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
About time. The price and stress of pre-major liberal arts curricula have derailed and delayed the educations of many of my friends. I can't count the number of people I've watched sink into depression as they pay out thousands, take on massive debts, work lousy jobs, and despite piles of credit hours haven't even started to take the courses that were the reason they went to college in the first place. It is a massive drain of energy and money, and you find yourself in a mammoth hole by the time you finish all the two-year prerequisites. Liberal Arts are great for people who don't want to grow up and don't know what they want to study, but for the smart kids, it's torture.
BS (no pun intended) . Smart kids are the critical thinkers who can handle history, foreign language, literature, philosophy, etc. They also understand the value. If they were so smart, why didn't they take and pass AP tests to get those basic classes out of the way?
Maybe they went to schools too small to offer them?
Spoken like a true philistine.
Did your liberal arts education equip you to understand that comment?
Yes. The person you don't know whose post you half-read on the internet is a philistine because his opinions on education don't match your opinions....which you didn't bother to express, regardless of whether you're "equipped" to. (I hate that phrasing, by the way. "Equipped to understand." May Ovid smite thee.)
I don't think that people who actually love learning should be told what they have to learn and when they have to learn it. I think they should be encouraged to study what interests them, that they get more out of a class because they want to take it. Liberal Arts treats everyone like an idiot and herds them all through the same streamlined, watered-down general introductions, so that the students who are actually interested in the material feel just as frustrated as the ones who are taking it because they have to.
Also, a lot of people are mirroring my concerns about the money problem, but I guess they're all philistines too. And I have seen lots of smart, talented people burn out on the preliminary requirements. I guess expressing concern over my friends' failures also makes me a philistine.
Unless they're with a fraternity/sorority, serious students have a lot less recreational free time than the popular myth envisions. Most low-to-middle income students have to work at least one job to supplement the inadequate student loans/grants/scholarships available now.
Some majors just don't need four years of study either. Although I'm willing to bet practically every department will insist on it for fear of losing money or "prestige."
HUH? You can do this now. Just attend throughout the summer and get it done, but many students want to just go back home and party all summer. Also, many B.S. degrees are now requiring 5 years in order that M.S. become the basic graduating degrees.
http://eye-on-washington.blogspot.com
Maybe you partied your summers away, but I had to work my tail off every summer so that I could afford to eat during the school year. Most of my friends did, too. I get really tired of you people who think that college is some sort of party experience. If you want to get a good degree that will serve you for the rest of your life, you have to work very hard.
I think you misunderstood what Jerrypl was saying. He was saying, instead of going home to party for the summer, the students should attend summer school to finish sooner. He wasn't saying he partied.
What do you do as in some Universities/Colleges where certain courses that may be necessary to get your degree major in are very difficult to get into, forcing one to stay in school longer to take them?
Three year programs may be a very good alternative for commuting students (they could go to school and work part-time year round), those who are older, perhaps those that have served in the Military for several years, not into the social scene due to their ethic or religious backgrounds.
I hope they put an asterisk or something on these bogus three year degrees so that people don't think that they actually represent a real degree.
Why would a three-year degree be any more "bogus" than four years?
Instead of attending a class two or three times a week, you'd go daily or every other day -- the same amount of class time in fewer years. Some colleges in the U.S. are on the quarter systems right now -- a change of daily classes every three months.
ergo, they are going to charge 4 years of tuition in 3 years.
As an employee, we should only work 4 days but get paid the same. Think of the billions of dollars in Utility charges that American business would save and would pass unto the American consumer.
Why should you get paid the same for four days of work, unless you're being just as productive as five days? I mean, if you could do the same amount of work in one day that you do in five days, then you (theoretically) should make the same.
Many high school students enter college freshman year having completed 100 level courses in high school. Calculus 1,2, Statistics (non scientific), Chemistry, Linear Algebra, Differential Equations, foreign languages and many others. These young people move directly into sophomore level work their first semester, having received 18 to 22 credits for advanced work in high school. They can, if they wish, already graduate in three years. Further, others have no problem carrying 18-20 credit hours per term and prefer attending 2 terms of summer classes and intersession classes for credits. It truly depends on what one is there for, both in terms of the degree sought, and social experience.
And on the cost benefit side, if you are paying $20-50Gs a year, and borrowing to boot, maybe a little more work, and a little less partying is worth it.
It was not all that long ago that colleges expected students to take most of those classes in high school.
There are a lot of schools in this country where 4 years of solid hard work are necessary to get a degree, and that includes getting credit for AP classes in high school.
We should be talking about giving our young students more education, not less, so they have a fighting chance to compete for a job in the new global economy.
There are may high schools where these AP courses are not offered, today. Further, too few students take them where they are available or they are poorly taught. College professors consistently remark that high school students are vastly unprepared for college level course work. Year one is learning all about that and playing catch up-grow up. I am for more education, like Algebra 1 in 6th grade, Geometry in 7th etc. The problem is not in 3 years of college level work for (some) degrees, it is in the holding tank attitude of "middle school" and "baby food" attitude of high school where America's problem lies. And a fighting chance in the new global economy will not be made with students spending every Friday night driving the porcelain bus.
Quantity does not necessarily equal quality.
Some engineering degrees are impossible to squeeze into a 4-year college education. After 4 years of architecture training, you are qualified to sharpen pencils. Where are people going to get an education if college boots you out after 3?
Architecture (in the OLD days) was a 5 or 6 year dedicated program, partially because it entailed engineering as well. I have noticed that many schools now call the first 4 years pre-architecture, and an additional up or out 2-3 years for the architecture degree (like medicine). I have not researched at what point colleges weed out the math challenged individuals, but it seems that the recognition is that most kids who think they want to be in this field change their mind.
I am finishing college in 3 years. If you go through summer.. it is the equivalent of going 4 years and its not any cheaper, so I don't really understand that part. I also took college courses during 2 years of High School, however, I've accumulated enough credits to graduate without those credits. Anyways, it made a lot more sense. I took English and Government and such at a University during my last 2 years of High School, and those credits counted towards both HS and College, so I didn't have to take that stuff twice. I didn't feel as if my education was worsened at all and still feel like I've received a very well rounded college experience. I don't really get why this article is making this seem like a "new thing". From what I have seen, colleges simple have a credit hour requirement and general ed. requirements. Fitting all of that into 3 years is up to the student, and is very doable if you go through summer. And by going through summer, your loans are sitting around for less time.
Just extend high school to 13th Grade for the equivalent of a free freshman year.
Then a two-year associate degree becomes the equivalent of a bachelor's degree.
They make far more money off of college tuition than they would an extra year of high school. College has become a business in this country, too often it's all about profits.
In some cases that is sadly true. Buyer beware!
Oh God. No. Just no. I HATED high school, and I wouldn't wish a fifth year of it on anyone.
I was taught at a very early age to endure school because you are a grown up for a lot longer than you are a kid. If enduring 4 more years of school after high school gets you a leg up in the job market for the rest of your life, it's well worth it.
man I wish they have vocational school for Lawyers. I'm good at undergrad, I'm a sophmore/junior after my first year with a 4.0, but it is an absoulte waste of time. I find Greek Civilziation and Mythology interesting but utterly worthless for becoming a lawyer, but I have to waste 3-4 years of my life in undergrad to become a lawyer.
Because developing sophisticated critical thinking skills is -such- a waste when one's goal is to become an attorney.
In Rep/Dem's defense, he won't learn critical thinking skills from that stuff because he's not interested in it (sorry if Rep/Dem is female!). Rep/Dem would be better off learning those skills from something he/she is interested in.
Condi Rice has a PhD & George W. Bush has a Harvard MBA. Such brilliant critical thinking skills they showed in the last 8 years. Anything you learn in university can be easily acquired in a public library, surfing the web, or by watching TV.
The golden age of Greece produced critical thinking with studies in the field of philosophy such as Logic and Ethics which I would think most lawyers would wish to learn and not see as wasted time in class.
That golden age wasn't available to every Greek. You don't really believe that the teeming masses got Logic and Ethics classes do you? Women certainly didn't either.
Your abundant incuriosity will forever condemn you to mediocrity in whatever field you choose. You may be intelligent, but you are not wise.
Well, you don't know that. Just because a person is not interested in mythology NOW does not mean that are not curious, nor does it mean that they won't be interested in it at some point later on.
Makes ya wonder what's in store for us. Whenever a ridiculous idea like this comes up, I have to ask myself, Why? What's coming down the pike for TPTB to make this determination now? Like the bankruptcy law years back. Eminent domain laws years back. And let me guess, the courses skipped for the fast trackers will be in critical thinking.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste...
"Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"—G.W. Bush, Florence, S.C., Jan. 11, 2000
Maybe harder workers and less alcoholics? When did you last walk a campus?
This afternoon. There was no drinking. You're thinking AZ... my friend.
3 months would make even more sense. University is the biggest waste of time & money. People shouldn't waste the best years of their lives on it.
education is never a waste of time and money. Only idiots would say education is a waste. Keep this mentality up this country will be left behind in years to come save for the foreign students who come here to study.
Whether you want the education or not, it's a very worthwhile experience. The education doesn't come from just the classroom.
If you take advantage of your universities offerings, your best years of your life will follow.
Doing away with tenure would save billions.
Doing away with useless departments and silly GDRs would save the billions.
Spoken like someone who doesn't value teachers. Universities have been cutting back on tenured positions for close to 3 decades now. The result is a faculty in constant flux, offering little or not continuity to the student. Another byproduct is the lack of job security for teachers. When your kids go to college, you want them to have full-time teachers, not people who dabble in teaching.
Wouldn't you rather have someone who's an expert in his or her field? I would.
As I stated in another post, I took my general courses in the Dallas County Community College system, at $117 for a 3-hr course, which saved a ton of money (vs. $1200 or more at the local universities here in Dallas). I then transfered to a university. What I found were more foreign students doing the same thing. My classes had more African, Asian, and Middle-Eastern students than American students. I would ask these students why they chose community college instead of a university and they all said they were transferring their courses to universities because it saved them a lot of money. I have encountered quite a few Americans who "turn up their noses" at community college education. So, for purposes of bragging, they want their child to attend a university (it's even worse when it's a school with a "prestigious" name). And, at the end of the day, many of those parents are the ones whose children end up stuck with a mountain of student loan debt after they graduate.
Two year techs are an even better deal---if they even still exist
I did the same. I paid for two years at a community college out of pocket because it was affordable and then I transferred to a University and started my GI bill and was able to get my BA and went through graduate school with my GI bill.
Ah, the ultra consequential debate about the meaning of a college degree! Here we go again...... OK here are some thoughts:
1) College has become, for the vast majority of students, nothing more than a training ground to become nice little workers in corporate America. In a sense many students would skip the "total college experience" if they could fast-track out of everything not having to do with their degree (engineering, business, etc.). OK, this is fine, extract this type of schooling and call it what it is: vocational training.
2) Students wishing to receive a full college education: i.e. the traditional education that stimulates the mind, rounds out students and actually prepares them for the real world....then they should receive a BS or a BA.
3) Don't confuse the two. #1 is for all intents and purposes a trade school. It's like drinking grape juice and believing it's fine wine. #2 is what school should be about as an undergraduate: learning the best that mankind has accomplished WITHOUT regard to its vocational outcomes.
There's nothing wrong with with the first option, just don't call it college. One other quick point: Can someone tell me how the highly technical degrees can be achieved in a shorter period of time without learning all of the essentials of that discipline?
Coming soon: WalcollegeMart - Bringing you low-budget educations without the frills and thrills of learning anything.
agreed
and, I would hire an engineer who did not take the gdrs---
Loading comments…
First Posted: 05-23-09 01:03 PM | Updated: 05-23-09 01:12 PM