In light of tough economic times, much attention has been given to the rising cost of college tuition and the strain being placed on many universities' financial aid departments. One response to these concerns that has acquired considerable press this year is the increased adoption of stand-alone three-year undergraduate degree programs.
In the latest issue of Newsweek, U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander makes the case for the three-year degree option, arguing that "campuses willing to adopt ... more-focused, less-expensive degrees may find that they have a competitive advantage in attracting bright, motivated students." He specifically cites New York's Hartwick College as an example of schools making the pitch to students, offering savings of $43,000 to those able to graduate in six semesters.
From a general marketing standpoint, it is apparent that the University might not have as much to gain from offering this plan to students as would smaller colleges. The University attracts mostly top-tier students who, most would assume, place a higher premium on the college experience as well as their future alma mater's academic reputation. These students may be less concerned with finishing school quickly. Rather, more promise rests with treating the three-year option as a financial aid tool. Such a move would target low-income students in particular.
Students completing undergraduate work in three years is not an unusual concept. According to the Washington Post, many overseas institutions like Oxford University and the University of Cambridge employ three-year degrees as the norm. Though the idea is not new, it has been relatively unexplored by many American colleges.
The Education School's five-year teacher education program offers a thriving example of an existing accelerated degree program. Accepted students enroll concurrently in graduate and undergraduate classes and graduate with both with a Bachelor's and a Master's degree. This model, of course, is not identical to the six-semester degree option, but it demonstrates that highly-motivated students are often able to succeed with a condensed college timeline.
There are obvious drawbacks to a three-year Bachelor's degree. Naturally, when students spend less in tuition, that also reduces revenue per student for the colleges themselves - never a wise pitch to make during an economic contraction. More significantly, students would have less time to explore diverse academic offerings, participate in rewarding extracurricular activities and take in the college experience in general. It could be argued that these students would be at an inherent disadvantage in both the job market and in graduate and professional school admissions, presumably having completed less coursework than their peers. There are two basic answers to that challenge. First, for low-income students, the chance to pursue any degree is better than nothing at all, and the savings could easily be worth the risk. Each family should be able to decide that individually. Second, because students graduating in three years would have to be especially focused and hard-working, there seems little reason to believe that most employers and graduate programs would discriminate against them.
The key to any plan is flexibility. Fundamentally, there is a tension between competing notions of the optimal role for universities. Some view them as engines of economic growth and workforce training, and others consider them to be places for intellectual exploration and personal development. In reality, of course, universities serve both ends. There is no reason to throw out the traditional four-year degree, but the University should consider implementing an additional three-year track.
The University provides an exceptionally good environment for such an idea to take hold. As a strong academic school, it attracts highly-capable students, yet as a public institution, it also strives more than most colleges to provide affordable educational opportunities. In a dynamic, competitive global marketplace for education, universities must be willing to break the mold on occasion and experiment with nontraditional ideas. The University need not compromise its core intellectual mission by expanding its model for undergraduate education.
Read More
CARTER: U.Va. Health owes clarity to transplant patients
By Nathaniel Carter | 3 hours agoUnfortunately, this negative press is fully the fault of U.Va. Health — it failed to address significant stakeholder concerns when crafting its justification.
EDITORIAL: Upholding medical amnesty is a collective effort
By Editorial Board | 20 hours agoUniversity leadership, Greek life organizations and students themselves must recommit to the safety provided by an effective and knowledgeable use of medical amnesty.
KURTZWEIL: Dockworkers’ unions cannot avoid the threat of automation
By Paul Kurtzweil | 2 days agoInstead of continuing to demand decreased automation, the union should work with the legislature in the hopes of driving investment into the reorganization of the current workforce.
