<p>The only problem with Gordon Winston’s analysis is that it is wrong, and he would know it by simply looking at his own institution. Williams is a far better place at 1,900 students than it was at 1,200. More depth in the curriculum, more breadth (new offerings like studio art, and majorly expanded music, theatre, and dance), a wider range of student interests. Same is true at Wesleyan, Wellesley, Amherst, Smith, Mt. Holyoke, Grinnell, and a host of others. The fixed costs are spread over a larger number of students. The character and quality of the institutions improve - more room for international students, more room for older students, more possibility for oddballs to find their niches. The larger departments mean fewer are crippled by sabbaticals, or unexpected departures. The larger size in a generation also means a much larger developmental base of loyal alumni. Endowments expand.</p>
<p>But, reading him more carefully, Winston is right. “Economies of scale run out at pretty small enrollments.” Looking at his own examples, it’s probably at around 2,500 to 3,000. As he noted - “in very special crircumstances – such as extravagant wealth – it can make good economic sense.” (page 8) All the schools cited above (as well as Swarthmore) fall well into this category.</p>