The duration of an academic degree program is not the measuring stick for academic achievement or knowledge acquisition ??? it is the assessment of learning objectives through demonstrated outcomes. I suspect that only the educators and students who are able to see education as a ???process???, rather than a ???seat time??? requirement will be able to truly value the contributions and perspectives offered by Robert Zemsky and Lamar Alexander.
In 1995, Southern New Hampshire University was the only private university given a FIPSE grant by the U.S. Department of Education to find a way to reduce the cost and increase the effectiveness of an undergraduate education. This grant funded a competency-based, three-year bachelor???s degree program that is completed in six semesters with no overload, summer, winter/spring break or weekend classes.
Students are grouped in cohorts for classes, but otherwise are integrated into university life ??? many are athletes and become leaders of student organizations, live in residence halls with four-year students and/or are commuter students. Students earn 120 credits, just as in our traditional four-year degree programs, but save a year of tuition and room/board expenses.
While other colleges offer three-year degrees, it appears that their four-year programs have been compressed into three years, thus requiring students to take extra courses during regular semesters, during winter/spring breaks and/or during the summer. Using this model of ???compression???, I can understand why educators might have concerns. This compressed shift in education is simply a change in the speedometer.
As Zemsky stated, ???We need a dislodging event that will just make everybody question all of the assumptions simultaneously instead of one assumption at a time. And to me, the three-year degree would do that.??? For more information on the three-year degree program at Southern New Hampshire University, please visit: http://www.snhu.edu/2530.asp.
What’s College for Anyway?
A debate over the role of higher education.
Email To A Friend
Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.
American higher education may still be the best in the world, but how will it cope with threats such as rising costs, unprepared students, and potential online rivals? The changes could affect the 12.4 million undergrads at large public universities as well as the 3.4 million at private colleges. We gathered five thinkers to debate the merits of a three-year degree and assess the state of higher education: Lee Bollinger, president of Columbia University (and a board member of The Washington Post Company, which owns NEWSWEEK); Michael Crow, president of Arizona State University; Elaine Tuttle Hansen, president of Bates College; Robert Zemsky,a professor at the University of Pennsylvania and author of a new book on education reform; and Diane Ravitch, professor of education at New York University and former assistant secretary of education under Lamar Alexander. They spoke with NEWSWEEK Deputy Editor Debra Rosenberg. Excerpts:
Is American higher education broken? Why do we need to fix it?
CROW: I don't know that there are tremendous amounts of brokenness as much as a need for continuous innovation and continuous improvement. The learning process should be as flexible as possible. So it's not so much the simplistic argument of four years versus three years, it's the notion of how do you attain critical learning outcomes as rapidly as any individual has the capacity to do so. If that means doing things in three years, that's great.
Bob, you've made the case that the three-year degree might be a quick way to change higher ed. Why?
ZEMSKY: We've been unable to really change sustainably across higher ed. We've got to move away from talking about a fixed knowledge base that is anything but fixed and talk about ways of accessing that knowledge base over a period of a lifetime. And my guess is that we can teach that in three years to well-prepared students, and what we have to do with un-well-prepared students is get them prepared before we start them down that journey. We need a dislodging event that will just make everybody question all of the assumptions simultaneously instead of one assumption at a time. And to me, the three-year degree would do that.
BOLLINGER: I think it's a very interesting and even profound question that Bob raises, which is, is there any longer anything that a reasonable person could call a base of knowledge that an "educated" person should have coming into the world? I would actually say that there still is and, in fact, I think my view is that it's expanded. And so even a longer period of time, I think, is justified. There is so much about the world that it is critical that young students coming into our universities have access to. It's no longer just of interest to find about China. It's now imperative that a young person graduate with a knowledge of China and India.
Bates has offered a three-year degree but few students have taken advantage of it. Why?
HANSEN: Our experience really verifies the point that you need some flexibility in the education system, and it also introduces another dimension, which is how much time do students of traditional age need to develop. We've had a three-year option for over 40 years because we think students should have options, and we've always worried about affordability. So we've seen a few students who are ready and can benefit from the compressed program, especially since this was the only way that they could afford a great liberal-arts education. And because we are able to teach students one at a time, we're able to monitor their progress and advise them. And they're rare people who can do it. We intend to continue the three-year option, but I think we're seeing the interest trending down in part because there is so much we pack into four years. So much happens just in the junior and senior year at those ages. It's not going to be a one-size-fits-all fix.
ZEMSKY: Can I push back just a little? I am arguing that we can compress this. I think we have to simplify it. I'm the first one to say that this can't just be an option. The problem with making it an option, ironically, is it increases higher-education costs. You've got to run each of the options with equal fervor. It's time to look for something that will really make us rethink everything instead of just rethinking the things along the perimeter.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next Page »
Discuss