Several articles in The Chronicle (including this piece in The Chronicle Review and my recent column) have discussed U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander’s proposal in Newsweek that we increase opportunities for undergraduate degrees to be completed in three years. His proposal has been influential because of his past service as a former University of Tennessee president and as secretary of the U.S. Department of Education. In administrative circles, this discussion is ramping up considerably. Federal and state governments have a sense that it will provide a means of relief for budgets, and families believe that it may save both tuition dollars and lost income from a fourth year of non-employment.
As I ponder the movement, I am convinced that it may have a significant impact on personnel matters in academe if it finds much traction:
• Shift from nine-month to 12-month contracts: One primary way to complete a degree in three years is to expand summer-school offerings, which would greatly alter what summer looks like for faculty members in terms of publishing, teaching, and downtime. Teaching loads, faculty compensation, and overall workload issues would be challenged by such a change.
• Change in part-time positions: Some institutions may keep the same loads they have now (especially at collective-bargaining institutions) but allow faculty members to spread the courses more uniformly over the calendar/contract year. This may open up more part-time slots to cover those shifts. On the other hand, large pay raises offered in exchange for 12-month contracts might devour adjunct budgets and eliminate some of those positions without generating more full-time positions.
• Decimation of the traditional core: Yes, I am a humanities person so I’m biased, but the freshman year is under all-out attack. The move to credential the senior year of high school in lieu of a freshman year of college troubles me greatly. That first year of study can open young eyes to new ideas, new professions, and even new callings. This will be particularly devastating in the humanities, where many students already take advanced-placement and dual-enrollment courses to whittle down their credit hours.
• Increased need for remediation services: As traditional first-year courses are shifted off campus, colleges will be forced to expand remediation services for math, writing, and other basic areas. The unevenness of student preparation in those skill areas will place great pressure on institutions to remediate weaknesses. The area of academic support services will enjoy a boom in such an environment.
• Increased attention to advising/mentorship: Because of the intricacies of planning ahead for a faster graduation, advising will become more specialized. If graduation is linked with even a remote promise of timeliness from the institution, advisors will shoulder very important responsibilities in moving students along in efficient ways. Advising will also take on a very important mentorship role, with increased attention to career counseling.
What other personnel-related changes might be effected by the potential spread of a three-year model for degrees?
Follow On Hiring through your favorite RSS reader:
11 Responses to Three-Year Thinking and Personnel
reslifeguy - November 12, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Three year bachelor degrees are not uncommon in England, and I’m fairly certain that their graduates can compete reasonably well with ours.Much of the American first year of college is essentially remedial. Composition I, College Algebra, and American Government are three courses that come to mind. Our high schools do not do enough to prepare students for the rigors of higher education.Three year degrees combined with renewed focus on vocational training and trade apprenticeships in high school would lead to quite a lot of positive change.If someone had told me that I could get a two year degree in medical technology six years ago and that my salary would be commensurate with what I make in Studdent Affairs, I might have done it.
samueloulrey - November 12, 2009 at 1:42 pm
The notions of a 2-year degree, a 3-year degree, a 4-year degree… an 8 year degree should be dumped. Patrick Henry studied law for less than 2 months before taking the bar exam (albeit barely passing). John Marshall studied law for less than a year before being licensed.The important thing is not the time put in, and the money forked over, but what has been learned.I’m not a big fan of most of the “humanities” profs to whom I’ve been subjected, but do believe that most high school grads planning on heading to college should have at least the equivalent of a couple years of at least 2 of Latin, classical Greek, or Hebrew, together with a year of one modern language (and a 2nd modern language if the first choice was Spanish); at least one term of American history and another of world history; one year of phys ed; one term of archery and riflery with at least 2 days of skeet-shooting; one solid pre-calc course after algebra and geometry; one hard science course (physics or chemistry); and the equivalent of one term of computer programming covering machine language, assembly language and a little Objective-C and data-base analysis/modeling (we covered the equivalent in 6 weeks). You can stuff most of the hallucinogen-driven discussions of “litrachure” and what passes in academia for “fine art” these days, for all the ill it has proven, and move to a year or two in grade-school working through the McGuffeys (readers, spellers, math, ethics, economics).You may be holding more remedial freshman classes, but more and more high school students are taking AP courses and exams. Meanwhile, grade inflation needs to be driven back. A C should be respected as doing as well as most are expected to do. And hyper-credentialism has been running amok as executives tell gifted and experienced professionals that, once they’re over 35 or become naturalized citizens, they’re no longer “qualified”, despite life-long learning.Grade-schoolers and middle-schoolers should be given some indication of how intelligent they are believed to be and how high they should aim (almost always encouraging them to aim higher than any tests indicate and knowing that many will thus over-achieve). They should also be informed of the consequences of low performance, low grades, low test scores as pertains to opportunities to get into various quality universities, to succeed in those various universities, and the prospects for steady employment, remuneration, and work satisfaction based on what they tend to like and dislike. (Yes, you will be wrong in part a things change, so you need to tell them that, too.)
11242283 - November 13, 2009 at 6:54 am
I have both an American BA and a British one and they were very different in their focus but each was the culmination of a different vision of secondary and higher ed. and really can’t be easily be compared. GenEd v. immediate Specialization — both have their merits but they do depend on what the secondary schools do — which in the US is not much these days. I don’t regard AP as particularly rigorous intellectually in the fields with which I am familiar with it and it doesn’t/shouldn’t substitute for a focused freshman course. My colleagues in the sciences say the same thing but we are pressured into accepting them in many cases. As with many things in higher ed, if this comes about it will not be for any reason that makes sense to academics or that is based on the curriculum, it will be because of political pressure and some “reformers” sense (one that likely hasn’t taught an undergraduate in decades, if ever) of what ought to be done. [PS -- can't someone do something about all the useless PhDs in "higher ed leadership!!] Fant is right — there will be unintended consequences to a 3 year degree and it will likely cost more rather than less. I don’t think there is anything sacrosanct about the “agricultural calendar” we use now but moving to a 12 mo. utilization model of resources will cost more for all the reasons stated (and more). The hope, of course, is by offering access to more people by moving them through faster and at different times of year somehow you will have access to the fees/revenue of more people. I for one wouldn’t mind moving my current teaching (at current pay) into a Spring/summer schedule as travel costs (to where I can do research)are much cheaper in fall than summer anyway, but as Fant suggests, then some PT faculty person would have to be hired to teach in fall. They would have to be, since the idea here is not to take current enrollments and spread them over 3 semesters in a year, but to use a true 12 mo. calendar to increase access (and thereby increase the #s of student fees collected). I’d even sign on for teaching 12 mos. in some years, but as Fant notes, I’d want 2 more months of salary to do that.Finally, #2 here is a joke — right? In some other countries, the “go to lectures, when/if you want and then take an exam to prove mastery of the material” is a recipe for students lounging at universities for years rather than finishing quickly. Of course in the US our “mastery” exams would be dumbed down (kind of like K-12 achievement tests) to declare masterly at ever lower levels just to pass students on and get them out of higher ed.
molly1 - November 13, 2009 at 10:18 am
#2 — why 2 days of skeet-shooting?
gladyss - November 13, 2009 at 10:57 am
Many very bright and able students find the pace and offerings of the first two years of college to be boring and uninspiring. (They also feel that the last year of high school is a waste of time). Allowing them to work at their own pace and accelerate their learning is not only practical it is respectful of different types of learning and ability. These students want a challenge. They are eager to learn and grow personally and academically. They may approach a 3 yr degree by taking classes at a community college and transferring them to the 4 yr university/college, they may CLEP subjects, they may decide to attend summers, or they may take an extra course each semester. All these methods of acquiring their degree are valid and are done every year by many students. One very popular idea is to link the MS/MA degree to a 3 yr program and allow them to graduate in 4 or 5 yrs. We need to do something to shake up the old way of doing business or the world will pass us by. Changing demographics will decide this for us if we fail to creatively offer options that students want and need. We could offer the 3 yr option without changing the traditional approach and let the students vote with their feet. On a side note, I think a summer/fall schedule makes most sense. Most campuses on the East coast are wonderful places in the summer. We would help the environment and use less fuel to heat the buildings if we were on break from January through March. Students could still use this time for study abroad.
dthornton9 - November 13, 2009 at 11:24 am
Other thoughts – here in Iowa the registration at the big 3 public universities is virtually flat, and decreasing if you take out the foreign students. However Community College enrollments are up by 17% this fall. Bursting at the seams. And that doesn’t take into account the increased military join ups either. Students need to save money, be efficient. The remedial work needs to be done at that level. Not 4-year level. And yes, 3 years should be promoted for those interested. This playing and wasting time needs to stop. We can’t (parents/country) afford it. My child’s advisor better damn well be helping her to get the requirements she needs in 4 years or less, and to be done in a maximun of 4 years. To do otherwise is irresponsible. And if the advisor has to be told to be more focused, so be it. I never understood why campus’ and all those expensive buildings were empty all summer long…….
vernaye - November 13, 2009 at 1:11 pm
I am an English professor. I have seen a fairly talented (and very determined) young student get her BA in Education/English in three years. I taught her as a freshman, and I have her now again, a year and a half later, as a senior. Her example concerns me greatly. It seems to me that I am the only professor who has genuinely pushed her to improve, especially in such areas as complexity of ideas and analysis, sophisticated writing style, and general overall intellectual maturity. She may be getting through the system as quickly as possible, and no doubt she will succeed in her career as a teacher, but she has not taken the time to digest the ideas and challenges that have been presented to her in a meaningful way. In many senses, she is still at the same level of intellectual development as when I taught her as a freshman. The main difference is that then, she could work her way up to an A, whereas her work at the senior level, at least by my standards, warrants only C’s and B’s. Conclusion: she came to college to train for a vocation, and she got what she wanted as quickly as possible. But in so doing, she missed all the broader ways that college could have broadened her life’s horizons, and that bodes badly for the future.
gladyss - November 13, 2009 at 2:50 pm
#7 Not sure that this example is relevant to 3 yr programs only. I know of several 3 yr students who were frustrated with the repetitive aspect of the first 2 years of undergraduate study and hurried through them. Once they entered their Jr. and Sr. years they were totally engaged because they were finally being challenged. I have many 4 and 5 yr students who resist reading let along digesting ideas. But you raise a good issue regarding vocation. The helicopter parent is not going away and they all want to know what they will get for their investment. We need to find away to develop critical thought but the institution also needs to pay attention to what they will be doing with their degree…so they can pay back their loans and be able to live too.
realtyannie - November 13, 2009 at 8:07 pm
There should be a much greater cooperation between community colleges and public high schools. Specifically students should be allowed to take a test (basically a GED) at the end of their third year of high school. If they pass with a sufficient score they should be allowed take a full 30-hr community college load in lieu of senior year, and be granted extracurricular privileges at high school, athletics, prom, etc. as well as earning a regular diploma and concurrent college credit. The comments about the senior year of American high school being a waste of time for advanced students is accurate. A year of actual community college coursework would be a far more useful transition for many of these students.
lelandjordan - November 14, 2009 at 2:30 pm
A bachelors usually is 120 SH. That is 15 per semester given 8 semesters. Eighteen hours per semester cuts the time to about 6.9 semesters. Six semesters at 18 SH each and two summers that total 16 semester hours would do it in three years. Most students could not handle that and take difficult courses; on the other hand, some do.Watering down the bachelors by accepting AP courses or the senior year of high school would lead to a masters assuming the position the bachelors now has and in the end would simply make matters worse.Pricing per semester rather than per semester hour, however, would motivate those capable of doing so to finish in less than eight semesters.Remember in all this that the ability to learn is subject to the level of maturation and the level of maturation varies considerable among college freshman and sophomores. Some capable of doing quite well in four years would be unable to do well in three years unless they started one or two years after completing high school.Leland Jordan, DBAProfessor EmeritusChristopher Newport University
kmellendorf - November 20, 2009 at 8:37 am
I can speak from eleven years experience as a physics major. Core courses are necessary. I took history and have not used the historical facts: the benefits of such a course are far mor important. I learned to consider a long sequence of events as one sequence rather than as many independent events. Laboratory research requires such skills, but science courses do not have the time or resources to teach them. In a history class, all of the events are clearly defined and have already happened. The student can focus on interpreting the events and composing them into one cause-and-effect sequence. To do so in a lab requires much more time devoted to the single events, even to deducing what the events are. Core courses teach many of the “thinking skills” that are used throughout a college career and beyond. Remove these courses and ALL courses for majors will have to teach them. It will actually decrease the efficiency of a college education.