You are here:

Size matters. The relevance and Hicksian surplus of preferred college class size
ARTICLE

,

Economics of Education Review Volume 30, Number 5, ISSN 0272-7757 Publisher: Elsevier Ltd

Abstract

The contribution of this paper is twofold. First, we examine the impact of class size on student evaluations of instructor performance using a sample of approximately 1400 economics classes held at the University of Munich from Fall 1998 to Summer 2007. We offer confirmatory evidence for the recent finding of a large, highly significant, and nonlinear negative impact of class size on student evaluations of instructor effectiveness that is robust to the inclusion of course and instructor fixed effects. Beyond that, we run a survey based on the contingent valuation method and a representative sample of all Munich students of management science to quantify the welfare surplus of preferred class size. We find the average monetary value students ascribe to their preferred class size to lie between 5 and 300 Euros per semester and student. In an upper bound scenario, implied Hicksian surpluses can reach values of close to 500 Euros per semester and student.

Citation

Mandel, P. & Süssmuth, B. (2011). Size matters. The relevance and Hicksian surplus of preferred college class size. Economics of Education Review, 30(5), 1073-1084. Elsevier Ltd. Retrieved March 20, 2023 from .

This record was imported from Economics of Education Review on March 1, 2019. Economics of Education Review is a publication of Elsevier.

Full text is availabe on Science Direct: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2011.05.011

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Andreoni, J. (1989). Giving with impure altruism: Applications to charity and Ricardian equivalence . Journal of Political Economy, 97, pp. 1447-1458.
  2. Arias, J.J., & Walker, D.M. (2004). Additional evidence on the relationship between class size and student performance . Journal of Economic Education, 35, pp. 311-329.
  3. Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P., Leamer, E., Radner, R., & Schuman, H. (1993). Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation . Federal Register, 58, pp. 4601-4614.
  4. Becker, W.E., & Powers, J.R. (2001). Student performance, attrition, and class size given missing student data . Economics of Education Review, 20, pp. 377-388.
  5. Becker, W.E., & Walstad, W.B. (1990). Data loss from pretest to posttest as a sample selection problem . Review of Economics and Statistics, 72, pp. 184-188.
  6. Bedard, K., & Kuhn, P. (2008). Where class size really matters: Class size and student ratings of instructor effectiveness . Economics of Education Review, 27, pp. 253-265.
  7. Carrell, S.E., & West, J.E. (2010). Does professor quality matter? Evidence from random assignment of students to professors . Journal of Political Economy, 118, pp. 409-432.
  8. Cohn, E., & Johnson, E. (2006). Class attendance and performance in principles of economics . Education Economics, 14, pp. 211-233.
  9. DeCanio, S.J. (1986). Student evaluations of teaching—A multinomial logit Approach . Journal of Economic Education, 17, pp. 165-175.
  10. Frey, B.S., & Neckermann, S. (2009). Awards: a view from economics . The economics of ethics and the ethics of economics Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar.
  11. Hamermesh, D.S., & Parker, A. (2005). Beauty in the classroom: instructors’ pulchritude and putative pedagogical productivity . Economics of Education Review, 24, pp. 369-376.
  12. Hanushek, E.A. (2003). The failure of input-based schooling policies . Economic Journal, 113, pp. F64-F98.
  13. Kahnemann, D., & Knetsch, J. (1992). Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction . Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 22, pp. 57-70.
  14. Kempkes, G., & Pohl, C. (2010). The efficiency of German universities—Some evidence from nonparametric and parametric methods . Applied Economics, 42, pp. 2063-2079.
  15. Kennedy, P.E., & Siegfried, J.J. (1997). Class size and achievement in introductory economics: Evidence from the TUCE III data . Economics of Education Review, 16, pp. 385-394.
  16. Kokkelenberg, E.C., Dillon, M., & Christy, S.M. (2008). The effects of class size on student grades at a public university . Economics of Education Review, 27, pp. 221-233.
  17. Krueger, A.B. (2003). Economic considerations and class size . Economic Journal, 113, pp. F34-F63.
  18. Kulik, J.A. (2001). Student ratings: Validity, utility, and controversy . New Directions for Institutional Research, 109, pp. 9-25.
  19. Lopus, J.S., & Maxwell, N.L. (1995). Should we teach microeconomics principles before macroeconomics principles? . Economic Inquiry, 33, pp. 336-350.
  20. McConnell, C.R., & Sosin, K. (1984). Some determinants of student attitudes toward large classes . Journal of Economic Education, 38, pp. 220-229.
  21. Nunes, P.A.L.D., & Schokkaert, E. (2003). Identifying the warm glow effect in contingent valuation . Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 45, pp. 231-245.
  22. Rothschild, M., & White, L.J. (1995). The analytics of the pricing of higher education and other services in which the customers are inputs . Journal of Political Economy, 103, pp. 573-586.
  23. Saunders, P. (1980). The lasting effect of introductory economics courses . Journal of Economic Education, 12, pp. 1-14.
  24. Schkade, D., & Payne, J. (1994). How people respond to contingent valuation questions: A verbal protocol analysis of willingness to pay for an environmental regulation . Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 26, pp. 88-109.
  25. Siegfried, J.J., & Kennedy, P.E. (1995). Does pedagogy vary with class size in introductory economics? . American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, 85, pp. 347-351.
  26. Siegfried, J.J., & Walstad, W.B. (1990). Research on teaching college economics . The principles of economics course: A handbook for instructors New York: McGraw-Hill.
  27. Süssmuth, B. (2006). Beauty in the classroom: Are German students less blinded? Putative pedagogical productivity due to professors’ pulchritude: Peculiar or pervasive? . Applied Economics, 38, pp. 231-238.
  28. Westerlund, J. (2008). Class size and student evaluations in Sweden . Education Economics, 16, pp. 19-28.
  29. Whitehead, J.C. (2006). A practitioner’s primer on contingent valuation . Handbook on contingent valuation Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References