Three-year degrees would shortchange student learning

The July 7 editorial “Degrees in three” urged colleges and universities to offer undergraduate programs on a three-year schedule, arguing that it would save money and be educationally feasible, thanks to advanced credits and technology that allegedly makes learning faster than it used to be.

Here are three reasons not to make this switch:

Loading...

Comments

• Weigh In
• Corrections?

Personal Post

First, moving to a three-year format would make it hard for students to explore subjects outside their majors. One strength of U.S. higher education is the way it exposes students to multiple fields, rather than tracking them into a particular career at age 18.

Second, the speed with which information is conveyed by the Internet does not reduce the time it takes to analyze and understand — in short, to convert raw information into knowledge. As knowledge expands across all fields, it takes more, not less, time to master any subject.

Finally, packing “nearly four years of credits into three years” would deprive students of the time for internships, service learning and study-abroad programs that help prepare them for productive citizenship in our complex and globalized society.

The Post suggested that colleges will resist the three-year model for economic reasons. But selective institutions would have no difficulty recruiting freshmen every three years, and if they provided the same number of credits, they would earn four years of tuition in three years, thereby increasing revenue! Colleges should indeed look for efficiencies, but this one would come at too high an educational price.

Steven Knapp, Washington

The writer is president of the George Washington University.