I think you could only have 1 or 2 participants and still have a “critical mass of participants”. Stanford EA only has two participants in each of their cohorts, and there’s reason to think that these ultra-small cohort sizes can help participants become more engaged.
Small cohort size seems costly from a facilitator’s point of view. And some participants found smaller group sizes more intimidating too.
EA VP has been increasing their cohort sizes recently. Attrition rates are at around 30% so having a cohort size of at least 4 participants by the end of program seems like a good number to have.
I’m curious what the attrition rates are for the Stanford EA format, and how they’re able to get so many facilitators.
I think you could only have 1 or 2 participants and still have a “critical mass of participants”. Stanford EA only has two participants in each of their cohorts, and there’s reason to think that these ultra-small cohort sizes can help participants become more engaged.
Small cohort size seems costly from a facilitator’s point of view. And some participants found smaller group sizes more intimidating too.
EA VP has been increasing their cohort sizes recently. Attrition rates are at around 30% so having a cohort size of at least 4 participants by the end of program seems like a good number to have.
I’m curious what the attrition rates are for the Stanford EA format, and how they’re able to get so many facilitators.