<p>
</p>
<p>No doubt this instructional model (big lectures with TA-led sections) can deliver challenging problem sets and multiple choice exams. On the other hand, how likely is a student in one of these classes to write 5-, 10-, or 20-page papers that are graded by the professor and returned with thoughtful comments (perhaps with a “see me” instruction at the top)? A good liberal education is not only about learning to come up with the one correct answer from several possibilities. It’s also about learning to express and criticize perspectives on hard problems that may not have one correct answer. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>True, but compare the percentages of large classes. At Harvard, less than 7% of classes have 50 or more students. At Chicago, less than 6% do. At Columbia, less than 5% have 50 or more. Michigan, Wisconsin, and Texas? More than 18%, more than 19%, and more than 26%, respectively. “50 or more” often means hundreds, and those huge classes will tend to be concentrated in popular majors or in required prerequisites. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There may be some element of truth to this, but note also that some LACs have a pretty good track record for educating scientists. From 2007-2011, according to NSF data, more Carleton College alumni earned PhDs in earth sciences than the alumni of any other college or university. That’s in absolute numbers, not percentages. Tiny Colorado College produced more PhDs in earth sciences (again, in absolute numbers) than Harvard, Cornell, or Penn State, and as many as Michigan. In percentages, Reed College, with ~1400 students, has probably been more productive of science PhDs than any other institution, with the possible exceptions of MIT, Caltech, and Harvey Mudd (another LAC). </p>