Washington Post:
In an era when college students commonly take longer than four years to get a bachelor's degree, some U.S. schools are looking anew at an old idea: slicing a year off their undergraduate programs to save families time and money.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
College has become an unaffordable luxury.
How about just lowering the cost of tuition? Or does that make too much sense?
at most state universities in the U.S., tuition does not cover the cost of operations; tuition is subsidized with direct allocations from the state legislatures. So lowering tuition at most state universities would require increased allocations from state legislatures, if the level of services is to remain the same. Of course, colleges could reduce the number of programs they offer, thereby limiting educational opportunities for students. It's not a situation where lowering tuition will help make education better.
US colleges and employers need to sit down and figure it all out because both are taking advantage of the current crop of student.
The latest summer job "rip-off" is that many of the nations top corporations, including all of the major media companies, are telling students that they will not pay them for their labors but they will give them college credit. The problem with this is: 1) kids need money, especially if they have to move to a major city for the summer for the position and 2) many of the top colleges and universities will not grant college credit for internships because they can't manage the quality of the experience and it denies them tuition for a course. Many of this nation's best and most hard working students did not get the type of summer jobs they needed to build the kind of resumes that companies now require for first jobs out of college.
Further colleges are not doing all they can to support kids on the way out. They put a ton of money into getting them into the institution but after four years of tuition, room and board leave these same kids poorer and without any job prospects. Placement offices are a joke. Liberal Arts colleges time to get real and help students and graduates or this type of education will go the way of the dinosaur.
This is ridiculous. There is only one reason why three-year degrees are being considered. Many American high school students are functionally illiterate in not only English but also Math.
you are correct to assert that many U.S. high school students are illiterate and innumerate, but that has little to do with 3-year degree programs. Colleges are not longer places of deep thought; they are places where degrees are sold. This is largely because colleges now hire business people as presidents and chancellors - they don't hire scholars to run colleges anymore. The college experience is merely a commodity to be purchased by consumers. It's a shame, IMHO.
There are already in place several options for college students to shorten their degree programs, chiefly the AP (advanced placement) and International Baccalaureate programs. If a high school student has enough AP classes, AND scores high enough on the AP tests, many colleges will give full credit for the college equivalent classes. Both my youngest two could have graduated in three years because of taking and passing the AP units in history, English, physics, chemistry, calculus, and biology.
What we really need in the US is a return to a robust TWO-year Associates' degree program, especially in the trades. Carpenters, plumbers, electricians, machinists, and electronics repairpersons are in short supply, as well as med tech personnel. More two-year programs would help considerably, as would support for them via high school counselors and government moneys. We had it, and then shut it down in favor of making everyone a doctor, lawyer or Indian chief. And now we're in serious trouble; we have high unemployment, but no one to fill the kinds of jobs we need most. It's ridiculous.
Just what America needs - less educated graduates.
Eliminating a handful of basket weaving 101 courses will not make you less educated,but allows you to focus more on what you are majoring in.
The idea is to create broader thinkers who are more equipped to tackle problems in an ever changing world. Besides how many 18 year olds really know what they want to do with their lives. It often takes more than four years to figure that out.
The myth of the " University as Centre of Higher Education",
vs.
the reality of the "University as Money Collecting Machine"
' Memoirs of a Superfluous Man', anyone???
--
Considering how uneducated the average american is, and how illiterate our college graduates are, why not just give college degrees to anyone who manages to make it to 8th grade?
The US is declining rapidly anyway, and our inability to educate our youth is the primary reason.
Why stop at three years? We could go all the way to the sub-prime education. A SPBA.
Why not beef up K-12 and really devalue college?
Education in America is just a holding tank for the labor force. As the population increases and the economy decreases, we need to keep more people out of the work force and have them pay for the privilege at the same time.
Ain't class centered capitalism great!!??
Any more short cuts and this country will be so far behind the industrial nations that we'll never catch up. Already the so called "AP classes in high school free the college level of their counterparts and students have much "waived" before they even enter college. The "3 year plan" in college looks like the teaching for testing that exists in states like Florida (FCAT) and we all know where Florida ranks in the 50 states. Sounds like a bad idea.
This proposal makes no sense at all, because any student who wants to earn a BA in 3 years can already do so by taking summer and January session classes. There is no such thing as a 4 year degree, only a Bachelor's degree with a certain number of credits. You can earn this degree in 3 years, 4 years, 5 or 6 years. The real way to make college less expensive and more consumer-friendly would be for schools to be more flexible about taking transfer credits (Harvard may not offer summer classes, but a student's local community college will). Also, parents and students need to be more savvy consumers. Of course the college isn't going to advertise that you can graduate in less than 4 years, because they want 4 years of your money. I graduated in 3 1/2 years with a BA and I only found out you could do this from another student who told me about it. Most importantly, students and parents should see college as prepartion for a career, not a 4+ year partying vacation. Once you're in the "career prep" mindset, you'll be ready to make the most of your time and education.
As you said, degrees are determined by hours of coursework, not years of attendance. If you graduate in 3 years, you have still paid tuition for 120-124 hours (minimum) coursework. True, the university may lose some income from students who resided on campus for 4 years, but for the most part, they do not lose revenue when students graduate in 3 years as opposed to 4 - they've paid the same amount for tuition and fees regardless. As many students move off campus at some point, colleges do not lose revenue from housing.
Exactly. Degrees are earned on the basis of credit hours earned not time sitting at a desk. My big concern is that if Universities indeed do offer three year degrees does that mean they will eliminate courses to achieve this end? For me, four years in my major was not enough education and I had to complete a Masters Degree in my field to even think about securing a decent paying job let alone gain the necessary knowledge to practice in my field/major.
I live in a university town and I teach HS students. This article places the blame for extended college experiences on tuition costs and implies degree programs require too many courses for students to complete their degree in 4 years. However, it ignores something I have see in a very large majority of HS students - they graduate without requisite academic skills for college study. As a consequence, they must take remedial courses in college in order to meet pre-requisites for their major courses. This impedes their ability to finish in 4 years more than anything else. I also see many students who opt to work in order to support relatively lavish lifestyles (many students insist on living in expensive apartments in my town rather than more affordable university housing; they own large screen tvs, expensive video game systems, have very high cell phone bills (often $100's of dollars per month!)...I could go on and on). Also, the university in my town (and all other state u's in my state) are required to publish an '8-semester plan' - an ideal schedule showing how a student can complete all course requirements in 4 years. The problem is not simply tuition, as my state u is quite reasonable in that regard. It is also 'cultural' among many students.
Perhaps to chop down the first two years of excessive requirements outside of your major...
I would agree if one could prove that they indeed have the basic skills and knowledge required to waive the first two years pre-requisite courses.
British university degree programs are three years; they require students to specialize early and they lack the broad liberal arts curriculum that forms the basis of the first two years of study at American universities. A well-educated person needs to know more than a single major area.
Moreover, turning universities into "a way to ensure economic competitiveness and continued economic growth," in Derek Bok's phrase, is antithetical to the value of education for its own sake and to producing a citizenry knowledgeable about the world's history and cultures, arts and sciences. To reduce education to an economic purpose would represent the ultimate vulgarization and sacrifice of our society to capitalism.
We are already a semi-literate society at best. Just peruse any blog site if you have any doubt of that. The comments demonstrate the inability of an ill-educated citizenry to engage in rational debate of issues that affect the governance of our country and course of events in the world. Ignorance is dangerous. Reducing higher education to an exercise designed solely or primarily "to ensure economic competitiveness" is a form of national suicide.
It may be that the British system provides the liberal arts curriculum, which is the equivalent of the first year of US college, prior to entering a university. There should be no problem incorporating the equivalence of one year of college in four years of high school in the United States.
What planet do you live on? Norway?
As a high school teacher with experience in teaching both AP courses and the lowest underachievers, it is clear that "just adding another year," no problemo, would not have a snowballs' chance in hell of succeeding.
Many of our students do not gain basic skills in five or six years as it is.
I am an American that went to a British 3 year program. I know more about liberal arts than many of my friends that went for 4 years, and less than other that went for 4 years. Why? Interest in the world... You can't force people to learn everything. Most of it as to be done on your own.
I also am a successful small business owner, and got far better training in my field than any American grad I know that studied my subject.
Sorry, but you are very wrong here.
The average Englsih grad is far better at world events, math, english, etc. Need I go on?
Need a better public system in high school or even earlier...
My comment was not meant to imply that British folks with B.A.s know less than Americans with B.A.s, but merely that Americans with 3-year B.A.s are certainly going to know less. As several commenters have pointed out, the American high school curriculum is NOT a broad ranging liberal arts program. I have taught rhetoric in American colleges, and legal research and writing in law school. Believe me that large numbers of high school graduates are functionally illiterate, and many college graduates are unable to think analytically, construct an argument, or express themselves in writing clearly or even grammatically.
Its not the length of schooling thats the problem, its the educational structure which i am convinced is frigged that way to dumb down the population. Three years will only produce a dumber population than already is. Can you imagine the likes of other G.W.B out there finishing college in 3 yrs, In my opinion if anything, the US, should increase undergrad to six years, especially for science majors. You just cant master a major in such short time, especially if its just going to be crammed. I remember how impossible it was in undergrad to nail those science courses and master them well enough to take the MCAT, "there just was not enough time" as my professors would always say. If anything, med school should be 3 years, 1 yr of book work, 2 of practicals, but thats a different story.
I agree, in principle. I think that degrees in the sciuences and certain professions should be as long as they need to be, as detrmined by real educators and leaders in the various fileds. Having said that, I also believe that college-as-social-experiment is a waste of time and oney, and needn't be four years long to get a degree in... say phys. ed. (no offense to phys. ed. grads & majors). You don't need to go to college to learn how that getting wasted every Saturday night, is a bad idea.
That would be "sciences", "determined", "fields", and "money"
(perhaps a degree in Proofreading might not be a bad idea, either)
Loading comments…
First Posted: 05-23-09 01:03 PM | Updated: 05-23-09 01:12 PM