Originally Posted by Zoraster

1. Communication. Due to the way squads work in a pub game, having just 3 or 4 in a squad limits the amount of communication that's going on. It makes coordinating an attack more difficult. If we had SL-to-SL communication, this wouldn't be true, but as it stands it certainly is.

This is an interesting point. I think you are right in this regard except in two circumstances.
1) An outstanding commander who is effectively implementing strategies for multiple smaller squads and communicating his needs well
2) Extra communication means such as Teamspeak to coordinate between squads

Sadly neither is common, so for public play the larger squad will typically have better communication than two smaller squads.

2. It requires just one good squad leader. Good squad leaders are in somewhat short supply. I know that I'd prefer to have my team have 50% of my squads led by superior squad leaders rather than reduce that number down to 25%.

This is a great thought also. Now we're talking more on an applied level than theoretical, but that had to start at some point Good Sls are hard to find, and this is a strong factor in favor of larger squads.

3. Squad cohesion. I disagree that smaller squads are better for cohesion. I think this perception may just be that typically if you have a squad of 3 or 4, you don't have any "pubbies" in your squad.

I'm not sure I agree with this one. I mean no matter how good the people are there is always going to be someone who wanders out of position at some point. With a smaller squad it is just easier for a SL to notice and to reign them in. That's my opinion anyway

4. Linearity of the maps. The majority of maps that are played now are pretty linear in design. It's true that you can do things to try and move laterally or get around the line, flank, etc. but by and large the way the maps are set up, they funnel toward choke points and having 8 squads rather than 4 doesn't really lead to any improvement.

This is a very, very excellent point. I hadn't really considered map shape when thinking about this, but it does have the potential to bear a big impact. With narrow maps flanking becomes reduced or eliminated. A larger squad has a great capacity to punch through the enemy lines through brute force.

5. Marshalling pubbies. It's not necessarily true that forming smaller squads won't allow pubbies to get into good squads, but I think it'll limit their exposure to the best squad leaders. And from a team perspective, making sure that pubs get used effectively really can make a difference.

This is largely a rehash of #2, but it doesn't make it any less true the second time around

Also, I think as a squad leader, smaller squads can be more fun. There's a sense of versatility that you have when you're in a smaller squad. I know when I lead a 6 man squad, even though doing something like taking statue is boring, i know if I don't use my 6 person squad to do that, my team is going to hurt. There's not as much of this feeling with a 3 person squad. You're more free to do things that possibly aren't essential for the team, but are more fun and varied. Additionally, as noted above, I think smaller squads for the best squad leaders mean fewer people who aren't going to work really well with them. Not having to herd sheep can be a lot more fun.

They certainly can be more fun. I think for multiple smaller squads to be used effectively you need two things:
1) Enough good quality SLers
2) A commander skilled enough to handle the increased number of squads and coordinate their actions well.

Given how infrequently we get either of those, the majority of time in conquest play larger is probably better.