Inside Higher Ed has a good piece by Kevin Carey. His point is that colleges and universities, and most higher-ed commentators, simply assume that small classes taught by tenured professors are ideal. Carey writes, “when it comes to the central enterprise of higher education — teaching students — we don’t know if the reigning professional qualification system works, or how many professors we actually need.”

And further: “I’ll wager dollars to donuts that any well-designed study of the relative effectiveness of full-time vs. part-time instructors would find far more variation within those populations than between them.”

I agree with Carey, but doubt that this question lends itself to empirical analysis for the reason he just mentioned — human variability. Thinking back on my years in college and law school, I had some big course sections where direct contact with the professor was pretty much out of the question, but were nevertheless fine learning experiences; I also had some small classes where a hand-full of students clustered around the prof, but which were painfully dull. Whether or not a class is educationally worthwhile doesn’t depend on the credentials or employment status of the instructor. Nor does it depend on the number of students.

The things that do matter are intangible and aren’t subject to quantification, it seems to me.