<p>Economies of scale…</p>
<p>sentiment, what are you saying? How many of the let’s say 11 classes needed to become an Econ major are of the large lecture variety?</p>
<p>Are you saying that more than 11 classes out of the 45 needed to graduate are large lecture courses? I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I’d like to know how many of your 45 courses were of the 100+ lecture variety.</p>
<p>Sentiment, the link you posted in #618 for EECS courses are lower division, not upper division as you claim.</p>
<p>@ UCB
Sorry about that. Must have misclicked. Here’s the correct link.
[UCB</a> Online Schedule of Classes: Search Results](<a href=“http://osoc.berkeley.edu/OSOC/osoc?p_term=FL&x=53&y=5&p_classif=U&p_deptname=Electrical+Engineering&p_presuf=--+Choose+a+Course+Prefix%2FSuffix+--&p_dept=&p_course=&p_title=&p_instr=&p_exam=&p_ccn=&p_day=&p_hour=&p_bldg=&p_units=&p_restr=&p_info=&p_updt=]UCB”>http://osoc.berkeley.edu/OSOC/osoc?p_term=FL&x=53&y=5&p_classif=U&p_deptname=Electrical+Engineering&p_presuf=--+Choose+a+Course+Prefix%2FSuffix+--&p_dept=&p_course=&p_title=&p_instr=&p_exam=&p_ccn=&p_day=&p_hour=&p_bldg=&p_units=&p_restr=&p_info=&p_updt=)</p>
<p>
I would say 90 - 100% in Economics depending on the classes you choose. I’ve had lectures with less than 100 people but most of them were not related with my major.</p>
<p>The engineers do have it a bit better but the numbers are still unimpressive. It’s not comparable to Ivy League, that’s all there is to it.</p>
<p>sentiment, unfortunately, popular majors (English, Political Science, Psychology to name a few), will always have large classes, whether at a public or research private university. Intermediate level classes at many Ivies (Columbia, Cornell, Harvard and Penn) have over 100 students.</p>
<p>^That’s not true. I tried navigating Harvard but it was painstakingly difficult so I bring you Columbia, the next best thing, instead.</p>
<p>(Note: Each of their “sections” is headed by a professor much like a Berkeley or UCLA “lecture”)</p>
<p>This is what an economics majors looks at.
[CU</a> Directory of Classes](<a href=“http://www.columbia.edu/cu/bulletin/uwb/]CU”>http://www.columbia.edu/cu/bulletin/uwb/)
This is what an electrical engineering major looks at.
[CU</a> Directory of Classes](<a href=“http://www.columbia.edu/cu/bulletin/uwb/]CU”>http://www.columbia.edu/cu/bulletin/uwb/)</p>
<p>I haven’t found a single course with even 100 students! Most have < 30 students. Some in particular majors have as few as 14 students. </p>
<p>People on this board are far too friendly toward public universities. The USNWR rankings have in fact been very generous given their circumstances.</p>
<p>“People on this board are far too friendly toward public universities. The USNWR rankings have in fact been very generous given their circumstances.” </p>
<p>OOOH those evil public universities. They need to be scorned and avoided at all costs. It’s the wealthy elitist private universities who need to be celebrated more. If only so many of the privates were stronger academically, but who cares about that? It’s only the students that really matter anyway. They are so brilliant at private universities they can practically teach themselves. Who even needs faculty? Just give them a book and watch them excell. The cure for cancer and the common cold is just around the corner. I have no doubt that both will be discovered by freshmen who are taking classes under 100 students at some private school. The preceding rant sounds almost as ridiculous as the quote above.</p>
<p>^Harvard Medical School is private. </p>
<p>Yes, here we go again with the “is ridiculously large class sizes” adverse for education debate. </p>
<p>All I have to say is that it is quite clear that lecture hall style teaching is nowhere near as conducive a learning environment as a group of 30 students with open discussion.</p>
<p>Also, it is much easier to go to grad school from a private university. None of the leading public universities rank well in the percentage of students who go on to earn PhDs. Not enough face time with professors is a huge deterrent.</p>
<p>This is not to mention that calculating the rank of public universities by students stats they are exactly where they should be. They haven’t even been properly penalized for their faculty ratios!</p>
<p>I have nothing against publics. Its just that objectively, they are all given far too much credit at the undergrad level.</p>
<p><<the university=“” has=“” the=“” 3rd=“” most=“” nobel=“” prize=“” winners=“” as=“” a=“” (harvard=“” -=“” 1st,=“” stanford=“” 2nd).=“”>></the></p>
<p>I believe that Chicago has more than any of those three.</p>
<p>[List</a> of Nobel laureates by university affiliation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_university_affiliation]List”>List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>Sentiment, are we looking at the same Columbia? Use your link above to check the classes below (Fall term 2010 of course):</p>
<p>Econ V 3025 (Financial Economics; enrollment of 140)</p>
<p>Econ W 3211 (Intermediate Microeconomics, enrollment of 90)</p>
<p>Econ W3213 (Intermediate Macroeconomics, enrollment of 275)</p>
<p>Econ W4415 (Game Theory, enrollment of 90)</p>
<p>Econ W4500 (International Trade, enrollment 93)</p>
<p>Most intermediate and even advanced classes have over 50 classes. Columbia, Cornell, Harvard and Penn don’t have small classes in popular majors.</p>
<p>
- This is subjective. There is a lot to be said for lectures; they offer the most direct form of information transfer while maintaining greater flexibility than textbooks, not to mention the advantages for more auditory learners.</p>
<ol>
<li>I have not seen any evidence indicating that private universities in general aspire to offer only discussion-based courses with little or no lecture component. Indeed, this would probably have a negative impact on the prestige of said universities because lectures are not universally despised or disregarded (for the reasons above).
That’s an interesting correlation. Do you have any evidence indicating that it is causative? I can think of plenty of lurking variables, and so can you. If private universities have such superior “student stats,” perhaps that is why said students attend grad school more frequently.</li>
</ol>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t disagree. However, some of the most important learning experiences in college have little to do with information transfer. There is no substitute for discussion seminars or tutorials if the goal is to teach students to read and analyze primary source materials. No lecturer can anticipate all the ways a class of students might interpret (or misinterpret) the meaning of difficult passages in a challenging book. </p>
<p>Socratic discussion in small classes is a time-tested instructional method. The difference this kind of education makes is the difference between a David Brooks (who got it) and a Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck (who did not).</p>
<p>^ There certainly are good arguments in favor of seminar-style courses. I have not seen any compelling evidence indicating that the Socratic method clearly produces better thinkers than arguably newer “traditional” lecture-style courses. Nor have I seen compelling evidence indicating that it does worse. The two teaching styles will appeal to different individuals depending on personality and learning style.</p>
<p>Well, you’re right, it is difficult to define what one means by good thinking and to muster evidence for how to encourage it. So my point is not as grand as to suggest Socratic instruction produces better thinkers. How the best thinkers get produced is a little mysterious to me. Learning to sit and listen for an hour at a time may well be an important part of the process. But again, if the goal is to teach students to read and analyze primary source materials, I don’t see how lectures can substitute for seminars or tutorials. And I think that is an essential skill in fields such as academia or law. So is the discussion skill developed by that approach.</p>
<p>The best public universities offer both kinds of instruction. In my opinion it’s important they keep doing so.</p>
<p><a href=“Note:%20Each%20of%20their” title=“sections” is headed by a professor much like a Berkeley or UCLA “lecture”>quote</a>
[/quote]
For example, Prof Robert Beer is listed as the instructor for General Chemistry I Lectures (W1403) as well as all six Recitation sections (W1405). Quite a teaching load indeed. And sometimes Prof Beer has to lead two separate sections held at the same time at two different locations!</p>
<p>HA! There is no such thing as a prestigious public university. What a contradiction. There are only strong universities. Period. Those are the top 15 in the USNWR except for WUSTL. </p>
<p>End thread. Next.</p>
<p>Being a top public university is like winning the NIT.</p>
<p>^^^To some here on CC it certainly is true.</p>
<p>I thought I told you, there’s NO such thing as a top public school (except for Oxford and Cambridge).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Indisputably? I think that Ox-bridge - which are public universities - might have something to say about that. </p>
<p>Granted, you might still make the case that Berkeley is nevertheless the top public university in the world, even after accounting for Ox-bridge. But the contention would hardly be ‘indisputable’. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is the faculty what you’re really paying for? That seems to ring false. Let’s face it - the vast majority of undergraduates, particularly at the large state schools - are not going to pursue academic/research careers. Hence, criteria such as NAS membership, faculty research awards, and research funding is of little relevance to them. </p>
<p>Let’s face it: most undergrads just want to garner a decent job, or enter a decent grad school with which they can garner a decent job. Honestly, who really cares if your courses are taught by star researchers if you just end up working as a Starbucks barista? What therefore should matter are the career/grad-school placements and recruiting opportunities of the students.</p>