How do the other regional accreditors handle the issue?

Richard,

I thought you might be interested in this item--given our conversation and all the information you have sent me.

Austin

In the 1960s, I was given the guideline of 2 hours of study for every one hour of class. Thus, a week's worth of work in a 3 hour course was supposed to be 9 hours. Thus, a 15 hour load for a fulltime student meant 45 hours of work, equivalent to a full-time job. Using those numbers for a three-hour course, a credit hour is 9 (hours per week) x 15 (weeks) = 135 hours of work. In practice, an average of 1.5 hours of study per credit hour per week including all-niters for term papers (112 hours per semester) was probably the norm in practice for a student to do well in a course. The standard is certainly lower now, but whatever it is, it can be determined empirically by tracking the behavior of, say, A and B students. Sophisticated methodologies to do this are available. Those data could be used to define the typical amount of work expected for a credit hour. That standard does translate to experiential, online, and distance courses and could be used by accreditation agencies.

"The standard is certainly lower now," seems to be an assertion without data.

Our published expectation for Engineering at the University of Michigan is 3 hours outside of class for every credit hour, with a full time load of 16 credit hours per term this translates into 16 * (1 + 3) = 64 hours per week. Focus groups with our students suggest that this is reasonably aligned with practice, but of course it varies significantly depending on the particular student.

Beyond this we expect significant extra- and co-curricular work from our students in student organizations and on project teams.

As I recall, full time students self-report in the Natl Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) that they study something short of 15 hours a week outside of class on the average. That's about half of what would be "expected" given the traditional definition of a credit hour. The definition is a fantasy.

I think one approach to a solution is to seperate 'chair time' from learnin outcomes. Do we really care how much time a student spend on a topic or how many hours they put into a course - or - do we care about the learning that occurs? We need a radical rethinking of higher education - we are, in some areas shifting from inputs, like seat time or time on task, to outcomes such as the CLA - we need to do this in a systematic, strategic manner for all of higher ed.

It is sad that once, students worldwide use to flock to the United States for education because of the quality. As previously stated, standards are lower, and we as a nation are paying for it daily. As yourself, why do employers find more mature individuals more of a benefit than some of current job seekers. The quality of education, accountablity, and achievement are higher. This is not to say these qualities are lacking in those 18-40, it does. Those that have these qualities come from individual that supports do not "lower" expectations and standards. Under the muck are super stars, goal setters, and successful people. These are the future leaders that will be needed to change standards "back" to higher levels.

The administrative apparatus and methodologies of most of the past century's American higher educational institutions are no more prepared or capable of demonstrating the kinds of flexibility, innovation and adaptation in the 21st Century than were the structures of the major mass media outlets, the auto industry, the steel industry, or many others before them. Like dying dinosaurs, their strengths proved their weaknesses. A bit too bad really, poor things; they will at least serve as case studies for the next generation of what not to do in the face of rapid and organic change.

Tsk, Tsk! the study time required is a function of the assignments given by the professor or professor's lackeys. So, if you want the quality higher, just do it--make your course requirements more substantive. If the quality is lower than the mythic past, that is the professor's fault, not the student. See the previous U of M comment per engineering. They know the time it takes because of the assignments they hand out.

Devining the quality of education is not rocket engineering. It requires no formulae or analyses by people with nothing else to do. Please get real, and just do your job. Your performance is the forcing function on the quality of the education you provide.

The credit hour has been vaguely defined since before I first encountered it as a student in the 60s. We know, because of past practice, that a credit hour was awarded for successfully attending classes one hour each week for the number of weeks (typically 16) in a semester. It was presumed that the work done outside the classroom was as much as it took to support the learning that went on in class. This could range from almost nothing to beyond the 3 hours "out" for each hour "in" that Michigan's Dept of Engineering reports. As a matter of design, we should expect that there will be some combination of activities that add up to the required contact time. We should guess that there are some number of support activities that students will engage in to varying extents - with some correlation that exists between student grades and the number of hours students choose to engage in the supplemental activities.
There shouldn't be a requirement for specific amounts of time spent. Students have always had differing ability to perform learning-related work, and do so at different rates. Let's not look at number of pages read or number of problems worked. These will vary from subject to subject and course to course. The expertise in making these assignments rests with the professors.
The leadership of the department of education needs to recognize that what used to be seat time is being replaced consistently by outcome demonstrations - and that these are a better and fairer standard.