This is a fantastic piece. Talking about four years and out also promotes a K-16 mentality.

felsefe, at 5:40 am EDT on September 27, 2007

Agree...some

I am an administrator (and former professor) at a private college in the midwest. I’m now finishing 30 years in higher education, and I agree with much of what “Lesboprof” has to say.

What many of us are now seeing is not four and five years to complete a degree: we’re seeing three-and-a-half. Increasingly, our students come to us with AP credit, college-in-the-schools credit, and in Minnesota, the Post-Secondary Educational program means high-achieving high schoolers who can take a year of college and double-count it for high school as well. My office has a student worker who will graduate at 20. The reasons for this “charge” through college are very simple: high school was not challenging for her, and she could do well at it, first; and second, the cost of higher education, whether in private or public schools, is so high that she wanted to finish and move on.

I agree that four-year graduation rates are an artificial measure; my colleagues and I certainly make use of them, but I think most people pay far more attention to the five- and six-year rates. The concern for such statistics as graduation rates shows us in some ways how artificial our expectations are about college, and how much a construct of politics.

But low graduation rates do suggest to us some other things: low graduation rates suggest a mismatch between student needs (including readiness) and what the institution makes available. They may suggest that academic support (including advising or remediation) is less available or less effective than required. They may suggest administrative difficulties in placement or scheduling, as when sections are overfull or students are on waiting lists because of poor planning or inadequate funding of instruction. (As an example, when students cannot get certain large-size introductory courses while faculty are teaching large numbers of smaller upper-division courses.)

I also agree with “Lesboprof"’s concluding comments about what college is for—"about self-discovery, the investigation of different majors and fields, and intellectual exploration and development,” even though I think this is a legacy of a very privileged perspective. For most of our students, whether in evangelical private colleges like the one I work at or in public universities, our students are interested in getting jobs when they graduate. They are intensely aware that they are accumulating debts that will take them years to pay off. The average debt of students from my institution at graduation is $27,000, despite significant financial aid.

A certain amount of planning and support to help students through college efficiently—balanced with intellectual discovery and exploration that _starts_ them on the road to self-discovery—is appropriate. No one finishes one’s education at the undergraduate level, and the luxury of “trying things out” is just that, a luxury many students can’t afford, not at $2500 for a three-credit course.

Finally, I agree with “Lesboprof” on those final goals we ought to be emphasizing: “producing graduates who can write, read, and think critically, and who can contribute to our society.” How is this incompatible with graduation in four years, however? Or is it compatible at all? Not to be too pessimistic—I’m not a Calvinist, after all—evidence based on assessment seems to suggest that we can do a lot to “nudge” people to develop these skills, but that reading, writing, and critical thinking skills either are built slowly throughout one’s life or are extraordinarily hard to develop. They may change some, but not much, in four years. How will another semester—particularly in large-enrollment courses with poor feedback from instructors—strengthen writing or critical thinking?

Rich, Dean, at 7:35 am EST on March 1, 2007

guaranted out in 4

Great perspective. 1. as parent of a fifth year senior (transfer between universities) I know what you say is true2. as administrator at a community college I say this perspective needs to be communicated to those who advocate dual enrollment as a way to get students through college faster. “Get 18 credits while still in high school (or even, I’ve heard, your A.S. degree!) to get through college faster!” It makes my skin crawl when high ranking state officials promote such “speed your way through college” philosophy.

DW, Dean at Community College, at 9:41 am EST on March 1, 2007

You’re Kidding, Right?

Any 18-22 year old full-time student who needs more than 4 years to “find himself” needs to enroll in camp college at his own expense. American taxpayers can’t afford to subsidize slackers who spend their freshman year playing Halo and boozing it up.

Steve Dolan, at 10:30 am EST on March 1, 2007

Out in less than 3 — but have always regretted it

I don’t like the fixation on a specified number of years either. I didn’t go to college until I’d served in the military for six years. Then I experienced a lot of pressure to quit “goofing around in school” and get back to work. I majored in physics, went to summer classes where I jammed in most of my electives and then ran into trouble when my math and physics classes got a bit out of synch. Imagine trying to take Electricity and Magnetism concurrently with Differential Equations. It was downright stupid. Well, I graduated, but really destroyed any chance of graduate work in physics with the Electricity & Magnetism grade. To this day my understanding of mathematical physics is annoyingly weak. My plan all along was to become a science librarian, so I did follow up the physics degree with a Masters in Library Science ... but it would sure be helpful to have the confidence to study physics again. Advanced degrees in one’s subject are quite helpful for a librarian’s career.

With education costs spiraling ever upwards and causing students to work additional hours, this lunacy just makes the pursuit of a college education more difficult for the poor and middle class. Then again ... maybe that’s the goal of the politicos that push this “fad!”

Matt, at 11:15 am EST on March 1, 2007

nontraditional students

I’m surprised that this article ignores a population of students for whom “finish in four” can never be an option: adults students balancing jobs and families, or students of any age working 30-40 (or more) hours a week. For these students, even 12 credits a semester is too much.

If such slogans become part of mainstream university propaganda, these students will get the message—and is that the point?—that they are not wanted in the institution. This would be a shame, for adult students are among our most motivated despite their time limits—not to mention the social good of educating those who are often the first in their families to attend college. As for younger students who work such long hours, our goal needs to be increasing financial aid, not constructiung catchy ad campaigns.

Lisa Maruca, Wayne State University, at 1:05 pm EST on March 1, 2007

Graduation Guarantee, not Finish in 4

We agree whole-heartedly that students should set their pace for their pathway to an undergraduate degree. What the author does not take into account though is that sometimes it’s the institution that prevents or slows down students from graduating when they want to do so by curriculum mismanagement such as bottleneck classes. At Utah State, we instituted a Graduation Guarantee Program that is not a Finish in Four, but allows the student to set the completion date and ensure that classes will be available when they need them. As our website notes: “The purpose of the Graduation Guarantee Program is to facilitate, through a contract between the participating student and Utah State University, a student’s goal of graduating from USU. The University guarantees that you will have the courses you need, when you need them. If the University does not keep its end of bargain, the tuition is free for any extra coursework you need to graduate."Such guarantees are not just about pushing students but about an ethical contract that the classes students need to graduate when they wish to will be available.

Joyce, Utah State University, at 1:41 pm EST on March 1, 2007

What is the issue?

Anyone who wants to stay a fifth, or sixth, or 20th year, can do so. This is still the good ol’ USA, land of the free and home of the brave, at least for now.

There is just the 150% rule in financial aid; once you hit 150% of classes required for degree, no more federal financial aid. This program is more wide-ranging and generous than any other in the world.

Stay longer — pay more. Is that so complicated?

B.D., at 4:25 pm EST on March 1, 2007

Out in Four if Well Educated

I guess I do not have a problem with out in four if the student is truly well educated in the four year framework. I have serious problems with colleges and universities who turn out undereducated graduates who cannot write or think well enough to really function as well as they ought in society. Any institution of higher education, no matter how great, recognizes that they graduate some students before they have mastered their disciplines—some because they want to maintain the four year graduation reputation, some because they know they will receive money from greatful parents, some because they do not want to face the student for another year. Some other colleges/universities have a more troubling problem. These institutions take on the challenge of educating underprivileged students and push them out after four years without providing a strong four year education. In fact, if the institutions had been truthful with the students upon admissions, they would have told them that it would probably take more than the regular four years to graduate. At that point the student and her/his family could talk about summer college and other options to a fifth year of higher education. At least, they would be informed that the student might need more time to get a solid college educational experience. Most colleges/universities fear being this honest with applicants because it might affect the number of students who eventually apply. The question is would the final product be a better educated graduate of whom the institution would be truly proud.

FriendX, Former Assoc Dean at Highly Selective Institution, at 4:25 am EST on March 3, 2007

Focus on the old-school Elite?

Lisa Maruca is the only one who really got it right. The focus on four years, up or out is really old school, based on elite students who don’t have to work nearly full time or raise families.

It would cost taxpayers no more, to fund a certain percentage of a student’s degree, if those students took only six credits per term and finished in 20 years.

That might be a net improvement for the taxpayers, with the potential for more individuals who actually enjoy their work & their studies (who can spend some time with their families and not work or study while sleep-deprived) and with well-studied career course corrections, the individuals shouldn’t end up with a worthless degree in a horse-and-buggy field.

This is not to say, that taxpayers should support 20 years of Animal House behavior, but enough information exists on most students that the government (financial aid guarantors) should know which citizen/workers are on target towards a degree while earning $20-40k, paying school district taxes, buying a house, etc.

Quick and dirty or casual, well-considered quality education?

Dr. F. Gump, at 9:25 pm EST on March 7, 2007