Comments on: Higher (Shorter) Education

By: joshmccabe

joshmccabe — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 21:09:24 +0000

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.

By: Per Bylund

Per Bylund — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:25:00 +0000

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.

By: gabrielrossman

gabrielrossman — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 17:31:49 +0000

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.

By: Per Bylund

Per Bylund — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 16:33:03 +0000

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.

By: Michelle

Michelle — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 16:28:15 +0000

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.