Caltech class sizes and the "Rule of 150"

[InquilineKea]

<p>

SilvaRua asked whether the “Rule of 150” (in particular, that precise number) has much relevance in actual social science research. You are right that the answer is no. Gladwell is cheerleading – that’s his job. The faux precision colorfully raises the hope that laws governing large-scale social interactions might be akin to laws of physics (with precise constants!), although of course the real statements in this science of social interaction would probably not include the number 150.</p>

<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>Interesting points as always. :)</p>

<p>

something like “The World is Flat” being one of the absolute worst.

</p>

<p>Why do you think “The World is Flat” is one of the absolute worst books? While it’s not based on social science research, I still think that its hypotheses are thought-provoking, to say the least. </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>I think the only interesting conclusion would be drawn if there was a comparison made between a 100-member house and a house with over 150 members. Since no arrangement exists, and there seems not to be a reason to motivate such an arrangement, it’s impossible to really draw any conclusions from the specific number of 150, apart from the already well-known observation that # of people correlates inversely with in-group intimacy. The point of such hypotheses, anyhow, is not to draw any rigorous conclusions, but to more or less encourage the reader to be more aware of how significant group sizes can be in social interaction.</p>