Talk:California Institute of Technology

Popular culture edits reverted

I want to explain why I've been reverting edits by IP editor Tigerjean888. As I explained in one of my earlier edit summaries, the popular culture section is meant to be brief and to the point, as opposed to a collection of random trivia. I compromised with Tigerjean888 and integrated a mention of Caltech's apperance in one episode of the miniseries From the Earth to the Moon, but Tigerjean888 came back and reinserted the text and more, resulting in the following problems:

1. Harrison Schmitt is already mentioned as a Caltech alum elsewhere in the article. In any case, such a connection is pretty tenuous for a pop-culture section; why not add Infinity, because it tells the early life of Caltech's own Richard Feynman? (No, that's not an invitation for anyone to do so.)
2. The name of the Caltech geology professor is unimportant; the important thing is his affiliation, not his name.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Institute_of_Technology
3. The paragraph of the section that Tigerjean888 keeps putting his edit back into deals with documentaries. From the Earth to the Moon, as fine a minieries as it was, was fiction or, if you prefer, a docudrama. Not a true documentary.

If we wanted a horrible fanwanking list of every single Caltech mention in the history of media we'd (for example) go into exhaustive detail on how Numb3rs is set on a very, very, very lightly-disguised Caltech, but there's a very good reason why the section only mentions the connection in passing. Let's keep it that way. YLee (talk) 00:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

You're being very nice, YLee. I don't think this "trivia" belongs in the article at all, even in a truncated form. --ElKevbo (talk) 00:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The name Caltech was emphasized throughout several episodes, as NASA lunar missions increasingly focused on science experiments instead of just the feat of landing on the moon. Professor Silver inspired the astronauts, while alum Harrison Schmitt was the first AND last scientist to ever visit the moon. None of this was really explained in the rest of the article. --tigerjean888 (talk) 10 April 2009 (UTC)

But your addition doesn't say any of that. Your addition says,

In the HBO mini-series From the Earth to the Moon , a geology professor from Caltech met with Apollo 15 astronauts, and helped to raise their interest in the history and origin of granite. He pointed out that without a deep sense of observation, the astronauts would just be as good as small robots sent to the moon to collect rock samples.

All this says is "some Caltech professor explained rocks and the importance of human observation to the astronauts". It certainly doesn't put across the degree of emphasis you suggest here. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually my last edition was the following. Anyways, Ylee keeps on deleting my text and I have better things to do.

In From the Earth to the Moon, Caltech professor Lee Silvertutors the crew of Apollo 15, and Caltech alumnus Harrison Schmitt takes part in Apollo 17, the last lunar mission to date.

--tigerjean888 (talk) 12 April 2009 (UTC)

A year after the above debate, I've revisited this section. In particular, The Big Bang Theory is an excellent new example of both "Caltech as setting" and "Caltech background = smart". I've kept Numb3rs as it also fits both roles well. By contrast, trivialities like a Caltech jacket, or the alma mater of Joey Tribbiani's nephew, are just that; trivial. I hope other editors join me in remaining vigilant against other minor mentions creeping into the article. YLee (talk) 07:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead

I completely revised the lead to better summarize and contextualize the university. I have also made a point to remove the rankings from the lead and place them under the academics section. Please do not reintroduce rankings into the lead as this gives undue weight to only certain rankings and overemphasizes a minor facet of the university. Madcoverboy (talk) 00:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. As long as it's not undue weight towards rankings, a single-liner should be fine. I've went through some articles with FA status and a one-liner seems to be fine over there. Why the difference in attitude? 121.7.225.237 (talk) 07:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Expansion of article

Would someone who has the relevant information regarding the sections that need to be expanded please help out? There is limited information online regarding those sections. Thanks! 203.116.59.28 (talk) 11:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)chuams

Lead Discussion

Debate

I noticed that user Madcoverboy has radically redesigned the lead to this article along the lines of the views he laid out on the talk page for Amherst College and that an IP editor immediately put the U.S. News and World Report rankings back in the lead. I'm concerned about this article disintegrating into another edit war like the one that got the Amherst College page edit-protected and started a serious argument on the talk page there, so I'm starting this section to discuss the lead before we make any further changes to it.Rppeabody (talk) 06:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I object to your bad faith characterization of my bold edits to this article as a "radical redesign". No fewer than 37,000 pageviews have occurred since I introduced them and almost 20 other editors have contributed to this article with nary an objection only one minor objection above. There is no edit war for this article to disintegrate into because no one has an agenda to push or an axe to grind here. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little confused as to why you find my choice of words "bad faith." To me, at least, the term "radical redesign" is a fairly neutral way of indicating that a change is both bold and major, and the first Google result for the phrase uses it to praise a particular business practice. Does this term mean something different to you? In any case, I'd prefer if you wouldn't assume I'm acting in "bad faith" unless you have hard evidence. As to your second point, I appreciate that you think I should've just changed the lead to be the way I wanted it without worrying about starting an edit war. But I do think there was a risk because the rankings were the thing that had been instantly reverted, and the whole issue of the rankings has proven explosive before.Rppeabody (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me lay out a few objections I have to the current version:

It's too wordy. The lead should consist of a few succinct lines summarizing the basic information that a typical site visitor would want to know. I really don't think this includes things like the details of how the school was founded, the number of degrees granted, the fact that there is an honor code (all schools have one), where Pasadena is, the number of sports the school plays, or anything of that ilk.Rppeabody (talk) 06:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:LEAD clearly states that for articles over 30,000 characters (such as this one), a lead of approximately 4 paragraphs is appropriate. The lead is 4 paragraphs. What content would you propose removing? Madcoverboy (talk) 13:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking for; I thought my original post outlined several places where I felt there was unnecessary content. And although there are only four paragraphs, these paragraphs are longer than standard lead paragraphs, making this the second longest college article out of the fifteen or so I checked (Haverford's was longer before I condensed it). Anyway, my objection was not primarily to the length, but to the details I felt were unnecessary.Rppeabody (talk) 02:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It contains an egregious amount of punctuation errors. I will correct these in minor edits, but please do check for correct punctuation before you write something as important as the lead.Rppeabody (talk) 06:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing them! Madcoverboy (talk) 13:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It does not report the acceptance rate. This is a very important statistic, and it can provide useful unbiased information on the reputation of the school.Rppeabody (talk) 06:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The acceptance rate is not an important statistic. "[The lede] should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic." The ratio of undergraduate students admitted over the number who apply provides no context, does not distinguish the university, and is not important enough relative to other information in the lede. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're coming from. Acceptance rates do distinguish a university; they are the main statistic most rankings systems use to distinguish universities. In fact, they're the main statistic USN&WR reports on its rankings website. As such, they "establish context" and "explain why the subject is interesting or notable." (The reason I think acceptance rates are better to report than the rankings themselves is because there are multiple ranking systems, and I feel that they all have problems, notably a bias towards wealthier schools. And the acceptance rate is, of course, unbiased.) But the main reason the acceptance rate is one of the "most important points" is that it says how difficult it is to get into a school, which is a crucial piece of information for a potential applicant to know.Rppeabody (talk) 03:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite buy all of that. First, it's instructive to examine how the experts at the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) present information about institutions. This is their information for CalTech. Note how acceptance rate is not one of the critical pieces of information immediately presented to readers; it's in the "Admissions" drop-down and even there it's not highlighted in any way but simply listed between number of applicants and yield. There is so much self-selection involved in the college application process that acceptance rates - a number directly linked to number of applicants - are not a terribly good measure of anything except percentage of applicants accepted. For example, it's well known that institutions commonly see an increase after a particularly successful, highly-visible athletic season (I'm eager to see the numbers for Butler University after their improbable advance to the NCAA Division I Men's Basketball final) and surely no one can argue that the quality of an institution immediately increases in one year because of success in athletics?

But I think this boat has already sailed and I agree that right now many in the public do believe that acceptance rate is a viable measure of institutional quality. The question on the table is whether we should perpetuate that mistaken belief or if we should follow the lead of the Department of Education and rely on a better measure like student:faculty ratio. ElKevbo (talk) 04:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

(By the way, it looks like acceptance rate is only worth 1.5% in the ranking formula used by USN&WR.) ElKevbo (talk) 04:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems a touch boosterish in places: "Despite its historically small size, 31 Caltech alumni and faculty have won the Nobel Prize, 66 have won the National Medal of Science or Technology, and 110 have been elected to the National Academies. Caltech managed $357 million in sponsored research in 2009 and a $1.4 billion endowment.[1][7] US News and World Report ranked Caltech's undergraduate program 4th in the nation based on peer assessment, student selectivity, financial resources, and other factors.[8]" While I think Caltech's high reputation for undergraduate education and even higher reputation for scientific research should be reflected somehow in the lead, this current version sounds like boasting to me. Myriad sources have widely criticized the US News rankings, and citing them without noting that Caltech was in a four-way tie for fourth place is quite disingenuous. It should also be noted that Caltech's US News ranking is just for national universities; the current version makes it sound like US News had been ranking all undergraduate programs. I also feel that the long list of stats showing off Caltech's research credentials is a bit much. These are important statistics, but they should be moved to somewhere else in the article. Why don't we limit this list in the lead to just one statistic?Rppeabody (talk) 06:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

By all means take the US News ranking out. I always have and I'm always rebuffed by other editors. I don't think the other information can be characterized as boosterism because these are neutrally-reported facts. I don't think the long list of stats is showing off at all, it's neutrally substantianting Caltech's accomplishments without reliance on imperfect measures (US News rankings) and abstract classifications ("more selective") and ultimately allows the reader to assess the quality of the university far more effectively. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

We could probably do a better job at the lead, but I feel that the length of the lead is just about right. The statistics on degrees granted seem too detailed for something in the lead, and that the sports section might be too wordy. I suggest we keep the Nobel Prize stats, and that we consider the inclusion of some sort of ranking, as it would allow first-time visitors to gauge the quality of the institution just by reading the lead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canon.vs.nikon (talk • contribs) 09:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the degrees granted could potentially be removed and sports summarized, but I don't support inclusion of rankings in the lead. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree.Rppeabody (talk) 02:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that the lead as it stands is fairly good, with the exception of the third paragraph—a lot of this information is already right in the infobox or should really go elsewhere. I don't think exact statistics are important for the lead, but I would retain mention the unusually small size of the school. We should probably retain just the Nobel Prize sentence but start it with "Despite its historically small size (currently around 900 undergraduates and 1100 graduates students)..." and move the other statistics elsewhere.

I also think that slightly more explanation should be given to the honor code (which is very unique to Caltech in that it is one sentence long and allows almost all exams to be take-home) and to the pranking culture. Antony-22 (talk) 00:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree.Rppeabody (talk) 02:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposals

How about this, for the last two paragraphs of the lead?

Caltech enrols just under 900 undergraduate and 1200 graduate students and employs about 300 professorial faculty.[3] Despite the historically small size of Caltech, the alumni and faculty have gone on to win 32 Nobel Prizes. Caltech managed $357 million in sponsored research and a $1.4 billion endowment for 2009.[1][7]

Undergraduates live in a house system, and although student life is governed by an honor code, Caltech has a strong tradition of practical jokes and pranks.[8] The honor code also allows take-home tests and assignments, which is widely practised. The Caltech Beavers compete in 13 intercollegiate sports in the NCAA Division III's Southern California Intercollegiate Athletic Conference.Canon.vs.nikon (talk) 11:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to privilege Nobel laureates over similar accomplishments such as National Medals of Science and National Ccademy membership, so I'd like to keep the sentence as-is. I also think the losing streaks are very notable while providing some insight into the (lack of a) role of athletics on campus, but could probably be removed from the lede if push came to shove. Re: honor code, perhaps: "First year students are required to live on campus and 95% of undergraduates remain in the house system. Although Caltech has a strong tradition of practical jokes and pranks, student life is governed by an honor code which allows faculty to assign take-home examinations." Madcoverboy (talk) 13:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. But the inclusion of sports performance seems slightly awkward. Anyone else? How about we keep the numbers of Nobels, but keep NAS/NAE and NMS as a more general statement? The feeling is that it gets too statistical, imo. The Honor Code statement is alright, but I believe there is a significant number of colleges that "allow" take-home tests, but they don't actively practice that. Canon.vs.nikon (talk) 13:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

If there's something substantive you can point to regarding the prevalence of the activity, by all means let's try to include it. But it has to be more than a feeling that Caltech does it more than other schools with take-home policies. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

What's with the "Despite the historically small size of Caltech.."? It seems a recurring notion that we need to stress out just how SMALL Caltech is, but really in the context this sentence seems to have the single goal of boasting. Sure Columbia has 22000 students, but also got 94 Nobel Prizes. Cambridge has 18000 students and 84 prizes. But really, why is the "size" of an institute relevant to its achievements? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.171.78.209 (talk) 06:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Edwin McMillan.jpg

The image File:Edwin McMillan.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Non-neutral view point

I'm sorry, I'm a fan of Feynman, too, but the section on People/Faculty is just over the top. I assert this Caltech wikipedia page would serve as a good case for paper encyclopedias like Britainaca. I appreciate a lot of what's written here, photos, too, but the page is largely as a whole written from the perspective of your typical Tech physics undergrad. It perpetuates Murray Gell-Mann's comments about Richard upon the latter's death. Feynman was respected for his Red books, but he caught the eye of the humanists in the humanities (Two Cultures) with Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! and What Do You Care What Other People Think?. That's why Richard became popular. But I seriously doubt that Richard is the best known Caltech faculty. I saw the Engineering & Science article which considered Linus Pauling. But without too much question, I think perhaps the best known name from Caltech and not even mentioned anywhere on this page is probably Charles Richter for all the earthquakes and times the TV trucks double park outside S. Mudd. Every time a big earthquake happens, the media invoke Richter and commonly mention Caltech along with that. And he might not the most famous. The section is just written in a rather tacky way. Not that I was a GPS staffer. The page needs a make over. Caltech deserves a better wikipedia page. 198.123.50.85 (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Much of what you say has validity - "best known" is always arguable, and Richter's name is highly recognizable. That said, what you describe of media coverage and earthquakes is obviously the perspective of a California resident, as your IP address corroborates. I doubt people from other states and countries share that experience with the media. -- Scray (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

You don't think Richter's scale is used in Japan, Peru, Chile, the DR, Russia, ...etc.? Richter never used his name as an adjective to describe his scale. Never introduced to the guy; his office was down the hall from a friend's in S. Mudd. Have exchanged email long time ago with Lucy and Andy Michael in Menlo Park. Neither a seismologist, nor even a degreed earth scientist, but called "honorary" in other geophysical areas. 66.122.34.11 (talk) 18:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The best-known Southern California seismologist today is probably Lucy Jones, whose Caltech title is the humble "Visiting Research Associate". Anyway, yes, I agree, we should lose the "best known" characterization as to Feynman and perhaps give more attention to rewriting that section to discuss more members of the faculty.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I just raised this issue with the son of one of the ex-Provosts. He suggested google trends. His graph has Richter over Richard Feynman. Richter's scale isn't confined to California. Other seismologists are at Tech (e.g., Clarence Allen) as well as in the Bay Area (e.g., Stanford, USGS, Berkeley, LLNL) and else where (UCLA, USC, UCSB, UCSD, private Beltway bandits). The question of notability could be some other field. Other parts of the page could use some polishing. Worse pages exist. 143.232.210.150 (talk) 00:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Another notable alum and ex-faculty member is Donald Knuth. 171.66.84.125 (talk) 23:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Graduation rate - citation and rounding-correction

The graduation rate mentioned is 80.6%. It should be 80.7%. At http://finance.caltech.edu/budget/cds2011%20FINAL%204_28_11.pdf one can see one page 6 that 167/207 graduated = 80.7% (so the rounding is off in the current version). The citation should also be updated-- http://finance.caltech.edu/budget/cds2011%20FINAL%204_28_11.pdf -- for that statistic because the current citation link leads to a 404. This is the latest report whose link was found from http://finance.caltech.edu/budget.htm . The 6-year graduation rate is 90%, correctly mentioned in the article and pdf. A citation for this should also be updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.168.87 (talk) 00:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)