

Colleges Consider 3-Year Degrees To Save Undergrads Time, Money - tokenadult
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/22/AR2009052203681.html

======
tsally
Am I the only person who actually wants a full and balanced education? I got
enough advanced placement credit in high school to graduate with my CS degree
in three years without any extra work, but I'm taking graduate courses and
studying English instead. College isn't just vocational training, it's where
you develop your interests and learn how to think. Honestly if all you want to
do is learn how to hack well, you're better off not going to college at all.

I agree, at the end of the day Universities are businesses. But don't use that
as an excuse to be lazy about your education. If you are proactive and
motivated, you can get your money's worth out of your school.

The anti-college bias in the hacker community is really unfortunate, and
ultimately it stems from a misunderstanding of what type of animal college
actually is. I certainly agree that there are many talented people who do not
need to go to or complete college. However there seems to be an assumption
that it is the responsibly your college to stimulate your hacker ingenuity.
Maybe that flew in your gifted classes in high school, but college is much
more like the real world. In college it's your job to find your niche where
you are intellectually simulated.

EDIT: And as for the complaining about general education requirements, you
need to take a look at University of Chicago. They have the strictest general
education requirements out of any college and it seems to work for them. On
the other hand, if you really are against general education requirements, you
should have picked your college better. A college like Amherst, for example,
has zero graduation requirements (besides a raw number of hours). In any case,
there is always a way to work the system. Find online courses that transfer
and take them. Take a class at your local community college one night a week
over the summer. And so on... At the very worst, accept the fact that your
technical GPA probably needs padding anyway, and use GenEds to boost your GPA
so you can get interviews.

~~~
bokonist
_Am I the only person who actually wants a full and balanced education?_

There is more free thinking contained in one Hacker News thread then you'll
find in most college academic departments. An institution is its selection
process. And the selection process for a college is that of a priesthood (
which is not surprising, considering the ivy league colleges originated as
seminaries). As one Swarthmore professor writes: "Graduate school is not about
learning... Graduate school is not education. It is socialization. It is about
learning to behave, about mastering a rhetorical and discursive etiquette as
mind-blowingly arcane as table manners at a state dinner in 19th Century
Western Europe." Paul Graham writes: "In order to get tenure in any field you
must not arrive at conclusions that members of tenure committees can disagree
with."

Recently I went to a forum about the education of history. The audience
comprised professors from around the country. It was stunning just how uniform
their views were. And I could actually watch their views become more
synchronized real time. There was far, far less diversity of thought, and far
less actual information, than is found in a stable of good blogs and
discussions sites.

Hackers value a full and balanced education. But college does not provide that
education. The university produces bad philosophy (
<http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html> ), bad poetry (
[http://unqualified-
reservations.blogspot.com/2007/11/tryfon-...](http://unqualified-
reservations.blogspot.com/2007/11/tryfon-tolides-almost-pure-empty-
poetry.html) ), bad English <http://www.paulgraham.com/essay.html>, bad
history ( [http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/10/how-
daw...](http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/10/how-dawkins-got-
pwned-part-4.html) ), bad architecture
([http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/2009/05/architecture_an_6...](http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/2009/05/architecture_an_6.html)
), bad economics ( [http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2008/08/de-
gust...](http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2008/08/de-gustibus-non-
computandum-or.html) ), and bad business (
<http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200606/stewart-business/> ).

The university could be forgiven it it was just wrong. But it is not only
wrong. It teaches you only its narrow interpretation of the subject, but tells
you that it has taught you a full and balanced view. That is unforgivable.

~~~
jibiki
> The university could be forgiven it it was just wrong. But it is not only
> wrong. It teaches you only its narrow interpretation of the subject, but
> tells you that it has taught you a full and balanced view. That is
> unforgivable.

I don't know about that. Imagine if schools taught evolution, but then said,
"well, this isn't a full and balanced view, but merely a narrow
interpretation."

The point being, it's more important for educators to be correct than it is
for them to be humble.

~~~
bokonist
Excellent point.

------
yummyfajitas
From the article: _Four-year degrees were designed in large part to provide a
broad-based education that teaches young people to analyze and think
critically, considered vital preparation to participate in the civic life of
American democracy._

From the undergraduate CS adviser at a major university (Paraphrased, this was
a coffee hour conversation): _I've actually never had a student come to me and
tell me they wanted a broad education. Even very motivated students try to
fill their gen-ed requirements with stuff they expect to be useful or easy._

There is a fundamental disconnect here. College employees want to sell one
product but college students wish to buy another. College admins want to keep
the money flowing.

I'd love it if new entrants take over the world here, but I don't see that
happening. College is not a very competitive market.

~~~
nazgulnarsil
college markets are kept uncompetitive by high barriers to entry. One is the
chicken and egg problem of attracting decent professors. The other is huge
subsidies to existing institutions that make the tuition costs of a start-up
college uncompetitive.

~~~
yummyfajitas
What do you mean by "decent professors"? If you mean "quality teachers", then
you'll have a very easy time of it. There is a huge oversupply of PhD's, and
many are excellent teachers. You can get good teachers quite cheaply.

Accredition and reputation are the main barriers.

~~~
tokenadult
_There is a huge oversupply of PhD's, and many are excellent teachers._

Agreeing with your first point that there are lots of Ph.D.s to go around to
staff many colleges, how does one check your second point that a particular
person is a good teacher? What is the best evidence for determining who is an
effective teacher at the college level, and how is that evidence gathered at
each college where Ph.D.s teach, and used at each college that has occasion to
hire new faculty?

~~~
yummyfajitas
Disclaimer: most of what I'm about to say is second hand info. I'm a research
postdoc, so teaching matters very little to me (all I need to do is show up).
However, I know several people who did go through this process.

Current method: student evaluation. Treat it as a roughly equal mix of
easiness, sympathy (1), clarity and charisma.

The best method would be to measure outcomes on standardized exams. However,
in all cases I've seen, the teacher doesn't affect this very much. Very few
places do this.

In practice, most teaching colleges hire mainly based on personal connections
or random chance (whoever applied at the right time). So I didn't mean to
imply that new entrants into the college market could do a _good_ job of
hiring teachers. Basically, they can do just as good a job as anyone else.

(1) Fun fact: my teaching evaluations went down about 40% after I stopped
acting sympathetic and started writing my own tests.

"Sorry the test is so hard, I didn't write it. I'll try to help you pass it
and see what I can do about a curve." -> good evaluations.

"Stop whining, i'll curve it if it's too hard. And yes, I do expect you to
understand the concepts rather than just do mindless calculations." -> bad
evaluations.

I could probably try harder to game the system, but I don't really want an
academic job anymore.

~~~
nazgulnarsil
you could control the standardized tests for IQ, which would cancel out noise.
The problem is that you now need to administer two tests, and the errors
implicit in assigning raw numbers to such fuzzy concepts as teaching ability
multiply.

------
tophat02
Examples of classes I should not have had to take:

\- Kinesiology (fancy term for "PE" and/or "Health"): they had their chance in
high school. By college, most people know whether they're going to be
"physical" or not. I had to take FOUR of these, each for only 1 hour of credit

\- "Multi cultural studies": politically correct indoctrination course. By my
observation, usually had the reverse effect of what was intended

\- Political Science I & II: Just replace with a poli sci survey course.
Interested students could take more as elective or major in it

\- Economics and Accounting: Both of these classes are incredibly theoretical,
dry, and boring - unless you happen to like the subjects, in which case you're
probably majoring or minoring in them. Replace with ONE course about how not
to screw up your personal financial life, since they can't be bothered to
teach that in high school

\- Physics I & II: I don't need two full semesters of physics. Again, just
give me a survey course (that's all I'll remember anyway). The interested
students can go on to learn more

\- History I & II: We know, there's a lot of history to cover, but a whirlwind
course would probably hold students' attentions more than two whole semesters

Oh, and, for Computer Scientists:

\- The vast majority of people in computer science departments want to be
programmers, NOT computer scientists. I recommend splitting this major into
computer science and software engineering. Computer Science would be in the
department of science and software engineering would be in the department of
engineering. For software engineering students, I would collapse most of the
computer science curriculum into one or two survey courses and use the rest of
the time to teach solid, modern, software engineering concepts (configuration
management, working in a team, requirements gathering, design patterns,
methodologies, real-world programming, etc...)

~~~
tokenadult
_Economics and Accounting: Both of these classes are incredibly theoretical,
dry, and boring_

I'm surprised you encountered an economics course that wasn't interesting. I
find economics endlessly fascinating, and have asked here on HN

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=415683>

for recommendations about things to read on economics.

~~~
bokonist
Since it wasn't mentioned in the thread: Man, Economy, and State by Murray
Rothbard. By far the best economics book I have read.

------
rue
One quite important factor that is easy to overlook is that a very significant
number of people on the .eu side will not only do this 3-or-so-year
bachelor's/licenciate/candidate degree, but also the additional 2-3 year
master's degree. In many fields of study, Master's is the standard target,
including the lower degree.

------
ShardPhoenix
Most Australian undergraduate degrees are 3 years, and more focused than the
American style, without the "gen ed" requirements. You can take things like
Medicine and Law directly as undergraduate degrees - there's no "pre-med"
here. For most you can optionally take a further year to do honors, often
research-focused.

Ironically, Melbourne University, one of the most prestigious Australian
universties, has recently been moving to an American-style system with more
generalist degrees at the undergrad level (eg there's no undergrad medicine
there anymore).

~~~
dmharrison
The UM change just seemed like revenue raising to me. The whole funding model
of universities in aus now means you get funded on the number degrees granted
and bums in seats. It seems like a way to game the system by lowering the
quality bar. So I remain unconvinced that this is a better approach. Taking 5
years to do the same overall content, 3 year generalist and then 2 year
masters just seems too long (may be experience bias though). I always though
the generalist was things you should just be doing on your own.

Bond university when it existed, allowed you to do law in 2-ish years I
believe; no holidays and extremely small classes (< 15). Expensive though.

------
petercooper
_The three-year degree is the common model at the University of Cambridge and
Oxford University in England_

Not only that but pretty much _all_ British universities. I was surprised to
learn that the US traditionally goes for four. Given the similarities of the
final qualification, the extra year seems more like a money making opportunity
than anything else, so I'd more expect the fourth year to appear in the UK
than the US going to three ;-)

~~~
wallflower
> a money-making opportunity more than anything else

My lawyer friends complained that it is impossible to get a degree in less
than the standard three years because of the way certain pre-requisite classes
are scheduled. The influence of the American Board Association. Why? They said
it was all for profit, no other reason.

Which might say something about lawyering in the U.S. - if they're trying to
profit off their own future lawyers.

~~~
barry-cotter
Northwestern has a two year J.D. programme. I forget the details but they have
inter semester stuff for credit hours. IIRC they're really keen on work
experience before letting you in though. Adam Smith Esq. had a good write up
on it some time ago. You can practice in NY and possibly some other states
with a UK or Irish law degree (undergrad, 3 or 4 years, cheaper).

------
maigret
Well in Germany & France, bachelor is already in 3 years, though most students
do a master then. So the discussion is probably worth it. I have no strong
opinion for 4 or 3 years personally

------
christofd
Yeah, 3 years is better, cheaper, more effective. Then you can go back for a
Masters when you need it. The extra year is not going to give you the extra
kick. Only a Masters will do that. The Brits got it right.

Of course this will kill the whole private school 4 year franchises, that make
you believe they can change you as a person (the Yale/ Harvard/... man). 3
years is too short of an incubation time to mess with you IMHO.

So much for dealing with the education priesthood.

------
bowman
I come from a country where it is usual to offer 3 year degrees (NZ). It does
come at a price of killing general ed requirements but I agree with this.
Reasons:

(1) It destroys the separation of compulsory secondary school and voluntary
tertiary school.

(2) Dumbs down core courses, as the general ed students flock to easy courses
or convince lecturers to make the class easier.

------
jlees
My degree (in the UK) was 3 years and I feel I had a great education. I had
plenty of time to attend whatever other courses/lectures I wanted, and when I
elected to continue study into a 4th year, I got an extra degree -- and got
_paid_ to study -- that specialised me to the point I could start a PhD.
(Though some in other CS fields went straight to PhD from the 3 years.)

------
pj
And cost the world an educated work force... Everyone I have spoken to, from
computer science professors to employers are dismayed at the quality of
computer science students and graduates. I don't see how this is going to make
the problem better.

Idiocracy is on its way...

------
dinkumthinkum
So the answer is less education? There is already a two year program in the
US. Problem solved. This is a bit much. You can already go to a diploma mill
and save yourself the time. Why do in 2-3 years what can be done in a couple
clicks and a laser printer?

This is just lazy. Also, the idea that "people want education that will make
them money do they need to skip traditional education" seems even more
ridiculous in a time when very few are studying technical fields. Also the
argument that many students take classes just because they are easy is stupid
and I think those proferring that argument were probably the very same
students. Many students are interested in an education.

~~~
tokenadult
_So the answer is less education?_

Does school attendance invariably result in "education"?

How might students gain what you and I could both agree is an education at
less expense?

~~~
dinkumthinkum
I'm not talking about time but unless you devise a learning pill or device
such as used in the matrix, these things Still require time and course work.
There are probably more tertiary expenses that could be trimmed before the
actual education. Perhaps states could actually fund the education
institutions.

