<p>
[quote]
We often forget that the vast majority of students do not go on to graduate or professional school - or at least not immediately.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is not true for Swarthmore, Williams, Amherst. All three are at well over 50%. 89% of Swat grads go on to some kind of additional schooling within 6 years. I think the number is 70% at Amherst. </p>
<p>The only number I've seen for Williams is that 57% of the classes of '85 and '86 received an additional degree. That's not really an apples to apples number, but it's certainly well above half.</p>
<p>You can say that any school suffers from not having tremendous depth in every department. For example, Williams suffers by not offering a single engineering course, let alone an ABET accredited degree. Swarthmore suffers (I suppose) by not sending many grads into the New York museum scene. U Mich, which presumably offers every major under the sun in depth, suffers by having 250 people in a class and TAs who can't speak English. You pick your poison.</p>
<p>We have a little art history interest in family (my wife was an Eph art history major) and "the girls" have done a lot o museums together since D was toddler (and a Van Gogh fan). D doesn't seem to be suffering too greatly in her Art History class at Swat despite the small department. She absolutely loves the course. It probably suits her better than her major is substantial with 11 full-time professors and 20 majors last year compared to not so strong at Williams. So far, she's had three seminars in her major, each with under 10 students.</p>
<p>
[quote]
from music, to foreign languages, to theatre, to creative writing, to art, to dance.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not sure where you are getting your data. Music is the only department that is very small in terms of number of majors.</p>
<p>Foreign languages and Linguistics actually account for a sizeable percentage of Swat majors. More, for example, over the last four years than either the History or the Psych or the Engineering or the Philosophy or Religion departments. I believe the only department with more majors are Bio, Econ, Poli Sci, and English.</p>
<p>Theater and Dance have the same number of majors over that period of time as the Chemistry department. Quite a few Swat Theater majors have gone on to a professional Phila based theater company founded by Swat grad.</p>
<p>The Art department has more majors than the Sociology, Chem, Bio, Math, or Philosophy departments. These are split roughly equally between studio art majors and art history majors.</p>
<p>Are there colleges that have more majors in some of these departments? Sure. There are colleges that specialize in some of these areas and don't offer some of the specialties that Swat does.</p>
<p>I got a response from President Leebron today. I don't think it would be right to post what was intended to be a personal correspondence on the internet for all to see, but you can PM me if you are interested.</p>
<p>Your math is wrong, because you're not considering scale. You math works for a school with 8 students.</p>
<p>Let's say a school has 800 students and 100 faculty. That's an 8:1 student:faculty ratio. If they add 8 students but no faculty, their faculty ration is still 8:1 (808:100 still rounds to 8!) They'd have to add fifty students before their student:faculty ratio would change. As schools increase in size, the number of students they can add without changing the official ratio goes up.</p>
<p>That said, I don't think bigger is better. Just be careful about the ol' algebra.</p>
<p>I see that on that list of PA schools, my school is 8th as far as what a professor gets paid, 8th as far as associate professors, and fourth as far as assistant professors... yet my schools tuition is $8600 a year... and I do have to say, we have VERY good professors here..</p>
<p>Interestedad, your calculation that a class with 100 kids and one professor is less costly than a class with 12 kids and one professor assumes that they subject is Renaissance Literature and that the classroom is an auditorium with chairs and a blackboard.</p>
<p>Try visiting a class on Nanotechnology with those same 100 students in a state of the art laboratory, where the 100 kids break off into groups of 10 using equipment which went "live" a week ago... and your math breaks down pretty quickly. Your arguments are nice but don't make a lot of sense for most of the scientific disciplines where capital investment in labs, buildings, and the actual research that takes place there is a much higher, fixed cost than the variable cost of adding a professor or two.</p>
<p>It depends a lot on the lecturer. If it were Harvey Goldberg or George Mosse 500 would enjoy their perspective on history on a regular basis and leave inspired after every lecture.</p>
<p>Three things should also be considered. First, college endowments at the elite school are up big time over the last 10 years (not at all unusual to see 15% cagr). The schools have to do something with all that money. Second, the cost figures you cite are misleading. They include the cost of the I. M. Bigego Chair in International studies. However, on the revenue side, Mr. Bigego has provided the monies for this chaired professorship. Simply put, the school never would have spent the money without the revenue being locked up. A good example is Princeton's increase in enrollment that is preceded by major gifts for a 'new college.' The costs of increased enrollment was never intended to be fully recouped through tuition. Third, tuition at these elite schools are consistently higher (by 2 to 3 pp) than CPI. Again, the schools are making the 'people in the front of the plane' pay disproportionately more. Maybe Swat, Williams or Princeton would be better larger...I just don't think it is an economics issue as you make it out to be.</p>
<p>To some, the student:teacher ratio is irrelevant. It is a matter of fit. Some kids have already had a semi-LAC experience in elite private secondary schools and they are ready for something else. </p>
<p>My S loves the 200 kid lecture halls because they tend to have very good lecturers. Also, he isn't that keen to befriend professors. He'd rather develop an extensive peer group.</p>