Responses to a three year college degree

[The original article appears after the comments.]

"A 3-Year Degree: Can Less Be More?"

May 28th, 2010

The New York Times

To the Editor:

Re “A Degree in Three,” by Stephen Joel Trachtenberg and Gerald Kauvar (Op-Ed, May 25):

The writers urge colleges to develop three-year degree programs. I worry that a critical part of the undergraduate experience would be forgotten in this rush toward an economic solution: the social and personal development of students.

In an era in which parents are closely monitoring the minutiae of their children’s lives, college often represents the first large dose of freedom. The sudden options can seem limitless.

The new freedom and responsibility are what lead so many students to change their majors and, in many cases, the course of their lives. These decisions cannot be made quickly or easily by students with so little experience.

True, a shorter curriculum would produce more degrees, but it might also produce more students for whom the degree is a sentence to a life not wanted.

Shawn Galdeen
New York, May 25, 2010

The writer is a research support specialist at Rockefeller University.

•

To the Editor:

Stephen Joel Trachtenberg and Gerald Kauvar presume that students entering college are so well prepared that they can have their education compressed into three years. They aren’t, and they can’t.

They presume that faculty members can devote summers to instruction. They can’t if they pursue research, which remains a hallmark of academe and a tenure requirement.

Most devastatingly, they presume that all disciplines fit neatly into a three-year package. Science and engineering don’t, and if three years becomes the norm, the American work force will become even more technologically disadvantaged than it already is.

Michael S. Lubell
New York, May 25, 2010

The writer is a physics professor at City College, CUNY.

•

To the Editor:

The proposal to shorten college programs is really just a revenue-generating technique disguised as educational reform.

Institutions of higher education, especially private colleges and universities, have failed to address cost-containment problems for decades. What we need is not to produce college graduates more quickly, but less expensively, so that fewer people are saddled with the sort of debt that limits postgraduate options so severely.

Roger Blumberg
Providence, R.I., May 25, 2010

The writer is an adjunct lecturer in computer science at Brown University and director of evaluation for Mendele Education, a company that specializes in program evaluation.

•

To the Editor:

The proposal for a college degree in three years is unrealistic and problematic. And, as explained by the writers, there would be three calendar years of study, but with two summer semesters. This is eight semesters — just business as usual.

Joel Trachtenberg and Gerald Kauvar argue that students will get into the job market more quickly. Yes, they might — and into a dismal market while deepening their student loan debt because they will not be able to work full time during the summer.

Robert R. Johnson
Houghton, Mich., May 25, 2010

The writer is a professor of humanities at Michigan Technological University.

•

To the Editor:

Five years ago, I arrived at college intent on studying biology and going to medical school. Last June, I departed with a degree in religion, an offer to live and teach in Japan, and a plan to go on to seminary.

A postsecondary education that encourages economics majors to take an art class, and allows chemistry students to study abroad in Shanghai not only creates more insightful people, but also sustains a society — and an economy — that increasingly depends on interdisciplinary thinking. Reducing college to three years would limit the time to take advantage of such opportunities.

Perhaps educational paths like mine are inefficient. But perhaps they ought to be. After all, becoming the person we want to be is quite literally the work of a lifetime.

Hal Edmonson
Tsugaru, Japan, May 26, 2010

•

To the Editor:

So some schools have contracted their medical and law programs by a year, and now we’re told that undergraduate schools should do the same.

What’s going on here? Have medicine and law gotten simpler? Add to this the growing popularity of accelerated high school programs, and it looks as if we are attacking higher education at all levels.

The strength of our country is built largely on intellectual capital. For decades our higher education system has attracted the best and the brightest from across the globe. Contracting high school, college and graduate programs may save money, but I doubt it would make us stronger or more competitive.

Andrew Bohm
Newton, Mass., May 26, 2010

The writer is an associate professor at the Tufts University School of Medicine.

•

To the Editor:

Stephen Joel Trachtenberg and Gerald Kauvar sound like a maître d’ and a waiter at a second-rate restaurant: rushing diners through to turn over tables for the next wave.

Letting customers savor the meal, linger over dessert, then digest the experience all become secondary to counting the dollars and getting people on their way.

Brian Williams
Columbus, Ohio, May 25, 2010

"A Degree in Three"

by

Stephen Joel Trachtenberg and Gerald Kauvar

May 24th, 2010

The New York Times

OVER the next few weeks more than half a million students will graduate from American colleges, the vast majority with at least four years of campus life behind them. Indeed, the assumption that it takes four years to get an undergraduate education — or three to get a law degree, or four to get a medical degree — lies at the center of the American university system.

That assumption needs to change. The college experience may be idyllic, but it’s also wasteful and expensive, both for students and institutions. There is simply no reason undergraduate degrees can’t be finished in three years, and many reasons they should be.

Switching from four to three years would be simple; it would mostly be a matter of altering calendars and adding a few more faculty members and staff. Some institutions have already shortened programs for graduate degrees: Northwestern Law School has pioneered a two-year degree, while Texas Tech University offers a three-year medical degree. But the idea has yet to percolate down into undergraduate programs, though the advantages would be even more pronounced.

Colleges should consider making the switch, too. Three-year curriculums, which might involve two full summers of study with short breaks between terms, would increase the number of students who can be accommodated during a four-year period, and reduce institutional costs per student. While there would be costs for the additional teachers and staff, those would be offset by an increase in tuition revenue.

Meanwhile, institutions that go quiet in the summer, incurring the unnecessary expense of running nearly empty buildings, would be able to use their facilities year-round.

Finishing in three years could be a challenge for students who need summer jobs to pay tuition. But three years wouldn’t be the rule, just the norm: like today, students could take an extra year or two if needed. And while it might be more expensive in the short term, getting out the door after just three years would allow young people to enter the workplace that much faster.

Other students might balk over losing the opportunity to have summer internships. On the contrary, the internship experience would be improved. No longer would the bulk of students be forced to take them at the same time during the summer; instead, they could be more evenly distributed throughout the year, allowing more students to participate. And faculty members would have the same opportunities to take time off during periods when research and scholarly facilities are not as crowded.

Savings aren’t the only reason for shortening the time it takes to get a degree. It would also force curriculum innovation, as departments look for ways to pack the same information into a shorter time period. Multi-disciplinary courses would blossom: French history and literature might be integrated into a single course, bringing together two departments that are usually kept apart.

America is blessed with a post-secondary educational system second to none. But we’re victims of our own success — demand is outstripping capacity, even as costs soar. Cutting the undergraduate experience to three years would allow our colleges to be as efficient as they are effective.

Stephen Joel Trachtenberg is the president emeritus and a university professor of public service at George Washington University. Gerald Kauvar is a research professor of public policy and public administration there.


Three year college?