3 year Bachelor

[mikbone]

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/business/academic-programs/2023/09/01/first-three-year-degree-programs-win-accreditor-approval

“Ramaswamy also said he did a deep dive into the origins of the 120-credit hour degree and found that it was rooted largely in the number of work hours required for faculty members. He also noted the commonality of three-year college degrees in the United Kingdom and elsewhere.”

 

This gives me some hope.

I have 26.5 years of formal education. Worse than a marathon.

13 years to get thru grade school (had to do the 3rd grade twice)

4.5 years of undergrad (Nutrition Science / Track & Field)  and 2 year mission hiatus.  

   2 years of business sales waiting for a med school to recognize my potential.

4 years of med school

5 years of residency

Many of those years were a total waste of time and $$.

I should have started medical practice 10 years earlier, age 26 instead of 36.

Doctors are at their peak from years 45-55.  Finally have enough experience while still having mental acuity, manual dexterity, constitution, good eyesight, etc…

We must make some changes.  We are wasting so many resources so that faculty can have tenure.

[zil2]

The Prussian education system in our country is so absurdly lacking that, IMO, every child who grew/grows up under it should have the right to imprison the people who made it the norm and then the law.  Once the first couple of generations were indoctrinated, few of their children stood a chance (thus hard to blame the parents).  Generations of potential squashed by a Satanic plan.  Parents who take their children out of the school system and give them a classical education are saints!

[Backroads]

I remember the amount of useless stuff I had to pack into my mere Bachelor's just to get credits to graduate (I suppose, not useless: I look a car care class). With how expensive higher education is, I think many a school is going to find it harder to justify work hours to just pay their employees. I think this might ultimately work out for everyone. 

I've often thought dropping credit need in the high school would be a good move (and yes, I know locality depending you can already get away with fewer credits). Make 8th grade mandatory and keep the rest of high school available for those who want an academic or trade track with no guilt if they try something else somewhere else. 

Edited September 2, 2023 by Backroads

[Jamie123]

In the UK, it is possible to go straight into med school at 18 (though I believe in practice a lot of med school entrants actually do have degrees already). A basic medical degree MBBS, which is actually two bachelor degrees* (MD means something totally different in the UK) takes five or six years to complete, after which you have the courtesy title of "Dr." but cannot do much except under close supervision. This is followed by another 9 or 10 years of clinical training - as a "foundation doctor" (what used to be called a "houseman") and then as a "registrar" - so I suppose it would be possible to be fully qualified at 32.

* Medicinae Baccalaureus and Baccalaureus Chirurgiae. Medicinae Doctor (MD) is a "higher doctorate" and is awarded for research contributions (similar to a PhD only a bit more prestigious).

Edited September 2, 2023 by Jamie123

[mirkwood]

My first two years of college credits were primarily consumed with useless liberal arts classes.  I substituted history courses wherever possible (I could go back and have a second degree in a year...but why?)  The last half of my college credits were consumed with liberal english classes.  Not sure which half was worse.

[scottyg]

Way too much unnecessary fluff in college. High school should consist of the general education, and college should be for specialties only...not 2 years of "general education" courses that are a glorified repeat of high school classes that have no bearing on my chosen career path.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, scottyg said:

Way too much unnecessary fluff in college. High school should consist of the general education, and college should be for specialties only...not 2 years of "general education" courses that are a glorified repeat of high school classes that have no bearing on my chosen career path.

High school classes are mostly a waste of time. AP classes teach like one semester of a college course in an entire year, and in my experience don't do a very good job of it, because it's a high school teacher trying to teach a college course. Simply taking the class at a community college is generally a far better experience. And so-called honors courses? A complete waste of time. Worse than a waste of time. A negative experience. You would be better off taking the non-honors course, which itself is just a regular crappy high school course, but without the worthless extra homework and posturing that you get in an "honors" course.

If high schools taught reasonable courses at a reasonable rate with reasonable expectations, I would be much more likely to get behind an effort to make post-high-school education more like a trade school. But high school graduates today often lack basic academic skills that are developed only after the students start at a college. In that case, the gen ed requirements serve not only to provide a broad, "liberal education" foundation, but to teach and hone basic academic skills such as taking notes in lecture and keeping up on the homework.

The US is generally considered to have the best overall collegiate-level educational system in the world. I think the general ed requirements are an important aspect of that, something that differentiates American diplomas from the much more trade-school-ish degrees found in most of the rest of the world. I'm willing to be educated on why I'm wrong, but until someone offers an argument I find convincing, I will remain pro-gen-ed for a bachelor's degree.

[Backroads]

3 hours ago, mirkwood said:

My first two years of college credits were primarily consumed with useless liberal arts classes.  I substituted history courses wherever possible (I could go back and have a second degree in a year...but why?)  The last half of my college credits were consumed with liberal english classes.  Not sure which half was worse.

I respect the liberal arts in and of themselves, but if we're going to teach them... I feel that's is what high school is for? (And even then I've already said "let's only make 8th grade mandatory!") It seems silly to have in college unless that is, in fact, what you want to study for your major.

Edited September 2, 2023 by Backroads

[Backroads]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

High school classes are mostly a waste of time. AP classes teach like one semester of a college course in an entire year, and in my experience don't do a very good job of it, because it's a high school teacher trying to teach a college course. Simply taking the class at a community college is generally a far better experience. And so-called honors courses? A complete waste of time. Worse than a waste of time. A negative experience. You would be better off taking the non-honors course, which itself is just a regular crappy high school course, but without the worthless extra homework and posturing that you get in an "honors" course.

If high schools taught reasonable courses at a reasonable rate with reasonable expectations, I would be much more likely to get behind an effort to make post-high-school education more like a trade school. But high school graduates today often lack basic academic skills that are developed only after the students start at a college. In that case, the gen ed requirements serve not only to provide a broad, "liberal education" foundation, but to teach and hone basic academic skills such as taking notes in lecture and keeping up on the homework.

The US is generally considered to have the best overall collegiate-level educational system in the world. I think the general ed requirements are an important aspect of that, something that differentiates American diplomas from the much more trade-school-ish degrees found in most of the rest of the world. I'm willing to be educated on why I'm wrong, but until someone offers an argument I find convincing, I will remain pro-gen-ed for a bachelor's degree.

I confess it's been a long time since high school but here's what I remember for me:

AP classes: Free college credit if I actually feel I'm clever enough to pass those tests. I did take two tests and I appreciated the credit edge they gave me, and I thoroughly enjoyed the classes for their own sake (AP Environmental Science is one of my fondest high school memories, and two of the kids at our table wound up getting married). But a proper college class they were not.

Honors: I took the English honors course because everyone said it was more classroom discussion and less busywork. This was true. It was basically one big book club, just using classic-ish world novels instead of whatever Reese Weatherspoon just read. 

But I think AP and Honors exist more for their name than anything substantial they can produce. A lot of smoke and mirrors. 

 

[zil2]

10 minutes ago, Backroads said:

Reese Weatherspoon

I can't seem to let this go by without adding this:

 

Feel free to blame my poor education for my impulsive behavior....

[Vort]

31 minutes ago, Backroads said:

Honors: I took the English honors course because everyone said it was more classroom discussion and less busywork. This was true. It was basically one big book club, just using classic-ish world novels instead of whatever Reese Weatherspoon just read. 

Very glad it was worthwhile for you. My experience has been otherwise, but I'm happy that at least some people benefit from them.

[JohnsonJones]

What I'm about to say will probably be an unpopular opinion here (what's new).

 

In truth, if one focused solely on their college degree they probably could finish most of them in two or three years.

The question is if that is the purpose of college or a university.  There are those that say yes...it is. 

For some degrees it is probable that you could get away with this idea (Engineering, Nursing, etc).  However, that ignores the majority of degrees out there.  Why do those degrees even exist?

Let's take Law or a Law degree.  In theory, you could ignore the undergraduate and simply let them go to Law School.  If this is so, then why not do this.  Why is it that Law Schools in the United States generally require an undergraduate degree? 

There is an idea of well rounded education, or of a well rounded individual.  Education from a University has traditionally (looking at education from the viewpoint of the past several centuries) not been something for the everyday individual.  They everyday individual went into trades (such as carpentry, smithy, cobbling, etc).  They had their own system of advancement and training that was DIFFERENT than the University system.

Those who went to the University went to learn in general.  They went to learn about the world and about how it worked.  Because it took money, and sometimes was seen as not all that useful in life (as opposed to trades) it leaned more heavily on those who had money and time to spend. 

In the more recent past (as in the past 200 years, and still evolving) those who went and got a university education were seen as different.  Universities were not simply teaching a subject, but teaching the individual HOW to learn and HOW to adapt.  Those who could actually LEARN this skill and graduate were seen as superior in how they could learn to adapt to different situations, learn to improve things, and were better able to be managers and handle the varies situations over that of what tradesmen could do.

It is THIS skill that was sought after by many companies and groups during the mid-20th and late 20th centuries.

This is why someone with an Art Degree in the 80s may be able to become the district manager of a grocery chain, and advance even higher.  This is why someone with a Music degree could sign on with Oracle and become a VP in the 90s.  They weren't trained specifically in Business, but it was the training of their minds.

Furthermore, by giving them a sampling of different venues of life (English, History, Sciences, etc) the universities were creating a more well rounded individual.  Someone who could know a little bit of many things, though only practicing becoming an expert (eventually, if they went for graduate studies) in one thing. 

It slowly (it was not always so) became that THESE individuals were seen as more desirable than others.  Medical Schools, Law Schools, and then even Law degrees got vectored to where they were looking for these specific types of people.  Those who excelled in the university environment, but who also were well rounded in many different areas.

Which would you rather have as a criminal defense lawyer in a trespassing case in a city stadium Chicago.  Someone who only studied law...or Someone who studied law but also understood a little bit about the history of Chicago, the situation of the politics and ethnic groups there, and had a little background sports and stadiums themselves when they were younger and played sports?  Which do you prefer?

Today, undergraduate classes have an added boon.  Many of the young people coming do not have a clear picture of WHAT they want to major in.  Different classes can give them a taste of what each major may have to offer.  It gives them time to decide what they want to do as they take their generals.  It also adds to their understanding in how different things may interact (for example, take a History of Civilization class with a focus on science and you can see how the two interact quite intricately throughout human civilization). 

I think if one wants to focus on one subject entirely there are still the trades out there (and some of them pay quite handsomely.  I know a plumber and an electrician that earn FAR more than I do.  They are experts at what they do and are very skilled).  There is also graduate school.  If they feel so inclined to go to another nation and apply to their programs they can do that.  However, I think the value of the US educational system is extremely good IF you spend wisely and act wisely in how you choose what you study. 

[prisonchaplain]

I'm the product of a four-year, liberal arts education. I changed my major once--though quite drastically. Also, I'm not working in the fields I majored in. Nevertheless, my broad, somewhat impractical education prepared me well for professional life. They can never take education from you! Having said all that, two of my three daughters took community college in lieu of high school their last two years. Those two completed their college in 3 years because of transfer credits. Even with the Master of Divinity, several schools have taken to offering freshman a pathway to complete it (and their BA's) in 5 years (it normally takes 7).  So, yes, streamline where possible. I'm not sure offering a shorter program (96 v. 126 credits) is the answer, unless the incoming student could show equivalent work or CLEP out of the missing classes. 

[mikbone]

13 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Let's take Law or a Law degree.  In theory, you could ignore the undergraduate and simply let them go to Law School.  If this is so, then why not do this.  Why is it that Law Schools in the United States generally require an undergraduate degree? 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shon_Hopwood

This guy was sent to prison for robbing a bank.  Learned the law in prison.  Functioned very well as a jailhouse attorney and even had a case accepted by the supreme court.  

He eventually did get a JD, passed the bar and is currently a practicing lawyer.