Caltech class sizes and the "Rule of 150"

[SilvaRua]

<p>

With books like Gladwell’s, and with Freakonomics, I think the important thing for intellectually serious readers to remember is that hyperbole and imprecision form the essence of those works and that this is not so bad. The best scientists I know still get excited by that type of cheerleading despite – or perhaps because of – understanding the caveats better than anyone else. I think the reason is that it does a good job of capturing the fundamentally exciting hope of the field at the cost of a few pesky facts. Responding to a book like that by complaining about robustness is like responding to a fable of Aesop’s by saying that foxes don’t talk. It is true but misses the point.

</p>

<p>I almost completely agree with this, except I simply considered “Freakonomics” more exciting, since its conclusions and applications were more unexpected and more solidly supported by empirical evidence. </p>

<p>Obviously, it’s a genre of books (social science popularization/sociological commentary) that aren’t supposed to be rigorous, but within that, you have both the good and bad; “Freakonomics” being one of the absolute best, and something like “The World is Flat” being one of the absolute worst. </p>

<p>Gladwell’s was in-between for me, but the rule of 150 in particular seemed quite hollow and boring. </p>

<p>

@Ben

I’ll only take on the rules for now. Each house clearly has such rules. In Fleming, it is a serious social faux pas to talk much about academics at any house social event. At dinner this rule is enforced explicitly, while elsewhere it is enforced very informally. Everyone knows this and everyone obeys the rule. I am sure this happens also in other houses – with different rules, of course.

</p>

<p>Combined with the disclaimer about Gladwell’s unclear criteria, you’re absolutely correct here. But in that case, the rule of 150 just seems worthless; what interesting conclusions can we draw from it, aside from observations about House dinners, which I could argue are as much a factor of mandatory board for anyone living on campus as anything else? Furthermore, a bunch of people, including both of us, didn’t attend those dinners much after frosh year, so what long-lasting effect did it honestly have, and did it truly impact the entire group? </p>

<p>On a slightly related note, I’m disliking the House system the longer I spend at Caltech.</p>