Background

The Center for Technology and Management Education (CTME) is a relatively unknown subdivision of Caltech’s Department of Engineering and Applied Sciences. According to their website, the purpose of the CTME is to “elevate individuals and organizations, fostering innovation and driving transformative growth.” To this end, they claim to offer the “best programs and courses” through their “rewarding, practical, and economical approach to professional education.” Most of these programs take the form of short, self-paced online classes or live Zoom lectures and are “powered” by Simplilearn, a private online learning and certification company.

Simplilearn.com boasts a wide variety of classes, trainings, and post-graduate programs “certiifed by” such other universities as Purdue, UMass Amherst, and UC San Diego. Bootcamps from CTME in AI & Machine Learning, DevOps, and Cybersecurity are among the most prominent. The course details for the AI & Machine Learning course promise “live classes delivered by industry experts,” “hands-on labs,” “industry-relevant projects,” and “masterclasses by Caltech instructors.” That page is covered with logos of major tech companies (“Hiring Companies”) suggesting where course alumni can manage to find jobs. Listed for the course are not instructors, but “Program Advisors,” neither of whom—while CTME employees—are Caltech faculty.

An online search for “Caltech online bootcamp” will direct you to the CTME website, which promotes these programs as “immersive” and designed to help students “succeed in tech careers and beyond.” However, no Caltech faculty are involved in teaching these courses. A reporter for the Tech who provided their contact information received aggressive follow-up communication from Simplilearn, encouraging them to schedule a call with a “learning consultant,” for admission to the $9,000 course was “clos[ing] in the next couple of days.”

Many who paid for these courses were extremely dissatisfied with both their poor quality and lack of transparency about Caltech’s involvement. In 2022, a class-action lawsuit was filed on behalf of class representative Elva Lopez against Caltech and Simplilearn for “unjust enrichment.” A settlement is yet to be reached.

Heightening the CTME’s profile, an article from the Sunday Edition of The New York Times covering this situation spread through the Caltech community like wildfire. In a response emailed to the Caltech community on September 29th, President Thomas Rosenbaum claimed the article “does not accurately reflect Caltech’s standards,” or “fully capture Caltech’s relationship with Simplilearn.” While highlighting the “very strong track record” of CTME course experiences, the message also stated that Caltech is in the process of “evaluating” its online offerings and the Simplilearn partnership.

The Tech will publish further reporting and discussion on the Institute’s actionable responses (if any) to these criticisms in the next issue. For the time being, we have collected responses from a diversity of community members.

Here’s what they had to say about the allegations:

Jackie Lodman (BS ‘20, Dabney)

Where is the Faculty Oversight of the CTME?

Every member of the Caltech community is aware of the Honor Code: “No member of the Caltech community shall take unfair advantage of any other member of the Caltech community.” However, recent revelations in the Sunday edition of the New York T from September 29th indicate that, if true, the Institute has broken the Honor Code by allowing the CTME/Simplilearn courses to exist in their current form, regardless of any legal culpability the Institute may be found liable for. After all, the Honor Code does not only cover legally actionable conduct.

Like many current and former members of the Caltech community, I received a text from a family member containing a link to the aforementioned NYT article. Embarrassingly, I heard from another alum that this story made the front page of the paper copy of the Sunday edition of the NYT. How utterly embarrassing for our community. Though, in retrospect, it could have been worse. CTME and SimpliLearn teamed up for a “blockchain” bootcamp in 2022 based on a screenshot posted in an alumni group. At least “cybersecurity” is a useful skill, in theory.

Based on the NYT article, the CTME has little to no contact with the rest of the Caltech community. President Thomas Rosenbaum released a response statement on September 29th, which claimed that the CTME has been operating for “over a decade,” so it operated throughout the entirety of my time at Caltech, yet I only discovered its existence two years ago during the previous controversy surrounding the blockchain bootcamp. The faculty members I have since spoken with learned of the CTME’s existence from the NYT article. President Rosenbaum’s aforementioned statement to the community also said that “[The NYT article] does not accurately reflect Caltech’s standards or the steps we take to ensure our educational standards and high-quality expectations are met.” But how are those “educational standards and high-quality expectations” being met without faculty oversight? If faculty members are overseeing the CTME, then surely they can refute the allegations.

I know how much most faculty members enjoy being on oversight committees (they don’t), but offering the bootcamps without that oversight constitutes, in my opinion, taking advantage of members of the Caltech community. If faculty members were unaware of these bootcamps, then oversight should begin immediately, as President Rosenbaum’s letter suggests: “[Caltech is] evaluating our CTME course offerings and the relationship with SimpliLearn.” If these programs do not meet the Caltech standards or faculty are unwilling or unable to oversee them, they should not be offered. It’s as simple as that. It is better for faculty oversight to prevent inadequate programs from being offered at all than waiting for the courts to hash it out in a public spectacle that embarrasses the community whether or not the plaintiffs succeed in proving legal liability.

I know this incident does not represent the Caltech community I feel honored to be a part of. When you put the Caltech name on something, it must represent the quality education we are known for. Otherwise, it has no meaning at all.

Lynn Feng (CS ‘26, Dabney/Blacker)

“I tried to look for cool cybersecurity classes at Caltech that I can take, but when I googled it all I found was pages about their cybersecurity ‘online program.’ The Google search results being clogged is itself not more than a minor inconvenience; searching the course catalogs directly isn’t that hard. But the fact that Caltech offers an online program for a field it barely covers in its actual coursework is indicative of the fact that these courses have little-to-no involvement with any actual Caltech faculty or research groups, and are essentially ‘Caltech’ in branding only. This is a little scummy even if the courses were genuinely high-quality, but with the issues I’ve heard about - unqualified instructors, disorganized classes - it’s straight-up exploitative.”

Jim Angel (BS ‘81, Dabney)

“Many elite universities offer a variety of programs to the general public who otherwise would not be able to get in or afford them. Often these are taught by part-time adjuncts and not necessarily full time academic superstars. Harvard Extension is a prime example. The key is quality control. The New York Times article makes it sound like Tech dropped the ball on QC.”

Mary Johnson (BS ‘76)

“This is what happens when you treat Caltech like a brand, without knowing what the brand stands for. They’ve poisoned their own Tylenol.”

Joy Hughes (BS ‘88)

“While colleges were bombarding me with glossy brochures, Caltech sent me a simple letter suggesting I might consider applying. The Institute’s reputation was such that there was no need to do more, and great care was taken in the admissions process.

Many years later as I sought to update my skills I saw the CTME program by Simplilearn. I thought ‘wow, I could go back to Caltech.’ As soon as I inquired I sensed something was wrong. I was bombarded with calls from an ‘admissions counselor’ who I suspected was calling from a call center abroad. I started getting frequent spam emails, offers of payment plans … it was pretty clear they would take anyone who could cough up the cash.

This is demeaning to Caltech. It sullies and dilutes the reputation of a still-great Institute. It is not worthy of my alma mater. Whatever the actual quality of the program, Caltech should re-evaluate its relationship with a company that came across in a way that triggered my bullshit detector.”

John Dabiri (Centennial Professor of Aeronautics and Mechanical Engineering)

“I really don’t know much about the program outside of what I read in the article itself and President Rosenbaum’s response. I also wasn’t aware of CTMEs affiliation with EAS. My general impression is that, if done well, online education could significantly expand Caltech’s reach beyond the 2500 undergrad and grad students that we have the opportunity to serve on campus. At the same time, I’d like to believe that the Caltech educational experience is sufficiently distinct that it will require special care to deliver an online version that is representative of Caltech’s rigor and personal attention. The issues described in the NYT article, even if they’re outliers, might be good reason to have more direct faculty engagement in these offerings.”