IHE: Another 3-year degree

[Wahoo Redux]

IHE: Another Advance for the 3-Year Degree

Johnson & Wales University has become the latest institution to gain approval to offer bachelor's degrees that require significantly fewer than 120 credits—and the first to win that approval from the New England Commission of Higher Education.

So, J&W will simply require 1/4 of what we used to call a Bachelor's Degree.

I would suggest, if there is any conversation, not stating the obvious or what has been said before.

And maybe there will be nothing to say then?

I suspect we will be remembered either as the era that realigned what it means to be "educated" (because, Marshy, generally high school is not considered significant education any more----don't shoot the messanger) or we will be the era that allowed our educational system to wither.

[kaysixteen]

Let them offer such a degree.   And call it an Associates degree.

[spork]

90 credits is 3/4 of 120 credits, not 1/4.

The credit hour is a bureaucratic convenience that has long outlived its usefulness. Its main function in the 21st century is to keep universities in business.

People should be allowed to pay money to study what they want and not be forced to pay for private goods that they have no interest in. Afterwards they can take a licensing exam if they want to signal mastery, like barbers, pilots, and physicians must do.

[Wahoo Redux]

90 credits is 3/4 of 120 credits, not 1/4.

My bad.  I misstated.  I meant to say "reduced by 1/4."

Why not simply reduce it to two years and call it an associate's degree?  Two years should be plenty for a job apprenticeship degree.

[spork]

A two-year B.A. reduces the revenue earned from a four-year B.A. by 50%. A three-year B.A. reduces it by only 25%.

Most of what now comprises a B.A. used to be taught in high school, but universities don't make any money from a zero-year B.A. This is why MBA students learn how to make PowerPoint presentations.

[marshwiggle]

I suspect we will be remembered either as the era that realigned what it means to be "educated" (because, Marshy, generally high school is not considered significant education any more----don't shoot the messenger) or we will be the era that allowed our educational system to wither.

As spork said,

The credit hour is a bureaucratic convenience that has long outlived its usefulness. Its main function in the 21st century is to keep universities in business.

People should be allowed to pay money to study what they want and not be forced to pay for private goods that they have no interest in. Afterwards they can take a licensing exam if they want to signal mastery, like barbers, pilots, and physicians must do.

I'd argue that the problem comes from the idea that a "degree" makes someone "educated". Individuals can choose what they want to learn, and to what depth. Public education, i.e. high school, should provide what society deems necessary for everyone. If there is more beyond high school that everyone should have, then make it free (and compulsory) for everyone. What is voluntary, (and especially non-free), can't be expected for everyone.

[Wahoo Redux]

A two-year B.A. reduces the revenue earned from a four-year B.A. by 50%. A three-year B.A. reduces it by only 25%.

Most of what now comprises a B.A. used to be taught in high school, but universities don't make any money from a zero-year B.A. This is why MBA students learn how to make PowerPoint presentations.

Imagine how many bodies these universities could be shed, however.  The entire enterprise could be scaled back by hundreds, maybe thousands in some of the biggest schools, if we just accepted associates across the board.  Those going on to medical school or the PhD could opt for an additional two years of broader training.  Reduce all majors and curriculum to merely employment related classes. A good portion of the public would be overjoyed.

I do have to wonder if employers really want workers who did less to get the same brandname of degree, however.  We literally are requiring less brain power to get the same award and eliminating stuff that challenge students with things outside their major---e.i., challenging them to do unfamiliar stuff. My understanding, at least idealistically, is that college was supposed to be stretch our brains by taking us outside our comfort zone.  My undergrad science cluster and foreign language really did for me.

Or we could simply allow students to take 90 credits from any combination of classes----after all, we don't want to force them to take classes they don't want to take, particularly if they might not use their subject matter later in their careers.  The educators should not tell the educatees what to they need to know, right? 

[marshwiggle]

I do have to wonder if employers really want workers who did less to get the same brandname of degree, however. 

I think if any employer had a reliable method of identifying which candidates will be up to the position the employer is hiring for, they wouldn't care about degrees. If degrees become useless for filtering, employers won't care about them either.

[Hibush]

I do have to wonder if employers really want workers who did less to get the same brandname of degree, however. 

I think if any employer had a reliable method of identifying which candidates will be up to the position the employer is hiring for, they wouldn't care about degrees. If degrees become useless for filtering, employers won't care about them either.

When it comes to evidence of employability, the education market offers so many opportunities beyond corruptions of the bachelors degree and the authentic associates degree.

For people who are not in a position to get our undergraduate degrees, we offer a host of certificates that purportedly mean something to employers and provide a nice additional revenue stream for us. Since there is no accreditation for certificates, the operating costs stay low.

[Wahoo Redux]

Yes, most people know about certificates and apprenticeships, but that is not the question here, nor does a certificate remove the cachet of the bachelor's degree on the market and in culture. AI advances will eliminate a number of certificate programs, anyway----I've been looking at a number of these now for myself; the outlook is not good for any technology based certificate program, which is a bummer for people like me.

Now certain accreditors are allowing a quarter of the qualifying material to vanish.  There is a reason that the proprietary schools faultered (and were considered a joke) and that the associate's does not carry that much weight.  Our bachelor's are moving that direction.

[secundem_artem]

Artem U is exploring this as an option. No doubt a lot of gen ed requirements will be cut and students will take almost only courses toward the major.  I think prospective students (and especially parents) would fall all over themselves signing up.  Now doubt our arts and humanities faculty will cry bloody blue murder, but I'd offer that a gen ed curriculum is not intended to be a make work program for faculty. And lord knows, we have ZERO evidence that our gen ed curriculum actually results in any meaningful outcomes.  Mostly it seems to be "get it out of the way". 

It's all pretty sad, but that seems to be the way of the world these days.

[spork]

[...]

a gen ed curriculum is not intended to be a make work program for faculty

Regardless of intent, that is the outcome.

we have ZERO evidence that our gen ed curriculum actually results in any meaningful outcomes

Perhaps evidence that the intent of gen ed requirements is, in fact, job security for faculty.

[dismalist]

 

I'd offer that a gen ed curriculum is not intended to be a make work program for faculty. And lord knows, we have ZERO evidence that our gen ed curriculum actually results in any meaningful outcomes.

The meaningful outcome is in fact jobs for the boys, and now, girls! And it's not just gen ed. It's also some majors. Never mind intent, the cause is that administrators don't want or need to be confronted by a large number of faculty, 'ya know dissent, discontent, that sort of thing. Administrators get away with this so long as there's enough money around, never mind the source. What's toughening up now is that the number of customers has stopped growing and has begun to shrink.

The only equitable solution would seem to be to keep on the faculty -- gen ed or otherwise -- even if they have no students. :-)

[Wahoo Redux]

we have ZERO evidence that our gen ed curriculum actually results in any meaningful outcomes. 

I'm not disagreeing, but how would one measure this?  How would learning outcomes be accurately assessed?

[Hegemony]

And lord knows, we have ZERO evidence that our gen ed curriculum actually results in any meaningful outcomes. 

What counts as a meaningful outcome? If they've been exposed to material they're not familiar with, and learned some of it, that sounds meaningful to me. Most of the methods of measurement, and definitions of "meaningful," used by administrators and politicians are pretty trite and simplistic, in my view. They want job statistics or whatnot. If the students are passing the classes, and that means that they've done the work and learned something, that's what I count as meaningful.