Going to college has come to be expected of the majority of young people now. They’re constantly bombarded with messages that going to college is the way to go in life. Not only will they get a good job, but they get the sense that they will grow intellectually, find themselves, etc. I’m not so sure that this one-size-fits-all scheme makes any sense though.
Specifically, I’m talking about the standard four year bachelor’s degree offered by most colleges and universities. Is it really necessary? I think the rise of 2-year associate degrees at Community Colleges has been a great innovation. Why stop there though? The Albany Times-Union recently had an article questioning the standard using Russell Sage College’s 3-year baccalaureate program as a good example of colleges making innovative changes. Students can save tens of thousands of dollars by shaving off a single year. I got my BA in three years at Emmanuel College to help defray the costs of going there, but I had to jump through a lot of hoops to do it. I don’t remember missing out on any of the extracurricular (academic and social) activities that proponents of the 4-year standard say students will lose if they’re only there for 3 years, but I do remember saving a whole lot of money.
Why don’t more colleges and universities offer 3-year bachelors? One of the problems is actually the way that higher education is federally subsidized. Students and institutions of higher learning just don’t have the incentives to innovate and supply individuals with what they really demand. The non-profit status of the vast majority of degree-offering institutions is also problematic. Without out the profit motive to guide them, school administrators are maximizing something other than profit. This usually means sticking to the vision of the trustees with or without regard to what consumers (students) demand. None of this means I advocate transforming Harvard into a for-profit corporation and telling all the students that they’re on their own now, but I do think there is a need to move away from the old model and experiment with new ones.
- Josh McCabe
I think this is a great idea. I do think, however, that trying to fit in “real world experience” in a time frame of 3 years is unrealistic for some. I think a 3 year bachelor’s degree is fine for those who have a solid idea of what direction they would like to go in life, but for those of us who are more uncertain, 3 years may be too little of a time to allow for internships, a broad survey of classes and possible indecision. That being said, having an option of 3 year BA programs for those who have a more defined path would be a good idea based upon the reasons listed above.
I think the United State’s university system, public or private, is in dire need of change. I think universities should try more to better prepare young people for the realities of the working world while comprehensively educating them about all of the nifty subjects that high schools/primary schooling just cannot get to.
Which leads me to another point. Without a strong education before college, ANY college education isn’t going to be as fruitful as it could be. I think before we run to make changes in the higher education arena, we should question what’s going on with k-12 education, as those of us who are graduate students and see undergraduates’ work can attest to the lack of basic skills that most of them have (i.e. grammar). Before we can think about shortening education, we have to think about strengthening the existing system. Once people have a solid base to work from, then a 3 year BA program may catch on more.
One thing that can be done immediately is to get rid of the ridiculous high school-level and high school-repeating courses in college. I never understood why Americans need to learn in college (during the first two years?) what kids in other countries without problem learn in high school. Frankly, the level of study in some of the courses I’ve TAed is so much lower than college level should be that it is outrageous. For instance, I learned more advanced math in an average non-intense-math program in high school than American kids learn in four years of college.
Doing in high school what can be done in high school should save people a lot of money, I would think.
josh,
your proposal reminds me of when milton friedman was asked what he thought of changing the israeli work week to 5 days (from 4 1/2) and he said, it might cause a revolt, better to start at one day a week. that is, it may be a good idea to tighten the BA to 3 years but we should acknowledge the fact that (particularly at state schools like UCLA), the “4 year BA” is at the median more like a “5 or 6 year BA.” likewise, the “2 year AA degree” is often a 3 or 4 year accomplishment. furthermore, it’s not clear that it’s even meaningful to talk about them as “degrees” given that there is so much right-censorship, especially at the community college level. there are a combination of personal and organizational reasons for the time-to-degree / attrition problem, some of which (eg, under-preparedness) would be exacerbated by a shorter clock and some of which (eg, income shocks and family problems) would be helped by it. one of the pathologies of higher ed (esp at state schools) is that we give more attention to admission than completion. you can make a case that the UC would graduate more students with less debt if we were to stop admitting more undergraduates than for whom we can provide a full courseload.
per bylund,
to eliminate remedial requirements would require tightening entrance requirements, which isn’t politically feasible. probably the best example of this is CUNY.
Gabriel,
I agree that it isn’t politically feasible. The problem here is that most things that “need” to be done are not politically feasible, whereas the things that really should not be done are preferable to actors in the political system.
What could be done right away is simply to stop lowering the standards, to say “we will take this no further.” It may hurt a little initially in terms of students dropping out or going elsewhere, but over a decade or so the schools adopting a non-lowering policy (in terms of quality/level of studies) will have generated a reputation as the “good” (or best) schools.
You guys are right. I was able to do it in three years partly because I had a semester’s worth of credits from AP classes and a “dual enrollment” program at Lowell High School that allows juniors and seniors to take classes at the local community college and UMass Lowell. Additionally, my (then) flaming marxist self knew I was going to major in political science so I didn’t need to “find myself.”
Of course, the key here is simply giving students more options. No need to eliminate the 4-year bachelors. And I might be wrong, but don’t fulltime students get a lot more federally subsidized perks than part-time students? My guess is that this really gives an advantage to middle class students over ones who come from poorer families. Gabriel makes a great point about the incentives for admission versus graduation. I wonder if there’s a way to tie financial aid to successful completion of a program akin to loan forgiveness for joining the military or Teach for America.