Among the many challenges facing the world today is access to quality higher education. Higher education is essential to future competitiveness and success, because, as President Barack Obama said in March, “the future belongs to the nation that best educates its citizens.”

But here in the United States, as in many other countries, the increasing cost of higher education is making it increasingly difficult for students to attain the education they need. Indeed, according to ERICDigests.com in 2002, a clearinghouse of education articles by the Education Resources Information Center, many people “wonder whether the high cost of tuition, the opportunity cost of choosing college over full-time employment, and the accumulation of thousands of dollars of debt is, in the long run, worth the investment.” However, studies show college graduates earn almost twice as much money, benefit from higher levels of savings, provide better quality of life for children and are in better health, among other things.

The United States currently has almost all of the world’s best universities, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn) said in the October 26 issue of Newsweek. “A recent Chinese survey ranks 35 American universities among the top 50, eight among the top 10,” (According to the TimesHigherEducation.co.uk Top 200 World Universities 2009 rankings, only 18 of the world’s top 50 universities are in the United States.) Still, Alexander said, “our research universities have been the key to developing the competitive advantage that help Americans produce 25 percent of all the world’s wealth.”

So, to alleviate the higher education costs problem, Alexander, former U.S. education secretary under George H.W. Bush and president of the University of Tennessee, is calling for four-year colleges to convert to three years.

Would three-year college be of greater value than four-year to students and the nation?

Proponents of three-year college, like Alexander and Robert Zemksy, education professor at the University of Pennsylvania and author of “Making Reform Work: The Case for Transforming Higher Education,” claim:

• Tuition would cost less. “By eliminating that extra year, three-year degree students save 25 percent in costs,” Alexander said. Additionally, according to AZCentral.com, Arizona State University recently announced that it wants to develop a network of lower-priced, three-year colleges that would “cut the cost of a degree by about 40 percent, or $11,150.”
• College level courses can be taught in high school. According to Alexander, “one in five students arrive at college today with Advanced Placement credits amounting to a semester or more of college-level work.”
• The more quickly a student receives a bachelor’s degree, the more quickly he or she can enter a graduate program or the workforce. “With Americans pursuing advanced degrees, it makes sense to look for ways to shorten the undergraduate portion of their postsecondary education,” Zemsky said in a excerpt from his book on The Chronicle of Higher Education’s Web site.
• Colleges could make better use of their resources and infrastructure. Keeping schools open year-round would improve an institution’s bottom line, Alexander said.

Critics, like Diane Ravitch, education professor at New York University and former assistant secretary of education, under Alexander and Bates College President Elaine Tuttle Hansen, say:

• Many students are ill-prepared to enter college. Ravitch said in a Newsweek discussion that one-third to half of all high school graduates are not prepared for college-level courses. “To reduce their higher education from four years to three years means they’ll have 25 percent less education.”
• Moving through college at such a brisk pace would deprive students of the opportunity to roam intellectually. “What concerns me is that the students need time to try things that are not strictly career-oriented,” Ravitch said. “What you seem to imply is that you come into college and you a have a career track and you move on after three years. But I think that takes away the time to take the History of Art or the History of Music.”
• Compressing everything into four years allows less time for study abroad. A survey by the Institute for the International Education of Students said studying abroad positively influences subsequent education, reinforces foreign language study, encourages diversity and helps students develop career skills.
• It also lessens the ability to participate in extracurricular activities. TheCampusChronicle.com said in 2004, activities offer students “the opportunity to apply their knowledge and skills in real world situations. Involvement helps develop and enhance skills outside of the classroom that are desirable in the workforce. Leadership, networking, communication, time management and responsibility are all qualities that can be cultivated and further developed by being active in extracurricular activities.”
• Slower is better. Hansen said in the Newsweek discussion that “slower is actually better when it comes to learning and the kind of capacity for lifelong access to learning.”

Innovators: What do you think? Is four-year-college good for students, or should it be reduced to three years?

– Kathie

November 5th, 2009 | 2 Comments Share |
Tags: college · competitiveness · Education · education innovation · higher education · Obama · Public Affairs