<p>Yes I read it and the intro section discussed the limited research done on the impact of class size on grades and found them inconclusive. So while it may be nice for other reasons to have smaller classes, there is no real proof yet that more learning is accomplished.</p>
<p>Barrons,
As you suggested, I did a little more research on the class size issue and how those relate to students’ achievements. There is a paper by Alan Krueger of Princeton, titled “Economic Considerations and Class Size,” that addresses this issue and makes a favorable conclusion for the effect of small class size over large class size. I can’t find a link to the entire article, but here is an abstract:</p>
<p>“Economic Considerations and Class Size" </p>
<p>ALAN B. KRUEGER
Princeton University - Industrial Relations Section; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER); Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) </p>
<hr>
<p>The Economic Journal, Vol. 113, pp. F34-F63, 2003 </p>
<p>Abstract:<br>
This paper examines evidence on the effect of class size on student achievement. First, it is shown that results of quantitative summaries of the literature, such as Hanushek (1997), depend critically on whether studies are accorded equal weight. When studies are given equal weight, resources are systematically related to student achievement. When weights are in proportion to their number of estimates, resources and achievements are not systematically related. Second, a cost-benefit analysis of class size reduction is performed. Results of the Tennessee STAR class-size experiment suggest that the internal rate of return from reducing class size from 22 to 15 students is around 6%. </p>
<p>You and I are not going to resolve this issue, but I suspect that most people would prefer smaller rather than larger classes, even if the benefit is no more than a psychic perception that we are getting more attention from the professor as a result of this smaller setting.</p>
<p>Yeah, I like large classes because then I can skip them.</p>
<p>Barron thinks that Mich and Cal are same caliber as Dartmouth and Columbia for undergrad, so naturally he'll vouch against the importance of small classes. I think the opposite, so I'll vouch for why they are good.</p>
<p>hawkette --
You should know: your compare/contrast statistics are VERY MUCH appreciated. You do a great service for CCers by putting this data together.
I hope that you let most of the silly critiques levied at your posts roll off of your back--the majority of them speak for themelves, (badly.)</p>
<p>(This post is not meant as a dig at anyone who has expressed opinions in this particular thread--it's just general praise for hawkette.)</p>
<p>hawkette:</p>
<p>I, too, appreciate your posts, but the TN Star study is very limited in scope. The big gains in student test scores were from small classes (13-17 students) in inner-city schools. The gains from small class sizes from suburban schools were nominal, but statistically valid. As a result, I don't in any way see how this is remotely applicable to selective college admissions.</p>
<p>[However, notwithstanding the limited scope, Cal legislators (and teacher unions) use this study to justify class-size reduction statewide.]</p>
<p>oops, cross posed with barrons.</p>
<p>The Krueger study was not for college classes. Yes immature children may get some benefit from smaller classes but we ARE looking at colleges here. BTW that same economist did the study that found little if any economic benefit for people of equal ability going to elite vs non-elite schools. In other words gold in gold out.</p>