<p>To me, you can’t just look simply at class size. You have to look at who is teaching the class. For example, a class may be stated as being taught by a professor, yet the majority of the class is actually taught by a TA.</p>
<p>So there needs to be more of conditional: given that a class is small, is it taught by a professor?</p>
<p>At Harvard, it’s well documented that their educational structure is more premised upon peer learning–e.g. you learn more from your peers than professors.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, it requires some simplifying assumptions, but I can take you through the steps. First, let’s just assume that all classes represent the same number of credit hours. (At my daughter’s LAC this is easy, because each class = 1 credit; some schools award different credit-hours to different classes, but let’s just assume away that complication, and assume each class = 1 credit).</p>
<p>Next, let’s assume that the average number of students in each 2-9 person class is 5; the average number of students in each 10-19 person class is 15; in each 20-29 person class, 25; in each 30-39 person class, 35; in each 40-49 person class, 45; in each 50-99 person class, 75; and in each 100+ person class, 125. (This last figure may be low if Penn has some of the mega-lectures that schools like Cornell and Harvard have, but whatever).</p>
<p>Then, let’s figure out what fractional share of all the time students spend in classes is spent in each category, starting by calculating how many class credits will be awarded for courses in each category:</p>
<p>2-9 person classes: 937 classes X 5 students/class average = 4,685 class credits
10-19 person classes: 934 classes X 15 students/class average = 14,010 class credits
20-29 person classes: 324 classes X 25 students/class average = 8,100 class credits
30-39 person classes: 127 classes X 35 students/class average = 4,445 class credits
40-49 person classes: 68 classes X 45 student/class average = 3,060 class credits
50-99 person classes: 173 classes X 75 students/class average = 12,975 class credits
100+ person classes: 52 classes X 125 students/class average = 6500 class credits
TOTAL: 2,615 classes; 53,765 class credits</p>
<p>% of classes < 20: 937 + 934 = 1,871 DIVIDED BY 2,615 = 71.5%
% of classes 50+: 173 + 52 = 225 DIVIDED BY 2,615 = 8.6%</p>
<p>What percentage of the total number of class credits awarded are earned in classes < 20?</p>
<p>2-9 person classes: 4,685 class credits
10-19 person classes: 14,010 class credits
TOTAL: 18,695 class credits in <20 person classes
DIVIDED BY total class credits awarded in all categories = 18,695/53,765 = 34.77%.</p>
<p>Or as I said, approximately 1/3 of the total class credits are earned in classes <20, despite the fact that 71.5% of all the classes are <20. By this calculation, Penn undergrads spend less time in classes <20 than they do in classes 50+, despite the fact that only 8.6% of the classes are 50+. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course. That goes without saying. That’s why I was very careful to talk about how much time Penn undergrads ON AVERAGE spend in large classes as opposed to small classes. But if the entire group of Penn undergrads spend on average only 1/3 of their time in small classes, and if some significant fraction of Penn undergrads (say, those in certain select majors) are actually spending a much larger fraction their time in small classes, then it follows as a matter of mathematical necessity that some significant fraction of Penn undergrads are spending EVEN LESS than 1/3 of their time in small classes–probably a whole lot less in some cases. The numbers need to balance out.</p>
<p>Again, I’m not doing this exercise to pick on Penn. It would be the same at Harvard or Cornell. I’m just trying to point out how useless and downright misleading the categories of “percentage of classes <20 students” and “percentage of classes 50+” are. Fact is, students at these schools spend a much smaller fraction of their time in small (<20) classes than you might be inclined to believe if you just look at the “percentage of classes <20” figure uncritically, without thinking through the math of the situation.</p>
<p>The classes we’re talking about are likely intro and survey- mostly for freshmen and sophs. Bio, chem, psych, econ, maybe some intro anthro or govt, whatever. Required for a major, or maybe at a school with core requirements. Or, maybe attractive to juniors/seniors who have space in their schedules. But designed to cover a broad scope, no? Through lectures. So, what real good does it do for USNWR to tout the overall percentage of less than 20 kids? You still have to cross that wide river to get where you’re going. Even at many LACs, depending on the actual class and the demand.</p>
<p>I don’t necessarily believe these classes should be smaller, to encourage discussions. Yes, kids will have vital questions. But, stopping to allow multiple kids to ask personal questions may not be feasible at this level- or of value to the others. That’s why there are office hours and TA’s, breakout sessions, Q&A opps, etc. Someone noted a class of 1300 is less likely to have the prof grade tests. Well, there can be TA’s doing that for a class of 75- even at an LAC.</p>
<p>I still think the active, engaged kid can head for office hours, if bonding with the prof is important. At the intro level, whether a prof is receptive still depends on the prof. Whether the kid has anything of value to discuss depends on the kid. Of course, for a class of 1300 (or even 1000 or 300,) sheer numbers can work against you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you see it that way because you’re used to the lecture-style courses that are common at virtually every university.</p>
<p>But all material is discussable. All of it can be transformed into material that a small group can engage in. They don’t just go over reading and ask questions, but perhaps stage debates, analyze a topic in greater detail, “brainstorm” more creative ideas related to the material, or even expound on a topic that was only briefly covered in the reading.</p>
<p>It’s well-acknowledged in pedagogical research that this style of learning - active learning - is more effective than passive learning. Not only do students gain more, but it’s the most effective way of assessing students’ knowledge: if they can engage in the material and communicate it orally, then they likely have a better grasp on the knowledge (this is an oft-touted benefit of the Oxford tutorials). Thus, they place more emphasis on projects/papers and less emphasis on the massive exam, which is usually pointless since it tests only superficial knowledge (it can only cover so much, whereas in discussion, every class meeting is an exam of sorts), and it tests only what knowledge you have here and now; most students can cram for an exam, do okay on the test, and then forget what they just crammed. In discussions, they need a deeper understanding of the material so that they can engage in the material in class; gaining the deeper understanding and engaging in class better cement the knowledge in the student’s mind.</p>
<p>It’s just that lectures are an easy and cheap way to “transmit” the information, but how many students are actually learning from the lecture? In nearly all cases, the lecture is just a rehashing of the reading. And by the time they’re in college, students should be able to learn from their textbooks (of course, that doesn’t mean they won’t have questions or always be able to understand something 100%; where necessary, they can clear these up by going to office hours, or - in active learning - do it in discussion). I’ve said this before, and I stand by it: if you need someone to stand up in front of you and teach in order for you to learn, then you’ve got much bigger problems.</p>
<p>So sure, lectures officially ‘transmit’ the information to the students, but not more so than their textbook. And lectures serve an additional small function of structuring the information in the textbook and letting students know what material they need to learn and what they don’t (which IMO is a shoddy standard to set by a lecture; as soon as students realize it won’t be on the exam, they usually skip over it, no matter its intellectual merit or relevance).</p>
<p>If these large intro classes in biology or chemistry had few students interested in them, the lectures would be turned into seminars, which would show clearly that the material is communicable and discussable in a seminar setting, and that the active learning present in such a seminar is more effective than passive learning.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly - because the university has chosen the easy, cheap way to transmit information (lectures), and they know that they’re not as effective in teaching, they have to supplement it with inferior alternatives like breakout sessions, TA-led sections, etc. But wouldn’t it be better to have those in a class anyway? In a small class, that’s led by the professor? Of course, homework help can often be relegated to the TAs, who will help students when they say “oh I didn’t get 4c) because it wasn’t clear on what blah blah blah,” something that a professor could do but has better ways to spend his/her time. In the end, I think that learning + what you describe (Q&A opps, etc.) are better found in the seminars, from the professor.</p>
<p>Of course, all material can be transformed into discussable- but I believe the point of intro surveys is to cover the basic breadth of world history, psych, bio, etc, in one semester (occasionally two.) The survey is supposed to expose you to the material to a degree where you are competent for the next levels. Since not all kids get the same academic prep in a subject, in hs, this is meant to cover it- and cover it on a college level.Those kids who did take AP in hs can usually skip intro, depending on the college.</p>
<p>The “200 level” classes are where the pace slows down, you get a narrower focus and plenty of discussions, debates, brainstorming- and smaller class size. Now, you’re dealing with students who are possible majors- or at least motivated to pursue classes in that subject. IME, 300’s and 400’s get smaller still.</p>
<p>Good lecture classes transmit far more than the textbook alone. I think all of us say shame on profs who only do that. Not all lecture profs are that incompetent. And, the responsibility, IMO, is shared betwen prof and student. Too often, the engaged students put forth the effort and the bench warmers are the first out the door. Is that the school’s fault, the size of the class, the availabilty of a TA-- or the student?</p>
<p>In the Oxford system, btw, don’t students select their track upon entry? They choose, eg, govt or social sciences and don’t have the opp to benefit from a taste of many classes?</p>