Caltech class sizes and the "Rule of 150"

InquilineKea · August 5, 2007, 2:53am

So I was reading “The Tipping Point” some number of days ago and found the “magic group size” of 150 particularly interesting. Beyond the group size of 150 - groups can no longer be highly personal and informally enforce rules.

Caltech’s freshman class is approximately ~200 students per year (<a href=“http://www.admissions.caltech.edu/about/stats)%5B/url%5D”>http://www.admissions.caltech.edu/about/stats)</a>. So my question is - do most students recognize everyone in their particular graduating class? Some posters a while back mentioned that they were able to recognize everyone in their graduating class class by appearance, if not by name. Of course, some Techers may be less likely to be known by everyone in their graduating class than others (since there are some Techers who stay in their rooms playing WoW all day).

Of course, the small class sizes make the enforcement of the Honor Code possible, and also make it possible for someone to leave his laptop in a classroom without incurring a significant risk of it being stolen. The other question is - don’t Techers relate more to individual houses than to graduating classes? (though this may be different according to Techer)

halfthelaw · August 5, 2007, 12:59pm

You bring up an interesting question. By my estimation, I can recognize by face a significant portion (>90%) of my class.
However, the group you will identify with significantly more than your class is your house, which average ~100 people, by my estimation. This is where informal rules and conventions are instututed and enforced and where experience the strongest group character.

SilvaRua · August 10, 2007, 4:53am

Why is that? I can think of a million exceptions to this; groups of twenty that were often impersonal and functioned poorly, and groups of thousands (particularly military regiments) that were very close and disciplined.

But to answer your question, yes, I know the vast majority of people in my graduating class. That’s rather natural considering pre-frosh camp, Rotation, and the initial euphoria of meeting a lot of new people in a new part of the country.

Don’t really see what it has to do with Gladwell’s ridiculously overhyped book.

lizzardfire · August 10, 2007, 6:15am

I wouldn’t call regiments close or say that their rules are “informally” enforced.

SilvaRua · August 10, 2007, 6:33am

And in a number of cases, you would be completely, laughably wrong.

Realize that my father and every male on that side of my family served in the military for many years, and I’ve talked to current US troops (a few of whom are my friends) about their experiences.

You’re wrong, Tom, and I doubt you know what you’re talking about.

Of course, if you have extensive ROTC experience, have visited Iraq, and/or have a lot of cousins and brothers in the military, feel free to correct me.

Focus

Everything that Gladwell surmised about a group of 150 doesn’t apply to a single Caltech graduating class that I’ve ever seen.

raimius · August 10, 2007, 10:49am

Military rules are both formally and informally enforced. There is a strict heirarchy of authority which enforces formal rules and an informal peer enforcement of rules. It is hard to really be close after expanding much past the company level, although I’m sure there are some relatively close knit brigades out there.

tech_fan · August 10, 2007, 1:26pm

Whoa, SilvaRua, who applied the poison ivy to your toothbrush this morning? Your hostility makes you look pretty silly.

In any case, get a grip. Gladwell’s book isn’t meant to be a scientific tract. But it does summarize about fifty years of social science research in what many people think is a remarkably engaging way. The idea about groups of 150 wasn’t introduced by Gladwell. It does, however, happen to be generally accepted by scholars who have forgotten more about social behavior than you will ever know. Being acquainted with the military, however admirable that may be, does not really give you any credibility against people who study group interactions as a full-time job.

The relevant type of group at Caltech, by the way, is the house, not the class. Most Techers would agree that the typical house fits the mold described by Gladwell in a fairly exact way.

Finally, though I don’t claim to know anything about military organization, I do know a little about human memory, and the average person cannot reliably remember 2000 name/face pairs (in addition to all the normal social acquaintances one has outside one’s job). Since an ability to recognize people and know their names (without those convenient uniform things) is key to the small-group dynamic that InquilineKea mentioned, your point about regiments can’t be right. They are, without a doubt, often quite successful organizations, but they simply don’t function in the “highly personal” way that entails everyone actually knowing almost everyone else.

SilvaRua · August 10, 2007, 3:03pm

I largely agree. Just keep in mind some regiments have as few as a couple hundred men. It really depends on what is meant by “close”; as described in Gladwell’s book, even certain regiments qualify.

That’s how I typically write when disagreeing, except in this case, Tom has a reputation for unrelated, wrong, random comments, (opinion of a lot of Techers) and I know he has zero knowledge about the military.

What would you rather I write; “Dear Sir, I respectfully but humbly disagree with your assertion?”

Come on; I write the way I talk, and you and I are both smart and mature enough (you moreso than me) to handle it.

I probably should have glossed over that comment, anyways; it doesn’t even relate to the focus at all.

True enough, but that’s really more of a function of the structure of a House rather than a simple numbers game, wouldn’t you agree?

And even there, how does it extend to people living offcampus? For the most part, it doesn’t.

Meh, like I mentioned earlier, some regiments are significantly smaller (a few hundred men), and if you meant “highly personal” in the traditional sense, well congratulations, you’ve also proved that no House fits Gladwell’s classification either.

The rule of 150 is a very general guideline which makes broad statements easier to make, but applied to a specific, unique situation, it’s worthless.

I thought the book was overrrated; regardless of whether you believed the prose was engaging or not, it was horribly dumbed down. (Which I guess is a perequisite for any popular pseduo-scientific book nowadays)

That’s not necessarily bad, but there are a ridiculous number of counterexamples to all of Gladwell’s arguments.

But yeah, to once again answer the original poster’s question; no.

lizzardfire · August 10, 2007, 4:14pm

My grandfather served in the army during WWII and my father served in the National Guard for a few years as well. Many of my stepdad’s family have served as well.

That being said I don’t really find it relevant.

First let me address your reply to me:

“And in a number of cases, you would be completely, laughably wrong.”

Wow, you must really not like me. That’s unfortunate. That being said, you shouldn’t allow emotion to cloud your judgment. First, how are these supposed other cases relevent? I’ll give you a hint–they aren’t. Second, I clearly stated what I did as opinion–I went so far as to say “I wouldn’t call…” It should be pretty clear that I am not attempting to state fact; therefore, how could I be wrong? There’s no such thing as “wrong” opinion, only opinions that you don’t agree with. I’m sorry that you do not see the difference. In addition, doesn’t the validity of the statement depend on the accepted definition of “closeness”? I suppose you did not consider this in your original response to me.

I based my statement off of what I believed a regimental size to be–somewhere in the few thousands of soldiers. No one denies that there are smaller regiments, but what would you say the average size of one is, of course citing appropriate sources. I had a bit of trouble finding them as I am apparently not as knowledgeable about the Army as you are.

Here is my source: <a href=“Account Suspended”>Account Suspended;

It states that a regiment is 1,500-3,200 personnel. Wikipedia supports similar figures.

In fact, my original source was you. You said “groups of thousands (particularly military regiments)” although after my post you seemed to backpedal and mentioned “some regiments are significantly smaller (a few hundred men)”. Interesting.

Now, assuming this information is not “completely, laughably wrong” I stand by my original statement. I do not believe that a group of a few thousand men can be anywhere near as close as a group of 150.

In addition, I also stand by my belief that rules enforced across the entire regiment are for the most part formal. I would argue that the ability to have informal rules is dependent on closeness. That being said, I’m certainly more willing to concdede this point than the one preceding it if there is evidence to suggest I am mistaken.

In conclusion, if you have issues with me, please take them up with me. I don’t know who you are but I can almost guarantee you that I do not harbor the sort of animosity that you do, simply because I can’t think of anyone I have so much hate for.

I feel that you insulted me and attempted to undermine my statement by attacking me on a personal level. You failed in both undermining the argument (lack of evidence) and undermining me (I’m not easily offended). In the future, I suggest you stick to civil discussion–attack is not going to ingratiate you with anyone or upset me. I apologize if you feel that I have a reputation with “a lot of techers” as making “unrelated, wrong, and random comments”. I certainly attempt to make my comments as relevant and correct as possible, at least in serious conversation. I suppose I can’t help your opinion of me or of those mysteriously many other Techers :)

Anyway, let me just take this last line to say thank you to your family for bravely serving our country. Military service means a lot to me.

Sincerely,

lizzardfire aka Tom

SilvaRua · August 10, 2007, 6:13pm

Have you read “The Tipping Point”? “Close” isn’t meant in the sense you’re thinking of.

And a lot of rules in the army are certainly “informally” enforced, so you’re wrong there. But obviously, there are many regiments that are rigid and impersonal. And many that aren’t. It’s one of the reasons I really doubt how useful the “Rule of 150” is…the statement just doesn’t seem to be the least bit robust, nor even well defined.

I’d really like to hear what Ben thinks about its actual significance to research. I’d bet on it being close to nil.

I have nothing against you personally, either. Your statement was just wrong due to the sheer diversity and number of the unit under discussion. I only mentioned the other stuff since a ridiculous number of people have told me that (well, in far more colorful language, actually).

I apologize if it upset you, and probably shouldn’t have written that (I would edit the post if I could). Personally, it wouldn’t bother me, but I know that’s not true of everyone. My mistake there; I forgot that this is a relatively sensitive forum. (Not sarcastic)

InquilineKea · August 10, 2007, 9:45pm

While I’m skeptical of the generalizability of the conclusions drawn by both of Gladwell’s books (I think his main point, notwithstanding, is not that we should trust our intuitions ALL the time [EDIT: oh, wait, I just read Blink, different from Tipping Point :p], but that they’re sometimes more trustworthy than a lot of people currently think), the “rule of 150” is one of the more rigorously supported results in his books (and yes, I have heard of it from multiple sources prior to reading it). It also happens to be one of the most generalizable of his points (since most humans are more or less homogeneous in this respect). I just cited his book since it is perhaps the book through which the theory is most widely known.

SilvaRua · August 11, 2007, 12:29am

Sure, but why? I’ve heard about it through the book also, but is there a reason for it to be so, beyond merely empirical observation?

Again, I’m sure anyone can think of a lot of counterexamples. Even Caltech Houses, which all have less than 150 members each, don’t exactly fit with his definition.

InquilineKea · August 11, 2007, 1:21am

There also are some theoretical models of this observation that Gladwell cited - one theoretical model was a plot of group size as a function of prefrontal something ratio/total brain ratio (forgot exactly what it was, as I had to return the book to the library). Though the theoretical models are based on assumptions that may not be particularly generalizable, especially in the sense of our limited overall understanding of the brain (and the flaws that may arise out of cross-species neurological studies in general).

But schools like Caltech typically have a small number of WoW ■■■■■■ and other people who lock themselves in their rooms all day to study (this seems to be supported by the posts of other people on the boards). One of my questions is - is this rule as generalizable to groups where not ALL individuals of the group are extremely dependent on each other? (remember that Amish communities and military regiments tend to be pretty isolated from the rest of the world) While Caltech’s very difficult psets certainly do encourage group-work, the question is, does everyone necessarily partake in this? By saying “Even Caltech Houses, which all have less than 150 members each, don’t exactly fit with his definition.”, you seem to imply that you don’t seem to be able to enforce all of the rules informally within your group, implying that perhaps people don’t know everyone else that well on an intimate basis (perhaps since there are some individuals who don’t seem to be as motivated to become intimately associated with the group because they don’t feel as strong of a need to do so?).

<ul>
<li>I generally pose my questions in terms of unintended consequences - that is - I pose them as questions (albeit oftentimes vague ones) to explore, but I don’t know what replies will come out. I don’t know what will replies will come out of my posts, but I’ve seen pleasant surprises. :)</li>
</ul>

InquilineKea · August 11, 2007, 1:42am

On an extended note - we have to ask the question - how applicable is the model to social groups with varying degrees of external contact? In such cases, it no longer describes the group in a near-absolute sense, but the model may then predict a scenario where the majority of people are very familiar with most other people in their houses/classes/groups/etc, even if not with every single person?

On a tangential note, I’ve visited several online forums over the last few years. One of them, CC, does not seem to develop into a particularly close-knit community, because it has well over 150 people and overturn is so high. There are few people from 2004 left posting here, for example. On the other hand, I’ve seen smaller online communities where many people are motivated to stay for years (due to the social associations involved within them, even if not everyone recognizes each other).

SilvaRua · August 11, 2007, 3:27am

And hence, I don’t really think the rule of 150 is particularly robust or effective.

But that’s not at all the reason Caltech Houses don’t follow this rule; it’s people that live off-campus, or even people that live on campus, but socialize with people outside the House, that break this rule.

Honestly, if the rule of 150 fails for such a simple example, what hope does it have for larger and more complex communities?

Heh, I post on two other online forums; one has over 46k members, and the other just under 50k (yeah, feel free to mock and brand me a loser).

While there are probably only a few thousand members that post regularly and daily, the forums are incredibly personal, and the amount of informal (and formal) rules there are very large.

If anything, online social cliques disobey the conjecture the most saliently; online, it’s possible to process information much faster and more effectively than in the real world.

And no… neither of those forums is affiliated with WoW or any MMORPG.

InquilineKea · August 11, 2007, 11:29am

But how do Caltech houses fail the rule? Can you give examples as to why you think it fails the rule? Of course in this case people also have CHOICE of communication, which the Amish do not have (and which military regiments also don’t have).

With respect to any model, one has to think of (a) instances where the model is applicable almost exactly as it is intended and (b) instances where the model isn’t particularly applicable exactly as intended BUT where the model can still explain some aspects of the instance. And if so, can it explain those aspects in a way that hasn’t already been explained?

So…

(a) We know that the model applies to highly insulated communities where its constituent members are forced to communicate with each other.
(b) The question, then, is, how applicable is the model to less insulated communities? Even if it does not explain away those communities all the way, can it explain certain parts of them? The enforceability of the Caltech Honor Code, for example, can be explained by the model.

SilvaRua · August 11, 2007, 4:36pm

It’s neither highly person nor are there informally enforced rules.

I don’t understand the rest of your post; you argued that a Caltech House followed this rule, I listed why I’m certain it doesn’t, and now you’re arguing what, precisely? That you want to continue applying despite it failing both listed properties by a significant margin?

Edit

I think I understand what you’re saying with point a)…even so, in very insulated communities, I can still think of too many individual exceptions.

InquilineKea · August 11, 2007, 9:41pm

I’m arguing that the Honor Code’s enforceability may be a result of the rule (even if the rule wouldn’t describe Caltech as comprehensively as it would describe an insulated community). Now, do you think that the Honor Code would work on a larger institution like MIT or an Ivy?
This brings us back to the question: well, does it work? And I think it does. Given that Caltech doesn’t seem to have too many problems with granting students special privileges - if it had too many problems, then it would have no choice but to discontinue the Honor Code.

Besides, other posters here (SteelPangolin, etc) have said that the houses do make it easier for normally asocial people to socialize, and some of those people take the offer up.

SilvaRua · August 12, 2007, 12:30am

Alright, so you’ve basically changed your entire argument; before, you were saying that Gladwell’s conclusions were valid, and now, you’re concentrating on the Honor Code.

Frankly, I don’t understand any legitimate reason for this new position any more than your last; MIT and Ivies have people living in dormitories whose social structure is roughly similar to that of a Caltech House, with comparable numbers of residents.

Why should it be any different, then?

And they’re absolutely correct…but what does it have to do with the rule of 150 or the Honor Code?

InquilineKea · August 12, 2007, 1:04am

Which is a subset of the original argument - since the enforceability of the Honor Code is contingent on Gladwell’s conclusions (just as the enforceability of informal rules is contingent on small group sizes). As you have pointed out, not all of the conclusions from “The Rule of 150” may be completely applicable to Caltech house systems, but it may nonetheless describe some facts relating to the Caltech house system.

So a corollary question would be: would such protocol such as the Honor Code be enforceable in dorms of similar size as Caltech houses?

So the question, then, is, is Caltech’s house system designed in such a way such that the “rule of 150” is more applicable than it would be in a normal college dorm? All models only apply to special conditions. The “Rule of 150” was intended to apply to the “special condition” of particular human communities (I haven’t read any of the primary research on this rule, but I’m assuming that the researchers intended the rule to be applicable to groups that are somewhat insular). The question, then, is do Caltech house systems fit those “special conditions” any more in degree than do regular dorm systems? (It seems that the Caltech house systems are unique, compared to the dorm systems of other universities)

Caltech class sizes and the "Rule of 150"

CONNECT WITH US