn't give it a second thought. The question of why people can make these choices without really thinking is a complex one.

In the experiments, the researchers found that participants were willing to sacrifice money to help the other person an average of 21 percent of the time—even though the identity of recipient of the cash award was unknown to the test subject.

Recorded fMRI scans of the subjects' brains, taken while they made their decisions, suggested that different brain areas represent one's own and others' interests. Self-oriented values correlated with activity in the ventral striatum, an area linked to basic reward processing. Other-oriented values correlated with activation of the temporoparietal junction, which has been implicated in empathy. Hutcherson believes this is evidence that people are more likely to give away resources if they already have in mind how their donation will benefit someone else.

The study also indicates that self-control may be less of a factor in altruistic decision making than previously thought. Rather, the more one considers the well-being of another, the easier it is to behave generously. Alternatively, the more one focuses on one's own well-being, the more difficult altruistic choices become.

"Our data show that the sense of gratification from acting generously comes from knowing that you only had to give up a little bit to help someone else a lot," Hutcherson says. "If we can highlight the utility of an action that is fairly trivial for ourselves—for example, the notion that for the price of a cup of coffee you can help a starving child—the model predicts that people will be more likely to behave generously. But if you have to give up a lot to give another person only a small benefit, that's not so motivating. The satisfaction to the giver has to be worth the sacrifice."

Hutcherson notes that such research may help to reveal how people can be encouraged to act more often in the interest of others and may have broader applications in many areas of human behavior, including charitable giving, military training, and criminal rehabilitation.

The work in the paper, titled "A neurocomputational model of altruistic choice and its implications," was funded by the National Science Foundation, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, and the Lipper Foundation.

Exclude from News Hub: 
News Type: 
Research News

$100 Million Gift from Gordon and Betty Moore Will Bolster Graduate Fellowships

Trustees Gordon (PhD '54) and Betty Moore have pledged $100 million to Caltech, the second-largest single contribution in the Institute's history. With this gift, they have created a permanent endowment and entrusted the choice of how to direct the funds to the Institute's leadership—providing lasting resources coupled with uncommon freedom.

"Those within the Institute have a much better view of what the highest priorities are than we could have," Intel Corporation cofounder Gordon Moore explains. "We'd rather turn the job of deciding where to use resources over to Caltech than try to dictate it from outside."

Applying the Moores' donation in a way that will strengthen the Institute for generations to come, Caltech's president and provost have decided to dedicate the funds to fellowships for graduate students.

"Gordon and Betty Moore's incredibly generous gift will have a transformative effect on Caltech," says President Thomas F. Rosenbaum, holder of the Institute's Sonja and William Davidow Presidential Chair and professor of physics. "Our ultimate goal is to provide fellowships for every graduate student at Caltech, to free these remarkable young scholars to pursue their interests wherever they may lead, independent of the vicissitudes of federal funding. The fellowships created by the Moores' gift will help make the Institute the destination of choice for the most original and creative scholars, students and faculty members alike."

Further multiplying the impact of the Moores' contribution, the Institute has established a program that will inspire others to contribute as well. The Gordon and Betty Moore Graduate Fellowship Match will provide one additional dollar for every two dollars pledged to endow Institute-wide fellowships. In this way, the Moores' $100 million commitment will increase fellowship support for Caltech by a total of $300 million.

Says Provost Edward M. Stolper, the Carl and Shirley Larson Provostial Chair and William E. Leonhard Professor of Geology: "Investigators across campus work with outstanding graduate students to advance discovery and to train the next generation of teachers and researchers. By supporting these students, the Moore Match will stimulate creativity and excellence in perpetuity all across Caltech. We are grateful to Gordon and Betty for allowing us the flexibility to devote their gift to this crucial priority."

The Moores describe Caltech as a one-of-a-kind institution in its ability to train budding scientists and engineers and conduct high-risk research with world-changing results—and they are committed to helping the Institute maintain that ability far into the future.

"We appreciate being able to support the best science," Gordon Moore says, "and that's something that supporting Caltech lets us do."

The couple's extraordinary philanthropy already has motivated other benefactors to follow their example, notes David L. Lee, chair of the Caltech Board of Trustees.

"The decision that Gordon and Betty made—to give such a remarkable gift, to make it perpetual through an endowment, and to remove any restrictions as to how it can be used—creates a tremendous ripple effect," Lee says. "Others have seen the Moores' confidence in Caltech and have made commitments of their own. We thank the Moores for their leadership."

The Moores consider their gift a high-leverage way of fostering scientific research at a place that is close to their hearts. Before he went on to cofound Intel, Gordon Moore earned a PhD in chemistry from Caltech.

"It's been a long-term association that has served me well," he says.

Joining him in Pasadena just a day after the two were married, Betty Moore became active in the campus community as well. A graduate of San Jose State College's journalism program, she secured a job at the Ford Foundation's new Pasadena headquarters and also made time to come to campus to participate in community activities, including the Chem Wives social club.

"We started out at Caltech," she recalls. "I had a feeling that it was home away from home. It gives you a down-home feeling when you're young and just taking off from family. You need that connection somehow."

After earning his PhD from Caltech in 1954, Gordon Moore took a position conducting basic research at the Applied Physics Laboratory at Johns Hopkins University. Fourteen years and two jobs later, he and his colleague Robert Noyce cofounded Intel Corp. Moore served as executive vice president of the company until 1975, when he took the helm. Under his leadership—as chief executive officer (1975 to 1987) and chairman of the board (1987 to 1997)—Intel grew from a Mountain View-based startup to a giant of Silicon Valley, worth more than $140 billion today.

Moore is widely known for "Moore's Law," his 1965 prediction that the number of transistors that can fit on a chip would double every year. Still relevant 50 years later, this principle pushed Moore and his company—and the tech industry as a whole—to produce continually more powerful and cheaper semiconductor chips.

Gordon Moore joined the Caltech Board of Trustees in 1983 and served as chair from 1993 to 2000. That same year, he and his wife established the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, an organization dedicated to creating positive outcomes for future generations in the San Francisco Bay Area and around the world.

Among numerous other honors, Gordon Moore is a member of the National Academy of Engineering, a fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, and a recipient of the National Medal of Technology and the Presidential Medal of Freedom. 

The Gordon and Betty Moore Graduate Fellowship Match is available for new gifts and pledges to endow graduate fellowships. For more information about the match and how to support graduate education at Caltech, please email or call (626) 395-4863.

Home Page Title: 
$100 Million Gift from Gordon and Betty Moore Will Bolster Graduate Fellowships
Exclude from News Hub: 
News Type: 
In Our Community
Exclude from Home Page: 

New VP for Student Affairs Named

Joseph Shepherd (PhD '81), the C. L. "Kelly" Johnson Professor of Aeronautics and professor of mechanical engineering, is leaving his post as dean of graduate studies to succeed Anneila Sargent (MS '67, PhD '78), the Ira S. Bowen Professor of Astronomy, as vice president for student affairs. Shepherd's new role is effective September 15.

Sargent, who served the campus as the leader of student affairs the last eight years, announced in March that she was leaving the post to return to research and teaching full time. Shepherd, who joined the Caltech faculty in 1993, has served the last six years as the dean of graduate studies.

We recently sat down with Shepherd to talk about his past role and his new one, his strengths and goals, and his experience at Caltech.


Q: What does the vice president for student affairs do?

A: Student Affairs includes the offices of the undergraduate and graduate deans as well as obvious things like the registrar, undergraduate admissions, fellowships and study abroad, the career center, the health center, and the counseling center. It also includes things you might not think of—athletics; performing and visual arts, which includes the music programs, the theater program, the various arts programs, and all of the faculty and instructors that make these programs possible; and a whole group of organizations lumped under "auxiliaries."

The term "auxiliaries" is misleading, because they're central to student life. Housing and dining are the biggest parts, but there are services like the C-Store, the Red Door Café, the Caltech Store and Wired.


Q: What makes this role exciting for you?

A:  People speculate about what it is that makes Caltech a great school. A lot of folks say, "Well, it's because it's so small." But I think it's also because we work with people instead of creating some bureaucratic mechanism to solve problems. We say, "All right, what's the issue here? How can we resolve this?" instead of, "We need to create a rule. And then we need to create a group to enforce the rule." My approach is to ask, "What do we want the outcome to be?" In Student Affairs, you want the outcome to be something that supports the students, supports the faculty, and then you make sure that it's not going to adversely affect the Institute.


Q: Are there any changes coming, any initiatives you want to establish?

A: We need to think about how we build on the strengths we have and improve the things that we're weakest at. Before you make any changes to an organization, you need to understand those two things. There are a lot of parts to Student Affairs, so I need to understand the strong points of those organizations, and then get them to help me formulate what's important to do.

You always have to be careful of unintended consequences. As they say in chess, you want to think several moves deep. All right, suppose we do that. What will it mean for different parts of our population? Do we make this choice based on the data we have, or do we need more data? Will there be effects on people we haven't thought about? Maybe we need to go talk to those people.

When you have the authority to change things, you also have the responsibility to ask, "Are these the right changes?" Nothing happens in isolation. Anything you do is invariably going to wind up touching quite a few people.


Q: You've been dean of graduate studies since 2009. Did you consider taking a breather before jumping into this?

A: Well, much to my surprise, I found that being the dean of graduate studies was rewarding in many different ways. Sometimes you had to do some difficult things, but I actually liked being the dean. I was able, to some extent, to continue my research. I did some teaching—although last year I taught a major course all three terms, and I had my research group—and I was the dean of graduate studies. That taught me a lesson: a man's got to know his limitations.

So when I was asked if I would take this position, I did think about taking a break and not doing it. I enjoy my research and I enjoy teaching. I enjoy working with students, but I also enjoy trying to help the Institute as a whole. Here at Caltech, we pride ourselves on the notion that we have this very special environment. We have this small school, and we have dedicated professionals that work together with faculty to nurture that environment—having faculty who are invested in participating in the key administrative roles is essential.

When I was a graduate student here, my adviser was Brad Sturtevant [MS '56, PhD '60, and a lifelong faculty member thereafter]. Brad was the executive officer for aeronautics [1972-76]. He was in charge of the committee that built the Sherman Fairchild Library and he was on the faculty board. He emphasized to me that being involved in administration was just as valuable as all the other aspects of being a faculty member. He was a dedicated researcher, but he also felt strongly that you should be a good citizen. You should contribute.


Q: It seems like this is more than just a duty to you, though.

A: I'm looking forward to it. I'm also very conscious of the responsibility. I think it's going to be important for us all to think about how we maintain the excellence of the Institute and that we imagine how this place is going to evolve. As society evolves around us, we will naturally wind up changing. We need to do that in a thoughtful way so that we continue to be the special organization that we are.

At the end of the day, I'm counting on help from the faculty and staff. Caltech works because of the committed individuals within our organizations, the personal connections we form as we work together and the cooperation across the campus that these connections enable.  It's a collective enterprise.

I think administration is not something that's done to people. It's being responsible for making sure that folks have the right work environment, the right job assignments, and the right resources. It's making sure we're doing the right things with the finite resources we have. One of our former presidents said something that's always stuck with me: an administrator's goals are not about their own career so much as helping the careers of others. You need to think about how you're helping the people working for you, because they have goals and aspirations. That's where you take your satisfaction.

Home Page Title: 
New VP for Student Affairs
Exclude from News Hub: 
News Type: 
In Our Community
Exclude from Home Page: 
Thursday, September 24, 2015
Beckman Institute, Glanville Courtyard – Beckman Institute

3rd Annual Caltech Teaching Conference

New Dean of Graduate Studies Named

On July 1, 2015, Doug Rees, the Roscoe Gilkey Dickinson Professor of Chemistry, will begin serving as the new dean of graduate studies at Caltech.

"Doug's experience and concern with graduate education make him an ideal choice for dean of graduate studies. I am very pleased that he is willing to make this commitment to the Institute and its students," says Anneila Sargent, vice president for student affairs and the Ira S. Bowen Professor of Astronomy.

As the new dean, Rees will be the principal administrator and representative of Caltech's graduate education program, responsible for attending to concerns regarding the welfare of graduate students as well as for upholding the Institute's rules and policies.

"There are many groups essential to the effective operation of our graduate program that I want to get to know better, starting with the graduate students, the Graduate Office staff, and the option administrators and option reps," says Rees. "In my 26 years at Caltech, I've gained an appreciation for how the graduate programs in biochemistry and molecular biophysics and in chemistry operate, but the cultures in different options across campus can vary significantly, and I look forward to better understanding these distinctions."

Rees says that he is also very much looking forward to working directly with graduate students, staff, and faculty on behalf of the graduate program. Of particular interest during his tenure will be issues relating to the well-being and professional development of graduate students.

"I find research to be an adventure that, while exhilarating, is also challenging, frustrating, and even stressful; those aspects, however, are not incompatible with having a positive student experience and a supportive environment," Rees says. He adds that his priorities will be to raise fellowship support, increase the diversity of the graduate student body, and ensure that students have access to appropriate support services such as health care, counseling, and day care. "In addition, I also hope to be able to explore mechanisms to better prepare students for life after Caltech, including both academic and nonacademic career options," he says.

In his new post, Rees will take the place of C. L. "Kelly" Johnson Professor of Aeronautics and Mechanical Engineering Joseph Shepherd, who has served as the dean of graduate studies since 2009. "Joe leaves big shoes to fill and the campus owes him a huge debt of gratitude for all he has accomplished as dean of graduate studies. What I have learned from watching him in action over the past six years, and more recently as he has been helping me during this transition period, is that the most important quality for the dean is to care about the students—and I will definitely be working to follow his example," Rees says.

Rees received his undergraduate degree from Yale University in 1974 and his PhD from Harvard in 1980, becoming a professor at Caltech in 1989. An investigator with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Rees also served as the executive officer for chemistry from 2002 to 2006 and the executive officer for biochemistry and molecular biophysics from 2007 to 2015.

Exclude from News Hub: 
News Type: 
In Our Community

Voting Rights: A Conversation with Morgan Kousser

Three years ago this week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional a key provision of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), which was enacted in 1965 and extended four times since then by Congress. Section 5 of the act required certain "covered" jurisdictions in the Deep South and in states and counties outside the Deep South that had large populations of Hispanics and Native Americans to obtain "pre-clearance" from the Justice Department or the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia before changing any election law. The provision was designed to prevent election officials from replacing one law that had been declared to be racially discriminatory with a different but still discriminatory law. A second provision, Section 4(b), contained the formula for coverage.

The VRA, notes Morgan Kousser, the William R. Kenan, Jr., Professor of History and Social Science, has been "very effective. You went from 7 percent of the black voters in Mississippi being registered to vote to 60 percent within three or four years. That was just an amazing change. Even more amazing, Section 5 was flexible enough to prevent almost every kind of new discriminatory technique or device over a period of nearly 50 years." For instance, Kousser notes, "when white supremacists in Mississippi saw that African Americans would soon comprise majorities in some state or local legislative districts, they merged the districts to preserve white majorities everywhere. But Section 5 stopped this runaround and allowed the new black voters real democracy. Voting rights was the one area in which federal law came close to eliminating the country's long, sad history of racial discrimination."

But on June 25, 2013, in a landmark ruling in Shelby County v. Holder, the Court overturned Section 4(b), effectively dismantling Section 5. Without a formula that defines covered jurisdictions, no area falls within the scope of Section 5. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing the 5–4 majority opinion, argued that although the original coverage formula "made sense," it was now outdated, based on "decades-old data and eradicated practices." Asserting that voter turnout and registration rates in covered jurisdictions are nearly equal for whites and African Americans, Roberts also noted that "blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare. And minority candidates hold office at unprecedented levels."

The decision, says Kousser, was wrong. In a comprehensive study recently published in the journal Transatlantica, he, with the help of three Caltech students who worked on the study during Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowship (SURF) projects, examined more than four thousand successful voting-rights cases around the country as well as Justice Department inquiries and settlements and changes to laws in response to the threat of lawsuits. Over 90 percent, they found, occurred in the covered jurisdictions—indicating, Kousser says, that the coverage scheme was still working very well.

The study found that—even when excluding all of the actions brought under Section 5 of the VRA, and only looking at those that can be brought anywhere in the country—83.2 percent of successful cases originated in covered jurisdictions. This shows, Kousser says, that whatever the coverage formula measured, it still captured the "overwhelming number of instances of proven racial discrimination in elections."

We talked with Kousser about the ruling and his findings—and how this constitutional law scholar made his way to Caltech.


Why do you think Justice Roberts and the other justices in the majority ruled the way they did?

He had a sense that there had been a lot of cases outside of the covered jurisdictions. But if you look at all of the data, you see that the coverage scheme captures 94 percent of all of the cases and other events that took place from 1957 through 2013 and an even larger proportion up to 2006. Suppose that you were a stockbroker, and you could make a decision that was right 94 percent of the time. Your clients would be very, very wealthy. No one would be dissatisfied with you. That's what the congressional coverage scheme did.

I wish very much that I had finished this paper two years earlier and that the data would have been published in a scholarly journal or at least made available in a pre-print by the time that the decision was cooking up. That was a mistake on my part. I should have let it out into the world a little earlier. Sometimes I have a fantasy that if this had been shown to the right justices at the right time, maybe they would have decided differently.


The Court did not rule on the VRA in general—but said that the coverage formula is outdated because voting discrimination is not as bad as it once was. Do you agree?

This is one of the reasons that I looked at the coverage of the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA), passed in 2002. In Section 2 of the National VRA, you have to prove what is called the "totality of the circumstances." You have to prove not only that voting is racially polarized and that there is a kind of election structure used for discrimination, but also show that there is a history of discrimination in the area, that there are often special informal procedures that go against minorities, and a whole series of other things. A Section 2 case is quite difficult to prove.

The CVRA attempted to simplify those circumstances so all you have to show is that there is racially polarized voting, usually shown by a statistical analysis of how various groups voted, and that there is a potentially discriminatory electoral structure, particularly at-large elections for city council, for school board, for community college district, and so on.

The CVRA, in effect, only became operative in 2007 after some preliminary litigation. And in 2007, after the city of Modesto settled a long-running lawsuit, lawyers for the successful plaintiffs presented the city with a bill for about $3 million. This scared jurisdictions throughout California, which were faced with the potential of paying out large amounts of money if they had racially polarized voting. Again and again, you suddenly saw jurisdictions settling short of going to trial and a lot of Hispanics elected to particular boards. This has changed about 100 or 125 local boards throughout California from holding their elections at-large to holding them by sub-districts, which allow geographically segregated minorities to elect candidates of their choice. If you graph that over time, you see a huge jump in the number of successful CVRA cases after 2007. What does this mean? Does it mean that there was suddenly a huge increase in discrimination? No, it means that there was a tool that allowed the discrimination that had previously existed to be legally identified.

If we had that across the country, and it was easier to bring cases, you would expose a lot more discrimination. That's my argument.


Do you think the coverage plan will be restored?

If there were hearings and an assessment of this scheme or any other potentially competing schemes, then Congress might decide on a new coverage scheme. If the bill was passed, it would go back up to the U.S. Supreme Court, and maybe the Court would be more interested in the actual empirical evidence instead of simply guessing what they thought might have existed. But I think right now the possibilities of getting any changes through the Congress are zero.

I would like to see some small changes in the coverage scheme, but they have to be made on the basis of evidence. Just throwing out the whole thing because allegedly it didn't fit anymore is an irrational way to make public policy.


As a professor of history, do you think it is your responsibility to help change policy?

Well, it has been interesting to me from the very beginning. Let me tell you how I got started in voting rights cases. My doctoral dissertation was on the disfranchisement of blacks and poor whites in the South in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In about 1979, a lawyer who was cooperating with the ACLU [American Civil Liberties Union] in Birmingham, Alabama, called me up—I didn't know who he was—and he said, "Do you have an opinion about whether section 201 of the Alabama constitution of 1901 was adopted with a racially discriminatory purpose?" I said, "I do. I've studied that. I think it was adopted with a racially discriminatory purpose."

Writing expert witness reports and testifying in cases are exactly like what I have always done as a scholar. I have looked at the racially discriminatory effects of laws; I have looked at the racially discriminatory intent of laws. I have examined them by looking at a lot of evidence. I write very long papers for these cases. They are scholarly publications, and whether they relate to something that happened 100 years ago or something that happened five years ago or yesterday doesn't really, in principle, seem to make any difference.


How did you get started as a historian studying politics?

Well, I'm old. I grew up in the South during the period of segregation, but just as it was breaking down. When I was a junior in high school, the sit-ins took place in Nashville, Tennessee, which is where I'm from. I was sympathetic. I never liked segregation. I was always in favor of equal rights.

I had been fascinated by politics from the very beginning. By the time I was 8 or 9 years old, I was reading two newspapers a day. One was a very conservative newspaper, pro-segregation, and the other paper was a liberal newspaper, critical of segregation. They both covered politics. And if you read news stories in each about the same event on the same day, you'd get a completely different slant. It was a wonderful training for a historian. From reading two newspapers that I knew to be biased, one in one direction, the other in another direction, I had to try to figure out what was happening and what I should believe to be fact.


How did you end up at Caltech?

To be very frank, Yale, where I was a graduate student, didn't want me around anymore. When I was there, I started a graduate student senate. I wrote its constitution, and I served as its first president. We were obnoxious. This was in 1967 and 1968, and students were revolting around the country, trying to bring an end to the war in Vietnam, trying to stop racial discrimination, trying to change the world. I had less lofty aims.


Such as?

There was no bathroom for women in the hall of graduate studies where the vast majority of humanities and social sciences classes took place. We made a nonnegotiable demand for a bathroom for women. Yale was embarrassed. Yale granted our request. We did other things. We protested against a rent increase in graduate student married housing. Yale couldn't justify the increase and gave way. We formed a committee to get women equal access to the Yale swimming pools. Yale opened the pool.



In addition to doing research, you are an acclaimed teacher at Caltech—the winner of Caltech highest teaching honor, the Feynman Prize, in 2011. Do you think of yourself as more of a teacher or as a scholar?

I really like to do both. I can't avoid teaching. If you look at my scholarship, a lot of it is really in teaching format. I would like to school Chief Justice Roberts on what he had done wrong and to persuade him, convince him, that he should change his mind on this. A lot of my friends who are at my advanced age have quit teaching, because they can't take it anymore. When the term is over, they are jubilant.

I'm always sad when the term ends, particularly with my Supreme Court class, because the classes are small, so I know each individual student pretty well. I hate to say goodbye to them.


Do any particular students stand out in your mind?

I had one student who took my class in 2000. He was a computer science major. We used to talk a lot. We disagreed about practically everything politically, but he was a very nice and very intelligent guy.

When he finished the class, he decided that he would go to work for Microsoft. He did that for three years. Then he decided he wanted to go to law school, where he did very well; he clerked for an appeals court judge and he clerked for a Supreme Court justice. This spring, he argued his first case before the U.S. Supreme Court. The case that he argued was very complicated. I don't understand it, I don't understand the issues, I don't understand the precedents. It's relatively obscure, and it won't make big headlines. But he did it, and he's promised me that he'll share his impressions of being on that stage and that I can pass them on to current Caltech students. I know that they will find his experience as exciting as I will—a Techer arguing a case before the Supreme Court within 15 years of graduating from college! I can't quit teaching.

Exclude from News Hub: 
News Type: 
Research News

Caltech, JPL Team Up to Take On Big-Data Projects

Acknowledging not only the growing need among scientists and engineers for resources that can help them handle, explore, and analyze big data, but also the complementary strengths of Caltech's Center for Data-Driven Discovery (CD3) and JPL's Center for Data Science and Technology (CDST), the two centers have formally joined forces, creating the Joint Initiative on Data Science and Technology.

A kickoff event for the collaboration was held at the end of April at Caltech's Cahill Center for Astronomy and Astrophysics.

"This is a wonderful example of a deep cooperation between Caltech and JPL that we think will serve to strengthen connections between the campus and the lab," says George Djorgovski, professor of astronomy and director of CD3. "We believe the joint venture will enable and stimulate new projects and give both campus and JPL researchers a new competitive advantage."

Individually, each center strives to provide the intellectual infrastructure, including expertise and advanced computational tools, to help researchers and companies from around the world analyze and interpret the massive amounts of information they now collect using computer technologies, in order to make data-driven discoveries more efficient and timely.

"We've found a lot of synergy across disciplines and an opportunity to apply emerging capabilities in data science to more effectively capture, process, manage, integrate, and analyze data," says Daniel Crichton, manager of the CDST. " JPL's work in building observational systems can be applied to several disciplines from planetary science and Earth science to biological research."

The Caltech center is also interested in this kind of methodology transfer—the application of data tools and techniques developed for one field to another. The CD3 recently collaborated on one such project with Ralph Adolphs, Bren Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience and professor of biology at Caltech. They used tools based on machine learning that were originally developed to analyze data from astronomical sky surveys to process neurobiological data from a study of autism.

"We're getting some promising results," says Djorgovski. "We think this kind of work will help researchers not only publish important papers but also create tools to be used across disciplines. They will be able to say, 'We've got these powerful new tools for knowledge discovery in large and complex data sets. With a combination of big data and novel methodologies, we can do things that we never could before.'"

Both the CD3 and the CDST began operations last fall. The Joint Initiative already has a few projects under way in the areas of Earth science, cancer research, health care informatics, and data visualization.

"Working together, we believe we are strengthening both of our centers," says Djorgovski. "The hope is that we can accumulate experience and solutions and that we will see more and more ways in which we can reuse them to help people make new discoveries. We really do feel like we're one big family, and we are trying to help each other however we can."

Kimm Fesenmaier
Exclude from News Hub: 
News Type: 
In Our Community