I feel that my question may have been misunderstood. Our Retention Basic is about school retention. What I meant to ask was more along the lines of, when a college is trying to establish themselves, which would be more beneficial in the long run of the institution. Is it better to try and keep a larger quantity of students enrolled in the school by giving them a lesser quality of work (which appeals to the slackers), or would it be more benificial in the long run by maybe estabalishing a more challenged program which appeals to the more committed student. I have observed in the past two years that you will lose the slacker if the structure contains a little higher quality of study, and you will also lose the more committed student when the program has little or no challanging structure.
Good points, Lisa. Quality isn't necessarily tied to class size. Certainly a class can be too small, where there isn't enough energy to effectively deliver content. Similarly, classes can be so large as to make interaction very difficult. The nature of the class – lecture or lab – also is an important variable. In the final analysis, quality is a reflection of the person delivering the content.
Why would it be an assumption that the larger classes will have a lesser quality of education? Can't a smaller class also get a lesser quality, depending on your instructor. Regardless of what accreditation agency you are working with, your quality of education should remain the consistent. We have found that having a larger class leads to students becoming mentors for other students that say they "just don't get it". Mentors working with instructors as well as other students together make for a more educational system. We have had more interaction and class discussions with the larger groups due to a variety of opinions.
