My classes last quarter were all intro or core lectures. I had three classes of ~75 and one massive lecture (~150). My classes this quarter include a 30-person lecture, a 40-person lecture, and a ~200-student lecture. This followed a year where most of my classes were seminars. So I have some thoughts on this. They boil down to: lectures are what the professor makes of them.
One professor (a very smart dude from the Harris School) lectured at the class for 10 weeks. He knew his stuff, graded rationally, and made an intro class for my major interesting enough - but nothing more.
Another, with less of a pedigree, made a 75-person lecture interactive and interesting, and outsourced more detailed discussions to 2-3 TA sections during the quarter. I’m taking another class with said professor this quarter, and it’s the highlight of my week.
The third of my 75-person lectures was the quintessential lecture; content in class, labs outside it, the odd TA session, and a nice professor whose door was always open. I enjoyed it, but that was mostly because of the content.
I took an intro class for my major with 150 students, which included a substantial discussion component, and it was great. The professor sketched out theories (and acted a few out, which was entertaining); left details to the readings; and left most of the arcane debates to TA sections. I’m in a 40-person lecture this quarter that follows much the same model, and it works very well.
Then there’s this quarter’s 200-person lecture, which is unremarkable in just about every way, but with decently engaging content.
So there’s a lot of variation from lecture class to lecture class. My favorite class until this quarter was my Winter Quarter Classics seminar, which only had 12 students. Now my favorite by far is a 40-person lecture.
One of the nice things about spending oodles of money on faculty is having good professors regardless of class format.