<p>Your point might be well-taken, but your reliance on a 10 year old survey of (who knows, could be high school seniors, or gasp, college academics?) is rather shaky at best, particularly given your strong opposition of another annual survey (hint: called the PA). :D</p>
<p>Do you happen to have the '95 mag? I'm just curious for their methodology, i.e., did USNews automatically conclude that smaller classes = better teaching? Incidentally, the survey HAS to be rather suspect, in any event. I haven't heard one person claim that H offers the warm fuzzies in a classroom. hmmmmm</p>
<p>dadx2: great way to look at the numbers! Thanks.</p>
<p>hoedown and bluebayou,
I am on record in many threads as claiming that both the PA and the classroom teaching surveys aren't worth much and I'd prefer to get rid of both. I'm not a supporter, but I am pointing it out as something that students should be investigating as they go about their college searches. There are differences among colleges and what they prioritize for their faculty. As for the USNWR subjective assessments, unfortunately for undergrad students, instead of ceasing both PA and the teaching experience, they got rid of the one that was most relevant to a student's individual experience.</p>
<p>"I'm not a supporter, but I am pointing it out as something that I think students should be investigating as they go about their college searches. There are differences among colleges and what they prioritize for their faculty. As for the USNWR subjective assessments, unfortunately for undergrad students, instead of ceasing both PA and the teaching experience, they got rid of the one that I believe was most relevant to a student's individual experience."</p>
<p>Fixed that for you. It's generally bad form to present personal opinion as fact.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Do you happen to have the '95 mag? I'm just curious for their methodology
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes. At least, I think this is the survey to which hawkette refers. It reads "[US News] asked presidents, provosts, and deans of admission to select the ten schools in their category where the faculty 'has an unusually strong commitment to undergraduate teaching.'" So it's the same respondents who did the reputational ranking, working from the same list.</p>
<p>The magazine listed the top 25 National Universities and LACs who received the most votes, and listed the top five in each region for the regional rankings.</p>
<p>^ To me, that sounds MORE suspect and LESS reliable than the PA survey, even though they both target the same respondents. It seems that presidents, provosts, and deans of admissions would have less of a basis for judging the commitment of faculty to undergraduate teaching at other schools, than they would to judge the overall academic repuation of the undergraduate programs at other schools. Obviously, US News concluded similarly (and dropped it).</p>
<p>Sorry that we got sidetracked on the classroom teaching aspect of my prior posts. That really is a very minor part of what I posted.<br>
More importantly, re the posted class size data, I think that kudos really should go out to those colleges that provide the best classroom environments as measured by
1. the frequency of experiences with small classroom sizes of fewer than 20 students; and
2. the relative infrequency of student experiences with large classroom sizes of more than 50 students. </p>
<p>The winners for relatively fewer large classes are:</p>
<ol>
<li> Wake Forest (by a huge margin)</li>
<li> Vanderbilt, Emory</li>
<li> Rice</li>
<li> Dartmouth</li>
</ol>
<p>For students who think that class sizes have an impact on the classroom experience, this is further confirmation of the reputations that the above schools have for delivering a quality, hands-on, undergraduate academic experience. One observation is that most of these colleges are more known for their undergraduate strength rather than their graduate programs. </p>
<p>A second observation is that most of the schools that score well on these measurements don’t score as well, relatively speaking, on the PA measurements (Princeton and Yale are obvious exceptions) as some of the other colleges that offer a less intimate classroom setting. </p>
<p>A third observation is that the southern colleges have better numbers than other regions. Both Emory and Vanderbilt are in the top 5 of each measurement and Rice is in one and just barely misses on small class data (and data is not available for Duke). Anybody want to comment on this??</p>
<p>A fourth observation is that most of the schools on your small class list have comparatively weaker physical science and engineering departments. As I said before, it's likely colleges with more students majoring in science, math, and engineering can be enrolled in larger classes due to the nature of the course material...If a larger portion of the student body concentrates in social science and humanities majors, the classes need to be smaller to foster discussion/exchange of ideas, etc...the nature of the material being taught often drives class size. </p>
<p>Where do you get the data for each college showing the percentage of top majors that you so frequently quote? Can you post the percentage of math, physics, chemistry and engineering majors at Dartmouth, Wake Forest, Rice, Emory, and Vanderbilt and compare that to MIT, Berkeley, Cornell and Michigan?</p>
<p>I don't claim to be an expert on class size in higher ed but I do know that Cornell University is a leader in research on the relationship between academic performance and class size in higher ed. What's more, they have explored the relationship between teaching styles and class size to determine how to best take advantage of small class size and also maximize learning in larger classes.</p>
<p>This is being done by the Cornell University Higher Education Research Institute.</p>
<p>Over the past few years Cornell has been exploring how to effectively coordinate subject matter, class size, and teaching style.</p>
<p>Why would a lecture to a group of 10 students be more effective than a lecture to a group of 100 students? It wouldn't be more effective unless you adjust teaching style.</p>
<p>It's interesting. When I was at Cornell, I took some "lecture style" introductory courses in the social sciences that often had 10-15 students in it. I often found these less enjoyable than similar classes with 30-60 students in it simply due to the fact that while the material was presented in the same manner, the field from which interesting class questions (and directions) arose was a bit larger. To suggest that there was any sort of academic difference between the two is a fallacy, and as long as the professors were accessible (which they always were) I had no problems with slightly larger class sizes.</p>
<p>Cornell's also famous for it's very large courses. For instance, intro to psychology has well over a thousand students. In the vast majority of these cases, the professor is so compelling and the structure and teaching of the course is so well-thought out that the courses are a pleasure to take.</p>
<p>That said, large class sizes aren't for everybody. But at least at Cornell, the class sizes were small when the material warranted a lot of discussion and student direction.</p>
<p>I think there are instances like that on every large campus, where some classes are big not only because it's an efficient way to get the material across, but also because the professor is highly sought-after and students are eager to take a course from him or her, even if it's lecture format. We've got classes like that here. </p>
<p>That said, the best way I have seen to get a handle on class size is to do a detailed transcript analysis for a good sample of typical students. It's profoundly labor-intensive, though. I wouldn't expect many schools to do it, and if they did I would expect it would be for their own guidance (not public consumption). What it illustrates for me is the point made by the OP: it's difficult to use widely-used measures of "class size" (whether it's a mean, a distribution, or whatever) as a predictor of what your own "typical" class may be like when you enroll. That's frustrating, but I don't see an easy solution. Big differences in measures between schools are probably indicative of some meaningful differences in student experience, but beyond that I'd be cautious.</p>
<p>Personally I tend to feel that in a lot of cases, smaller is better, but that's NOT universally true, and it also varies according to personal preference (as we've seen in this thread).</p>
<p>cayuga,
One of the key distinctions in the class size discussion goes to the quality of your peers. The larger the class size, the less room there is for interaction between students and professors and among students. For a classroom of mixed talent, this is probably fine, but for a smaller class, the quality of who else is in the room is critical as is the ability of the professor to lead the discussion in ways that the students can creatively discover/digest the lessons that he/she is imparting. And for a class of 10-15 students, I would hope that no professor is employing a lecture style as this would be a waste of the opportunity to do some real teaching. </p>
<p>hoedown,
I agree with all of your comments and think that the exercise you refer to would be very illuminating indeed. Furthermore, I agree with your conclusion that while small is better, it need not automatically be ever so.</p>
<p>
[quote]
For a classroom of mixed talent, this is probably fine, but for a smaller class, the quality of who else is in the room is critical as is the ability of the professor to lead the discussion in ways that the students can creatively discover/digest the lessons that he/she is imparting.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree whole-heartedly when it comes to the humanities and some of the social sciences. But for engineering, chemistry, or math? I have taken upper level math courses with 10 students and upper level math courses with 50 students. In both courses you take notes and try to digest materially as best as you can. The quality of the teach will matter a lot. The quality of your peers will not.</p>
<p>I have a good friend from Cornell who is getting his PhD at the University of Chicago in mathematics. He was shocked to discover that graduate students do almost all of the teaching at Chicago for the introductory calculus sequences. This wasn't the norm at Cornell. At Cornell the average class size may have been 20-25 for the intro courses for the Arts sequence, whereas at Chicago the average class size may have been 15. But at Chicago, most of the classes were taught by TAs with a horrendous grasp of the English language.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And for a class of 10-15 students, I would hope that no professor is employing a lecture style as this would be a waste of the opportunity to do some real teaching.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Okay. I'll bite. How else do you propose teaching an intermediate level econometrics course with an emphasis on proofs? If it involves anything other than standing in front of a chalk board and walking through concepts and proofs while fielding questions, I would be very surprised.</p>
<p>First, as others have said, not everyone likes small classes. Small classes tend to have a lot of student discussion. Sometimes, for the most able /least able students in the class, discussions are a waste of time. I had a young neighbor who majored in a subject which had about 10 majors a year at a school in the AWS group. He was far and away the most outstanding student in this field. After two years, he hated his college. He said that he knew what any given student was likely to say the minute (s)he raised a hand. He knew that when the professor wanted to wrap things up--and only then--he would be called on. He said he would have much rather have spent 50 minutes listening to a lecture by a prof who knew more about his subject than he did than listening to a prof for 15 minutes and students who knew less than he did for 35 minutes. </p>
<p>A young woman who worked in our office part-time and attended Columbia said much the same thing. In some cases, she could choose to take seminars or take lectures. She always chose lectures. She said she found class discussion frustrating and thought too many students talked to hear their own voices or boost their class participation grade. She felt that she learned more when she listened to a lecture.</p>
<p>My kid mixed the two. In subjects she was a <em>star</em> in, seminars were the preferred course of action. When she took something outside her comfort zone, she preferred lectures, finding it easier to grasp concepts she had no familiarity with in that format. She didn't enjoy sitting in a class and listening to a discussion that was over her head. </p>
<p>Second, as others have said, the size of classes varies enormously by major. Some schools have special, selective programs which aren't available to all students. Yes, if you get into "Woody Woo" (Woodrow Wilson School) at Princeton, you'll have small classes. However, only roughly half those who apply are accepted. Princeton is not alone. LOTS of top colleges have these selective programs--and of course large universities have honors colleges. Looking at the OVER ALL stats can be misleading for the student who is NOT going to be in such a program. With some of the special programs, admission is as a sophomore or junior, so there is no way an incoming student can be certain that he can get into Woody Woo or another special major at some top colleges.</p>
<p>Moreover, when classes are small, they are usually capped. It may be wonderful that Prof Famous teaches an intermediate course in microeconomics in a seminar of 20 students. However, it is probable that only a small percentage of students will be admitted to his course. If he taught a lecture, more students--including those who are NOT econ majors with 3.7 averages --would have the opportunity to be taught by him. Which is really better for students--a seminar taught by Prof Famous to the top 20 junior and seniors majoring in econ (out of hundreds) or a lecture class of 100 open to all?</p>
<p>Science classes, especially intro-level, are usually larger. At Bard, my Chem I class was 64 kids, the largest class ever. Next year they are breaking it up, one regular level and one accellerated level.</p>
<p>Not all small classes that are proof-based are lecture. In my CalcIII class, our teacher makes us derive the proofs, he just leads us to the harder points.</p>
<p>
[quote]
– actually, they will have a class over 50 students almost 50% of the time.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>50% of the time, perhaps--but as a percent of the total # classes taken, it's not nearly that much.</p>
<p>For what it's worth, svalbardlutefisk did a much more thorough analysis of this issue a while ago. But you have seen, as he did, that there is an inherent problem in this analysis: you don't know the actual average class sizes in each range. The 10-19 range may have an average of 17, not 15; you can only assume that it's 15. The even bigger problem, as you acknowledged, is that you do not know the average # students in the upper bound of courses over 50 (svard used classes over 100, though). That, alone, will create significant error.</p>
<p>And that was seen in the past study: by dividing the student-classes (as he called them) by the # students, you can find the average number of classes that a student would take in a given term. When those numbers came out wrong, it was evident that the estimations of the averages were wrong.</p>
<p>Thus, you really can't make any conclusions. Here's the analysis from before:</p>
<p>I think class size is extremely important. The overwhelming majority of college students, I would think, prefer small classes. Personally, I never want to be in a class so large that the students can't even see the professor, as is the case in many introductory courses at universities. That's why I'm going to a LAC.</p>
<p>I think most people prefer smaller classes but many people (like me and probably many other science majors) are just fine in a lecture-style course, particularly if we're learning science.</p>
<p>What's interesting is that, after having talked to many medical students during my interviews, most med students hate PBL classes in med school. For those of you who don't know, PBL sessions are small group discussions usually involving 5-10 students and a faculty facilitators. The other med school courses are either lectures or labs. The opinions of medical students (most of whom were science majors in college) have been overwhelmingly in favor of lecture over PBL.</p>
<p>Perhaps medical school students dislike PBL classes because they are asked more questions, and in a small discussion, would have no choice but to answer or appear stupid to the professor.</p>