Avg Class size?

College Search & Selection
41

<p>I took the Common Data Set numbers of class sizes for Berkeley and compared on a percentage basis to its cross-bay rival, Stanford:</p>

<p>Class Size Stan % Berk %
2-9 36.0% 33.9%
10-19 36.2% 27.7%
20-29 8.0% 15.0%
30-39 4.3% 5.8%
40-49 3.7% 3.4%
50-99 7.0% 7.4%
100+ 4.7% 6.8%</p>

<p>On a percentage basis, they look quite similar.</p>

<p>Biggest differences are in class sizes 10-19 and 20-29.</p>

42

<p>

To me this is the most compelling issue in this thread. Any HS student should do this for schools they are considering, and also visit area colleges to attend classes of the various sizes and see what works for them.

To each his own… For some students it may not matter what size the class is. Others have a distinct preference. If it never matters, why should colleges go to the expense of having the prof show up at all? Why not find some good prof, tape the lectures, and send them out on DVD’s? Then just have the discussion sections at the campus. Thousands of profs across the country would be spared the trouble of trekking to a classroom 3x a week.</p>

<p>My counterargument to “why not” (and an implicit disagreement with UCBChemE) is my belief that significant events that happen in a college education aren’t part of the explicit curriculum. Finding a teacher that knows you, that sparks an interest in going farther in a subject or area, has set many a student onto a life path. In a large impersonal class you don’t get that. Which brings to mind another topic, that of whether genius level performance is innate or learnable. Academic research so far has come down on the side of learnable. One of the pioneers of the field is Anders Ericcson, and in his research he found

Which</a>, to me, says that even if students master the topics of “thermodynamics and reaction kinetics” something more important may be missing …</p>

43

<p>barrons,
Just so I’m reading your link correctly, can you help me understand the difference in the column labeled “Students” (first column) and the one labeled “Total Undergrad?”</p>

44

<p>Students equals people. Total undergrad is the total credits earned in that class by undergrad. So if 160 is under Total Undergrad column and the class was worth 4 credits for undergrds it means that 40 students were in the class is all the credits were earned by UGs. If it shows some credits in the grad students columns that measn the total students included some grad students or it was a mixed class. Now some intro level undergrad classes that lots of people take you might see 1400 in the students column. That does not mean there was one section with 1400 students, they probably had 3-6 sections of the class so for larger classes this report is not much help. But for the majority of advanced classes there is only one section so you can assume if the students number is under 50 or so it’s just one section. The only way to tell is to match the class up with the class timetable for that term. But we were mostly looking at upper level so it’s good for that in most cases.</p>

45

<p>mikemac,</p>

<p>The quote about the Julliard kids is quite interesting…but don’t you think it was more of a function of talent before the kids were enrolled in Julliard? Julliard isn’t taking random kids off the street and mentoring them to be great musicians…they are taking cream of the crop, super talented musicians, and mentor them to become world class concert musicians.</p>

<p>IMO, the same is true with elite privates…they set the bar high for admission, only take the cream of the crop talent, pass the kids through with high GPAs, and take the credit for producing outstanding alumni. </p>

<p>Publics have a different mission. But, it is interesting to note that despite the different mission, class size (the subject of this thread) is not much different when looked at on a percentage basis like I did in Post #41.</p>

<p>And all Hawkette did was look at some random course on internet-based schedule of classes and make a determination…if she was willing to share the links of these school’s schedule of classes, I think it would help support her argument…otherwise it’s just her word.</p>

46

<p>

My thoughts are that while I don’t think you can turn anyone into anything (as per rousseau’s concept of tabula rosa), the research shows that the top performers have invested heavily to get there and that natural gifts are at best a small part of the story. Michael Jordan, in fact, was cut from his HS basketball team (true story, BTW). He rose to the top, but Jordan and & Tiger Woods are not only dominant players but the hardest working.

I don’t want to divert the thread away from hawkette’s original post about class size differences; I posted about the Ericcson’s studies to point out that something may be lost in larger impersonal classes that we’ll never know about; the kid who could have become a world-class chemist who instead goes on to something else less useful to society such as investment banking ;)</p>

47

<p>I think average class size does make a difference. One of the questions I asked people at the colleges I was considering was how big classes usually are. Where I’ll be heading come August, I was told the biggest classes I’ll ever have will be around 45-50 people (Anatomy&Physiology and the first couple nursing lectures), and that there will be around 20-22 people in my other classes. When I looked up the average class size, the result was 21. Sometimes the average is typical.</p>

48

<p>i find it oddly amusing that a college like Dartmouth, which is cited as LAC-like, small and intimate…still has similar class size percentages to schools that are often regarded as “too unfocused on undergrads…etc etc” like Johns Hopkins, Carnegie Mellon…and then is outright much less intimate than schools like Columbia, Uchicago, etc.
I know it has great advising and placement, but one of the things it had going for it was that it was the perfect blend of LAC/Research University…but now I’m not so sure. haha.</p>

49

<p>In terms of consistent class size, no university can match an LAC. None. You just have to accept the trade-offs–on the other hand, undergrad-focused universities may have an edge over their other university peers.</p>

50

<p>Many students like colleges that have a strong commitment to undergraduate teaching. This commitment is understood as part of the LAC environment, but the degree of commitment and the on-campus execution varies wildly among national universities. </p>

<p>To compare the relative availability of small and large classes at national universities, I created the following comparison. Note also how there is a very high correlation between class size and the recognition of the university as one recognized for classroom teaching excellence. For the vast majority of undergraduate students, IMO such a comparison has A LOT more practical value than any research-oriented survey of reputation or prestige. </p>

<p>Index , Class Size Score , National University , USN Teaching Excellence , < 20 (3 points) , 20 - 50 (2 points) , > 50 (1 point)</p>

<p>100% , 2.68 , Harvard , YES , 75% , 17% , 9%
100% , 2.68 , Columbia , no , 76% , 16% , 8%
100% , 2.68 , U Chicago , YES , 72% , 24% , 4%
100% , 2.68 , Tufts , YES , 74% , 21% , 4%
100% , 2.67 , Yale , YES , 75% , 17% , 8%
100% , 2.67 , U Penn , no , 74% , 19% , 7%
99% , 2.66 , Northwestern , YES , 75% , 17% , 7%
99% , 2.65 , Stanford , YES , 74% , 16% , 11%
99% , 2.65 , Duke , YES , 70% , 25% , 5%
98% , 2.63 , Princeton , YES , 73% , 17% , 10%
97% , 2.61 , Caltech , YES , 69% , 23% , 8%
97% , 2.61 , Wash U , YES , 72% , 18% , 9%
97% , 2.61 , Rice , YES , 68% , 25% , 7%
97% , 2.61 , Vanderbilt , YES , 67% , 27% , 6%
97% , 2.6 , Emory , YES , 68% , 25% , 6%
97% , 2.59 , Brown , YES , 70% , 20% , 9%
96% , 2.58 , Brandeis , no , 66% , 27% , 6%
96% , 2.56 , Carnegie Mellon , no , 65% , 26% , 9%
95% , 2.55 , Dartmouth , YES , 64% , 27% , 9%
95% , 2.55 , Wake Forest , YES , 57% , 41% , 2%
95% , 2.54 , Johns Hopkins , no , 65% , 24% , 11%
95% , 2.54 , Tulane , no , 62% , 30% , 8%
94% , 2.52 , USC , no , 64% , 24% , 12%
94% , 2.52 , Case Western , no , 62% , 28% , 10%
93% , 2.5 , MIT , no , 64% , 23% , 12%
93% , 2.5 , U Rochester , no , 62% , 26% , 12%
93% , 2.49 , Georgetown , YES , 58% , 34% , 7%
93% , 2.48 , UC Berkeley , no , 62% , 24% , 14%
92% , 2.46 , Notre Dame , YES , 56% , 34% , 10%
92% , 2.46 , NYU , no , 58% , 30% , 12%
91% , 2.44 , W&M , YES , 49% , 45% , 7%
91% , 2.43 , Cornell , no , 60% , 23% , 17%
91% , 2.43 , Rensselaer , no , 53% , 37% , 10%
90% , 2.41 , Boston Coll , YES , 48% , 45% , 7%
88% , 2.37 , Lehigh , no , 47% , 43% , 10%
88% , 2.35 , U Virginia , YES , 49% , 37% , 14%
87% , 2.33 , UC Santa Barbara , no , 50% , 33% , 17%
87% , 2.32 , U North Carolina , YES , 44% , 44% , 12%
86% , 2.31 , UCLA , no , 53% , 26% , 20%
86% , 2.31 , UC Irvine , no , 49% , 34% , 16%
85% , 2.28 , U Wisconsin , no , 44% , 39% , 18%
84% , 2.26 , U Michigan , no , 44% , 38% , 18%
82% , 2.21 , U Florida , no , 41% , 39% , 20%
82% , 2.2 , U Washington , no , 35% , 49% , 17%
82% , 2.19 , U Illinois , no , 38% , 43% , 19%
81% , 2.18 , Georgia Tech , no , 40% , 38% , 22%
81% , 2.16 , Penn State , no , 33% , 50% , 17%
80% , 2.14 , UCSD , no , 44% , 26% , 30%
79% , 2.12 , U Texas , no , 35% , 42% , 23%
78% , 2.09 , UC Davis , no , 35% , 38% , 28%</p>

51

<p>barrons,
I looked more closely at your link for U Wisconsin and attempted to compare with the other four colleges. It was somewhat hard to make direct comparisons because I did not know the degree requirements nor the progression of courses from semester to semester. </p>

<p>In going thru the data, among other things, I saw the following:

  1. The pattern of large classes in the intro math and sciences continued with class sizes over 100 students and potentially well over.<br>
  2. There aren’t many engineering classes for freshmen. For example, I looked at ME and saw only 3 classes that enrolled freshmen. I guess there are a lot of non-engineering requirements that these students must first fulfill, eg, math chem, physics, etc., but the other colleges, particularly the privates, rolled the students into an engineering curriculum earlier in their college careers.<br>
  3. This pattern continued in the second year as there were only 7 courses with enrolled sophomores. This surprised me and made me wonder if I was reading the data correctly.<br>
  4. On average, I did not see great class size differences between U Wisconsin and the other two publics that I analyzed. There were some courses where enrollments were modestly higher and some modestly lower, but on balance, they were materially larger than those offered at the privates. The senior year electives would be where the comparisons were closest.<br>
  5. I was impressed at the breadth of course offerings at U Wisconsin though it was unclear what the prerequisites are for entering these courses. It is also unclear how much space there is in one’s schedule to partake of these options and still finish in four years.</p>
52

<p>Nice work, Hawkette.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I tend to agree. Your metric is very useful on its own. Of course, it’s not a complete measurement of “classroom teaching excellence”. You need not only small-enough classes, but also good teachers. So how would you build a a more comprehensive function combining your input with some indicator(s) of teaching quality per se?</p>

<p>Can you please say a little more about the 1st two numbers in your rows and how they are derived? – oh, o.k., I see how you got the second number, it’s just the average of your 3 percentages weighted by your 3-2-1 points.</p>

<p>Is the USN “Teaching Excellence” (Yes/No) something that appears in the full-featured USNWR rankings when you pay for them online?</p>

53

<p>tk,
Thanks for your comments. My metric above is admittedly simplistic, but I don’t think it is an accident that the results mimic the perceptions of many college observers and how they might judge the UNDERGRADUATE classroom experience at these colleges. </p>

<p>Re your teaching comments, there are some flaws with some of my presentation and they are potentially serious. First, the USNWR teaching commitment rankings were done in 1995. While I often encourage folks to use this “ranking” to identify colleges that might have a great commitment to undergraduate teaching, I also try to encourage them to check out if this is still the case on campus. </p>

<p>Second, the matter of great classroom teaching is a highly subjective and difficult-to-measure topic. There are plenty of sources for an individual college that can give some insight into this (Sparknotes, Fiske, Coll Prow, USNWR Teaching rankings, NSSE, studentsre…view, rate…my…professors, etc). I’m not sure how you would cobble these together to create a ranking, but when you see the same colleges mentioned positively time and time and time again, it does tend to reinforce the broad reputation that they have built for good teaching. </p>

<p>Third, while it is hard to measure the quality of teaching, you can measure the quality of the environment in which you learn, eg, class sizes, student/faculty ratios, etc. If you agree with the smaller-is-preferred idea, then you can compare colleges and determine which presents the better environment. This does not automatically mean that smaller will be better, but I think that the chances are improved in a setting where you can get the full benefits of your peers and your professor.</p>

<p>Fourth, the data is not broadly available, but I think that the use of Teaching Assistants is not sufficiently considered by prospective students. If a large number of one’s freshmen classes are large lectures supported by TA-led discussions, then I think it is a very pot-luck situation for a student. First, there is the matter of how well one learns in a lecture hall with 100, 200, 300, 500 students. Then, when you get to the breakout sessions, the TA might be terrific, but he/she might also be horrible. I can’t tell you how many times I have heard the latter, including stories where the accents were so strong that learning the material was a major problem. As a result, students frequently will tune out and underperform and wait for the next semester when hopefully they will be in a smaller class with an effective teacher.</p>

54

<p>Hawkette, I’m not familiar with the “USNWR teaching commitment rankings”. This is just a binary rating (yes/no), not a scale?</p>

55

<p>

</p>

<p>I agree. Further, I don’t look back at the large classes that I took as an undergrad with much fondness to put it mildly. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I agree with everything you wrote, in general. But, there is a silver lining that I would think would be important to some students surfing into this discussion. That is that it’s not only class sizes that are important but one-on-one time with a professor that is in your major that can make a big difference. Top professors are little different from someone in business running a department. Sure they are both extremely busy but few are deaf to the buzz around raw recruits to their section. Both business and academia are about building your network. Professor ARE going to care about mentoring and bringing along those undergrads that are worth the effort because they made an effort. Many of these kids will be going on to grad studies elsewhere and will be bringing positive word-of-mouth about professors, thus enhancing their reputations and influence. </p>

<p>Someone could ask, well discussing only the top kids, how valuable is that? Well, if we are in a discussion comparing top LAC to other schools we are talking about top applicants. If a high school student goes to a strong research university he or she may be doing paid research in their major as a freshman or even the summer before they start. These kids then have easy access to grad students and get an understanding about the things that excite them as well as building their own network. Looking at a bunch of stats may be true in general, but they won’t tell you the tenured professor to avoid or the superstar-in-waiting grad student to go get a cup of coffee with. I mention that specifically because (anecdotal I know) but that superstar grad student went back and talked to a professor flush with research money and all of a sudden that ‘wired’ professor asked that freshman if he would like to get a cup of coffee. Now that kid meets with this professor every week. Most of it on research work, some of it on the professor mentoring him - all of it one-on-one. That won’t be captured on any data set posted, but it matters. </p>

<p>Others have mentioned top students at research universities can get into grad level courses as undergrads or can get into smaller higher level undergraduate courses earlier than other students so I won’t dwell on it. The caveat of course (no pun intended) is that you better be ready for that challenge. </p>

<p>Sure there are schools that have precious few research opportunities for undergrads and departments where professors are pretty scarce resources for undergrads. All true. That’s why smart juniors are sending out e-mails to specific departments and asking them about research opportunities available. Any professor worth his or her salt will ‘get that’ and appreciate the inquiry. Learning just doesn’t occur in classrooms, large or small.</p>

56

<p>The USNWR 1995’s “commitment to undergraduate teaching” asked the same administrators who fill out the PA survey to mention schools that have a strong commitment to undergraduate teaching…the schools listed were the ones most frequently mentioned.</p>

<p>It was conducted in the same manner as 2008’s “up and coming” colleges.</p>

<p>USNWR has not conducted this survey again as it has been rolled into the PA scoring system.</p>

57

<p>You apply to engineering after your freshman year at Wisconsin and most classes are taken Junior and Senior years. Also you cannot tell how large the intro level classes are from that table, unless you go back and cross-ref with the timetable for that class. It might have said 1000 students in intro to calc but they had 40 sections of that class for example. Generally intro math will be smaller and intro to science larger with the largest around 450. That’s the size of the largest lecture hall on campus.</p>