En medio de nuestra discusión local sobre la conveniencia y posibilidad de acortar la duración de los programas de estudio conducentes a un primer grado, resulta de gran interés conocer el siguiente informe recientemente publicado por la American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU): The Three-Year Bachelor’s Degree: Reform Measure or Red Herring? by Daniel J. Hurley, Director of State Relations and Policy Analysis and Thomas L. Harnisch, Assistant Director of State Relations and Policy Analysis, September 9, 2012.
Bajar el informe completo aquí 513 KB
Párrafos seleccionados
There are at least four different three-year degree models utilized by colleges and universities today. One model relies on extensive prior learning credits, such as those attained from Advanced Placement (AP) and dual enrollment courses. A second approach is the competency-based model, which reduces time-to-degree by integrating course content across the curriculum, eliminating redundancy and assessing student knowledge and skills (as opposed to seat time).1 Another method involves course reduction, slimming down the number of credits required for a given bachelor’s degree. The most widely-known approach is the compression model, whereby the bachelor’s degree is condensed into three years through the integration of summer and inter-term courses. Some three-year degree programs combine features of two or more of these models.
———————————————–
Despite these efforts, three-year degree programs remain relatively obscure today, are more common at private colleges, and have few participants and even fewer completers. With or without the assistance of formal three-year degree formats, only a small share of students (with some estimates as low as 2 percent) complete a bachelor’s degree in three years or less.4 Most first-time, full-time students do not finish in four years (38 percent), instead taking five (54 percent) or six years (58 percent) to complete their bachelor’s degree (Figure 1).
———————————————–
With the wide-ranging goals and models involved in three-year bachelor’s degree programs, it is important for institutional leaders and policymakers to ask some basic questions in determining the efficacy of these shortened degrees as a major reform option, such as:
• What goals does the three-year degree seek to meet?
• Is the three-year degree a resource-efficient and equitable means of addressing these goals, for both students and the institution?
• Can utilization of the three-year degree make a considerable positive impact on students—in terms of affordability, learning outcomes and other personal development achievements—and institutions, in terms of efficiency and productivity gains?
• Is the market demand for the three-year degree sufficient? And is the target student population one that reflects a demographic that will contribute to institutional degree completion goals and state educational attainment goals?
The three-year degree as a programmatic option has a history of appealing to a small, motivated share of the student population whom are likely to finish college in a timely manner regardless of the program’s length. It may be useful as a recruitment tool and to expand student choice, but campuses are not likely to witness major productivity gains by offering these condensed degrees, at least not at the outset, and not short of embedding them comprehensively as part of an overall restructured instructional delivery format. To date, three-year degree program options have failed to receive enough broad-based student participation to be thought of as a top-tier policy consideration in state efforts to expand college access and improve college affordability.