For Immediate Release

Contact:
Debra Humphreys, Vice President for Communications and Public Affairs
202-387-3760, ext. 422
Humphreys@aacu.org

Three-Year Degree Proposals Are Not A Silver Bullet, says AAC&U President Carol Geary Schneider

The Quality Shortfall Is Just as Urgent as Attainment and Financing Shortfalls; Proposals to Develop Three-Year Degrees as the Norm Will Shortchange Students and Further Erode Essential Learning

Washington, DC—June 3, 2010—Carol Geary Schneider, president of the Association of American Colleges and Universities, issued a statement today challenging recent proposals to either expand three-year degree options for a large number of students, or to reduce the number of credits required for a degree.  Schneider suggests that such approaches would shortchange students and leave too many of them unprepared to compete in a competitive, global knowledge economy.

The statement notes that “the three-year option is not a universal panacea for increasing completion or for reducing costs” and urges policy makers and leaders in education and philanthropy to “begin any discussion about the scope of a college degree—and the length of time recommended for most students to complete the degree—with the broader question of the learning students actually need to succeed and a realistic assessment of current students’ educational abilities and preparation.”

The statement reaffirms AAC&U’s long-standing support for efforts to increase the number of students who both enter and complete college degree programs.  Moreover, it notes that, as some have suggested, “we can tighten the curriculum, better focus students on essential learning outcomes, and provide better support systems to help students achieve a high quality college education.  But we shouldn’t…just shave off an entire year’s worth of expected learning, either at the college level, or at the high school level.”

President Schneider made this formal statement because of heightened media and policy interest in finding ways to get more students to graduate from college at lower costs.  “The amount of wishful thinking driving this three-year degree discussion is stunning to me,” Schneider said.  “It’s time for a very hard look at the actual evidence on students’ achievement shortfalls.”

In her statement, President Schneider makes a clear distinction between proposals to simply shave off a year’s worth of study either at the high school or college levels and accelerated programs designed for a small number of highly motivated and well prepared students to graduate in three years by combining college credits earned in high school with continuous enrollment throughout the full calendar year.  The statement notes that these accelerated three year programs are welcome and desirable, but are only appropriate for a small fraction of today’s college students.

Schneider’s formal statement sets all the various proposals to shorten the time it takes to achieve a college degree in the context of two key factors—one related to the changing demands of the global knowledge economy and the other related to a realistic assessment of many college students’ weak preparation and the actual time students currently take to earn a BA or BS degree.

The statement notes that “well more than half of the students who start college do so without adequate preparation” to succeed at college-level work.  Given the significant readiness shortfall, Schneider argues that for the “overwhelming majority of American college students, a mere three years of college study might leave them with a piece of paper, but not with a degree that has real value; it would foreclose their opportunity for a truly empowering education.”  It is simply not realistic to expect colleges and universities to, at once, remediate skill deficits, increase graduation rates, and ensure that all students attain a full set of essential learning outcomes with less money and in less time.

“We would do better to focus on helping students actually finish in four years,” Schneider observes.

In addition, the statement notes that “the economy itself is raising the bar for what college graduates need to know and be able to do to succeed in a competitive global economy.”  In light of a host of important learning outcomes that now are essential—and weren’t in previous eras—today’s students actually need to learn more.  The statement points to a new emphasis on global learning and preparation—one of several areas of learning that most did not master in the past but will need in today’s economy.  It notes that “while the pressure to graduate more students at a time of ever-decreasing resources is acute, we do a disservice to individual students and our society if we confer degrees that do not assure that students have learned all they need to know in this very demanding global century.”

The statement ends by noting that “for the problems facing higher education, there is no single solution.  To serve students and society well, we need to proceed on multiple levels: addressing purposes, curricular focus, connections across levels of learning, and clear alignment between education and co-curricular programs and essential learning outcomes.  We can use the available resources more purposefully and efficiently, as hundreds of institutions already are learning to do.  But we should not squander the most important resource of all: student’s own high effort time on task.”

To see the full statement, visit www.aacu.org.

About AAC&U

AAC&U is the leading national association concerned with the quality, vitality, and public standing of undergraduate liberal education. Its members are committed to extending the advantages of a liberal education to all students, regardless of academic specialization or intended career. Founded in 1915, AAC&U now comprises 1,200 member institutions—including accredited public and private colleges and universities of every type and size.

Information about AAC&U membership, programs, and publications can be found at www.aacu.org.