I went to a Big Ten school in the 90s, which is so long ago it’s possible everything has changed. But FWIW, here was my own experience:

- Most of my classes had 100+ students, a few 300+. For classes like that, teachers tend to stick to the kinds of learning that can be tested on a multiple-choice test. Our student union sold notes to many of the biggest classes as an aid to students, and for those classes I learned early in that I could buy the notes, skip every class, and just show up to take tests. We never interacted directly with the professor outside of lectures — all interaction was with a TA.

- I did have a handful of small classes, in my major and through the Honors program. I loved them, learned a ton, and did have experiences like dinner at the professor’s house or Honors weekend retreats.

- There was no guidance in terms of academics or career. I didn’t know what I wanted to do with my life, and no one was going to help me figure that out. I graduated in 3 years because I started with a bunch of AP and language credits, and I learned that I would be graduating when I registered for my spring 3rd-year classes. Can’t remember how the message was worded, but the automated system basically told me to finish my degree requirements and get out. I had planned on 4 years, so this was a surprise! I’m sure I could have worked it out somehow, by adding a 2nd major or something, but I am not the type of person who knows how to work the system.

- Because I didn’t know what else to do with my life, I went to law school. Part of me regrets that I didn’t work harder to figure out something specific that suited me better. But it does raise the important point that undergrad is only undergrad. It’s only one part of a student’s learning experience, and the later degrees matter more in terms of jobs and connections.

- I got in everywhere I applied to law school, and I only applied to top-10 schools. A strong LSAT helped, but clearly law schools weren’t treating my state school as a negative factor. In terms of the coursework itself, I was prepared in terms of skills but didn’t have the mindset to work as hard as most of my peers. Can’t say whether that would have been different if I’d had an undergrad experience that valued learning more.

- Because the school was huge, different people had different experiences. Some were better at life planning and/or working the school network and had the kind of experience with much more access to professors. The professors themselves were generally top-notch. All these years later, I’m working on a research project in a different field and keep coming across groundbreaking studies by professors who I’d studied under, back in the day, in my major courses. I had no idea that they were a big deal.

- Everyone I knew had some sort of community develop, whether through an activity/club/sport, a part-time job, a religious group, or whatever. I sometimes felt “lost in the system” academically but never socially. And I’m as socially awkward and introverted as it gets. As a lifelong nerd, I actually think it was great for me to spend a few years at a “party school” learning to loosen up.

I’m not a fan of “this vs that” exercises — it’s just a question of what works for a particular student. For that matter, sometimes you don’t get your top choice and you make the most of whatever choice is open to you. (If I’ve learned anything from 10+ years of DCPS EOTP, it is that! But it also applies looking back on my own life too….)

Anonymous wrote:" I was able to take at least one seminar per semester, sometimes more, with no more than 15-20 students. I had fantastic advisors, who I still keep in touch with, and defended my undergraduate thesis before a panel of academics. I took an amazing class from the President of University (and former Dean of the law school), and he ended up writing my recommendation for law school."

What I find odd is that the people who argue the large schools are great learning environments will almost always point to the things that make them most like a small LAC.

Why doesn't anybody talk about the benefits and upsides of classes where you are one of 400 students? Nobody mentions the upside of being able to walk around campus without running into anybody you know all day. How about the wonders of sharing an off-campus apartment after freshman year because the school has a housing crunch? That can really bring down the price of room & board.

Regarding your statement: "What I find odd...."

I think that you miss the point being made about larger schools. The point is that larger schools offer a wide variety of options both academically & socially. If one prefers, he or she can make a large school small or can enjoy the breadth & depth of a large variety of options. Tough to make a small school large. Small schools are what they are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to Stanford where our class was about 1,300 if I recall correctly. I majored in Human Biology, which at that time was one of the most popular majors on campus. I think there were about 300 of us that graduated with that major. There were years when we all took the main core of the program together in the largest lecture halls on campus. We also took some required classes that overlapped with people doing other majors, such as calculus, chemistry, and statistics. All of those classes had well over 200 people each. I happened to have taken some oddball electives in things outside of my major like ethnic studies and women's studies and those classes had maybe 20 people in them. But the reality is that if you're in a popular major, you'll have large classes throughout your four years, even at the upper levels because everyone with that major needs to take those classes. There will be small sections connected to those large classes that are required and piggy back on the large lectures. These are "taught" by TAs who are grad students and are a mix of helpful and useless, even at a school like Stanford. Maybe at Michigan they break up classes like calculus that are normally taught as large lectures and have 20 PhD professors teach them to 10 kids at a time instead of doing it the usual way where there is 1 PhD prof who teaches the class with the help of 10 grad students. But I highly doubt it.

A computer science, biology, or mechanical engineering major is going to have huge classes throughout their 4 years if they're at a school with more than 1,300/class. Not sure why people are trying to pretend this isn't the case. If you major in music or philosophy, I'm sure that even at the largest schools you'll be in small classes. A TA-led section does not count as a "class" where you have only 15 fellow students since it's not actually a stand-alone class. That person gets paid peanuts to lead that section and is doing it to eat, not for their love of teaching.

I find this post hard to believe.

Stanford University reports that 12% of classes have 50 or more students, while 69% have fewer than 20 students.

Georgetown, Northwestern, U Chicago, and Dartmouth report that only 6% of classes have 50 or more students.

The University of California system schools have a lot of classes of 50 or more students (20% to 24%).

Anonymous wrote:I went to Stanford where our class was about 1,300 if I recall correctly. I majored in Human Biology, which at that time was one of the most popular majors on campus. I think there were about 300 of us that graduated with that major. There were years when we all took the main core of the program together in the largest lecture halls on campus. We also took some required classes that overlapped with people doing other majors, such as calculus, chemistry, and statistics. All of those classes had well over 200 people each. I happened to have taken some oddball electives in things outside of my major like ethnic studies and women's studies and those classes had maybe 20 people in them. But the reality is that if you're in a popular major, you'll have large classes throughout your four years, even at the upper levels because everyone with that major needs to take those classes. There will be small sections connected to those large classes that are required and piggy back on the large lectures. These are "taught" by TAs who are grad students and are a mix of helpful and useless, even at a school like Stanford. Maybe at Michigan they break up classes like calculus that are normally taught as large lectures and have 20 PhD professors teach them to 10 kids at a time instead of doing it the usual way where there is 1 PhD prof who teaches the class with the help of 10 grad students. But I highly doubt it.

A computer science, biology, or mechanical engineering major is going to have huge classes throughout their 4 years if they're at a school with more than 1,300/class. Not sure why people are trying to pretend this isn't the case. If you major in music or philosophy, I'm sure that even at the largest schools you'll be in small classes. A TA-led section does not count as a "class" where you have only 15 fellow students since it's not actually a stand-alone class. That person gets paid peanuts to lead that section and is doing it to eat, not for their love of teaching.

I find this post hard to believe.

Anonymous wrote:Why doesn't anybody talk about the benefits and upsides of classes where you are one of 400 students? Nobody mentions the upside of being able to walk around campus without running into anybody you know all day. How about the wonders of sharing an off-campus apartment after freshman year because the school has a housing crunch? That can really bring down the price of room & board.

I don't know if you're being facetious, but I never understood the appeal of living in on-campus housing after your freshman year. Do people really want the university and RA's looking over their shoulders any more than absolutely necessary? The son of a friend of ours was in university housing as a sophomore briefly during fall of 2020, and bailed out to live with friends first chance he got to get away from mandatory covid testing and other restrictions.

Anonymous wrote:" I was able to take at least one seminar per semester, sometimes more, with no more than 15-20 students. I had fantastic advisors, who I still keep in touch with, and defended my undergraduate thesis before a panel of academics. I took an amazing class from the President of University (and former Dean of the law school), and he ended up writing my recommendation for law school."

What I find odd is that the people who argue the large schools are great learning environments will almost always point to the things that make them most like a small LAC.

Why doesn't anybody talk about the benefits and upsides of classes where you are one of 400 students? Nobody mentions the upside of being able to walk around campus without running into anybody you know all day. How about the wonders of sharing an off-campus apartment after freshman year because the school has a housing crunch? That can really bring down the price of room & board.

I'm the PP you are quoting and you are missing the point. At a large school, for motivated, self-directed students, you get the best of both worlds. Small, LAC-type classes along with world-class research opportunities, tons of majors/areas of study, enormous catalog of courses, fun atmosphere. I really liked living off-campus with the friends, in our own house -- some of the best memories in my life were times spent in that house! It's also a good preparation for life in the real world, cooking and cleaning for yourself.

I do take your point that at a big school you can run into someone at a coffee shop or a party and then never see them again. Though my guess is that with social media that is much less of an issue than it was in my day.

And to be clear, I am not at all knocking LACs and can see how they provide the right environment for certain kids. But I do take issue with the title of this thread, calling into question whether the quality of the learning at a big state school is on par with a LAC. OP's original question stated, "Or is it more like watching good Ted talks and then handing something in (and then getting an A because most of the kids are in staters producing high school level work)." That is obnoxiously off-base.

" I was able to take at least one seminar per semester, sometimes more, with no more than 15-20 students. I had fantastic advisors, who I still keep in touch with, and defended my undergraduate thesis before a panel of academics. I took an amazing class from the President of University (and former Dean of the law school), and he ended up writing my recommendation for law school."

What I find odd is that the people who argue the large schools are great learning environments will almost always point to the things that make them most like a small LAC.

Why doesn't anybody talk about the benefits and upsides of classes where you are one of 400 students? Nobody mentions the upside of being able to walk around campus without running into anybody you know all day. How about the wonders of sharing an off-campus apartment after freshman year because the school has a housing crunch? That can really bring down the price of room & board.

I went to Stanford where our class was about 1,300 if I recall correctly. I majored in Human Biology, which at that time was one of the most popular majors on campus. I think there were about 300 of us that graduated with that major. There were years when we all took the main core of the program together in the largest lecture halls on campus. We also took some required classes that overlapped with people doing other majors, such as calculus, chemistry, and statistics. All of those classes had well over 200 people each. I happened to have taken some oddball electives in things outside of my major like ethnic studies and women's studies and those classes had maybe 20 people in them. But the reality is that if you're in a popular major, you'll have large classes throughout your four years, even at the upper levels because everyone with that major needs to take those classes. There will be small sections connected to those large classes that are required and piggy back on the large lectures. These are "taught" by TAs who are grad students and are a mix of helpful and useless, even at a school like Stanford. Maybe at Michigan they break up classes like calculus that are normally taught as large lectures and have 20 PhD professors teach them to 10 kids at a time instead of doing it the usual way where there is 1 PhD prof who teaches the class with the help of 10 grad students. But I highly doubt it.

A computer science, biology, or mechanical engineering major is going to have huge classes throughout their 4 years if they're at a school with more than 1,300/class. Not sure why people are trying to pretend this isn't the case. If you major in music or philosophy, I'm sure that even at the largest schools you'll be in small classes. A TA-led section does not count as a "class" where you have only 15 fellow students since it's not actually a stand-alone class. That person gets paid peanuts to lead that section and is doing it to eat, not for their love of teaching.

Prof here. I've taught at both mid-sized private universities and public universities. In both places, I taught a mix of very large (150+ students) and medium sized (30-40 students) class. I taught the same way in both places. Because of the nature of the students, I'd say the discussions were better and I pushed the students a bit more at the private. But the class format, reading assignments and testing was about the same.

Anonymous wrote:

THIS!

Seriously. I guess it's a school of thought that not everyone wants to join. But isn't an ideal college environment supposed to prepare one for life in the global economy or at least the national one? I'm from Texas and had zero interest in going to Austin to be with tens of thousands of other Texan when the whole wide world was out there waiting to be explored.

Plenty of people have no particular interest in moving abroad or even moving out of their home state. Especially a state like Texas, where there are a lot of economic opportunities for U of Texas grads, and plenty of good places to live.

Anonymous wrote:The huge classes people worry about teach basic, introductory concepts. At a big school, by the time a student is in the major and taking higher level classes in junior/senior year, the classes are smaller and more personal because they are taught by professor researching in the topic. In contrast, a small liberal art school has relatively small departments with a couple of profs teaching every class.

Very true.

(I know one small LAC in Maine where 5 econ profs--including the dept. head--unexpectedly left. Look at the LAC's website and they list about 20 econ profs for a student population of just over 1,800 students. Of course, this is inaccurate & a way to cover-up that almost the entire ACTIVE econ dept. left.)

For those who do not want large intro classes at a large state university,apply for the honors college. Most intro classes are limited to 25 students & all are taught by full professors.

Also agree that the limited number of profs in each dept at LACs limits student options.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"If one is in an honors college at a "big state school", the opportunities are incredible.

For those who think attending an SLAC or an LAC is a superior educational experience than attending a larger school--whether public or private, you are out-of-touch with the current reality of higher education."

You're going to say that a giant school can offer what a SLAC can for people in the honors college but not acknowledge that maybe 2% of the entire school gets to be in that program? Really?

Went to the Big State U with honors. Honors college is just for the parents brag. Most drop out. Early scheduling is nice but eventually the juice is not worth the squeeze.

Name the school or it didn't happen.

Anonymous wrote:My first two years were huge classes---the 300 seat seminar type stuff.

The smaller classes were taught by Teaching Assistants, not professors (labs and cores like calc, etc).

The last two years were finally normal sized.

I liked the big school because I wanted anonymity, but I really hope my kids go to smaller schools. The partying and atmosphere of large schools I feel has gotten much worse too.

Please name the school.

Anonymous wrote:My first two years were huge classes---the 300 seat seminar type stuff.

The smaller classes were taught by Teaching Assistants, not professors (labs and cores like calc, etc).

The last two years were finally normal sized.

I liked the big school because I wanted anonymity, but I really hope my kids go to smaller schools. The partying and atmosphere of large schools I feel has gotten much worse too.

My kid is at a school ranked in T40 with only 6K undergrads. A few classes might be 100-200 students (think large stem classes like Bio101/chem101/calc 1, chem and bio might be 250) but they have discussion sections with 12 students for 90 mins each week as well as labs. Those extremely small discussion sections allow students to get the 1-1 attention to understand material. But outside of those freshman stem courses, classes are 20-40 students for everything else. My kids have all found that really helpful.

My first two years were huge classes---the 300 seat seminar type stuff.

The smaller classes were taught by Teaching Assistants, not professors (labs and cores like calc, etc).

The last two years were finally normal sized.

I liked the big school because I wanted anonymity, but I really hope my kids go to smaller schools. The partying and atmosphere of large schools I feel has gotten much worse too.