Rethinking Higher Education

David Lai

In a recent Newsweek article, author Robert Zemesky presents a seemingly simple yet radical solution to the problems of rising tuition: a three year (instead of the traditional four year) degree program. Zemesky begins by observing that almost everything around us – technology, medicine, and politics – is constantly evolving. However, the principle practices surrounding higher education has maintained relatively constant for decades. According to Zemesky, “It’s more than just tradition; in our teaching we have made sticking with the tried and true a practical obsession.”

His plan is to make three years the standard length of time to obtain an undergraduate degree. To accomplish this, he suggests that degrees should require 90 credits instead of the current 120. To compensate for the reduction in courses, realignment would need to occur on the high school level as well as the university level. He observes that “too many of our best high-school students find their senior year boring and a waste of time.” This year, he suggests, could be used to accelerate students with truly challenging courses.

Zemesky’s plan also outlines transformational changes to the collegiate curriculum as well. He suggests that “students earning a three year baccalaureate degree would sign up for a program of study in which much of the course work is sequenced, as well as prescribed. Students would find themselves part of a cohort, a group of students who take most if not all of their courses together, learning as much from each other and their collaborative projects as they learn from the formal lectures and lab sessions they attend.” Furthermore, his plan includes the elimination of lecture-style teaching methods for ‘skill courses’. Instead, students would learn from “self-paced learning exercises with high-speed computers delivering instruction, assigning problems and exercises, and then checking the students' homework. When ready, students take their final exams and receive credit for the course, all without attending a single lecture.”

In another article, former Tennessee governor and University of Tennessee president Lamar Alexander called the three year degree the “higher-ed equivalent of a fuel efficient car,” as opposed to the current “gas-guzzling four year course.” His plan does away with the traditional “fall-to-spring school year,” which hasn’t changed much since the American Revolution. He claims that a typical college uses its facilities for academic purposes a little more than half of the calendar year. He continues by remarking that "while college facilities sit idle, they continue to generate maintenance, energy, and debt-service expenses that contribute to the high cost of running a college."

While both plans suggest radical change to higher education as we know it, the benefits of the three year degree make it hard to ignore. American universities, widely regarded as the best in the world, need to undergo transformational change to ensure that the worldwide competitive edge is maintained. Revamping the four year curriculum is a good first step.