Why are US grads not awarded masters degrees after 4 years of college?

[Vanadium 50]

I don't think it's pushing back. It's placing the responsibility back where it belongs.

 

[George Jones]

There is some evidence that gen ed science requirements for non-science majors do produce results.

Some might find the following to be quite surprising.

Art Hobson, in a letter published the July 2008 issue of The American Journal of Physics, writes:

"Fortunately, the U.S. system of higher education allows us a perfect opportunity to do this. Our system requires most college students to take a variety of general education courses in history, language, literature, the arts, and the sciences. All European nations, and most other nations, have no such general education requirements for college students. U.S. adults have scored far higher than European adults during two decades of tests of general scientific literacy by Jon D. Miller,² Director of the International Center for Scientific Literacy at Michigan State University. Miller has shown that the U.S. required college science courses for nonscientists are almost certainly the reason for this unexpected result, and that these courses are surprisingly effective at instilling lifelong scientific literacy.³ As Miller puts it, “What we are seeing here is a result of the fact that Americans are required to take science courses at the university, while Europeans and Asians are not.

² For an overview of Miller’s program of scientific literacy measurements and analysis, see J. Trefil, Why Science?
Teacher’s College Press, New York, 2008, Chap. 6.

³ A. Hobson, “The surprising effectiveness of college scientific literacy courses,” submitted for publication to The Physics Teacher, preprint available at physics.uark.edu/hobson/ pubs/08.01.TPT.html."

However, it is possible that not everyone will believe that these results are unbiased.

 

[Mépris]

Yeah, a Masters is supposed to be five years (3 + 2 or 4 + 1), as opposed to six prior to the Bologna process (4 + 2). At least most EU countries have devised their systems in such a way now, but it's hard to compare across the board, because each educational system still retained some special features from the past. If you ask me, things are even more complicated now, because, if you take the UK, for example, you have an "undergraduate" Masters degree, and then you have the "normal" postgraduate Masters degree. Then it comes down to interpretation whether both are considered equivalent or not, and it's all one big mess, because they may be equivalent in one regard, but not in all of them. It's the same in my home country, our old four-year degrees are supposed to be equivalent to the new Masters degrees, but we don't get the title Masters, and the old Masters degrees are not offered anymore. So they've basically created a void with this watered-down version of a Masters, as prior to that a Masters degree wasn't really something everyone went for. Now, people don't want to end their education after three years, because they are afraid the new bachelor degrees are worthless, at least in the eyes of employers.

I was talking about the undergraduate masters; should've been more precise. From what I gather, some universities (pretty certain I read so on the websites of Cambridge and Imperial) tend to think of it as "adequate preparation" onto a PhD program or employment. Then again, is a BSc not adequate preparation for that?

I know of somebody who went with a BSc in Biology for a Masters course but got transferred into a PhD program some time into it. I've heard of somebody else, in his BEng year (in their country; it's the fourth year), who got selected for a scholarship (PhD) when he was competing with 6/7 other people, among which were people with post-grad MSc, people in their MEng year and people with actual work experience under their belt. His argument was that the university he applied to was more concerned with an applicant's potential to achieve rather than what he had already achieved and for instance, the BEng applicant who got accepted without a Masters is one who, under different circumstances, given the time, would probably have a Masters degree. Or at least, would be capable of earning one.

 

[Mépris]

I agree that specialization, and lack of opportunity, is a problem. You *can* do a wide range of subjects at 14, if you go to "the right" school. But I didn't have the chance. For instance, I had to drop history (a subject I *really* liked) to keep on the science track. I also didn't do music or art, and regret not learning to play a musical instrument to a reasonable standard. And learning to paint watercolours would have been fun! And my life is a mess :)

We did have art and music up until year 10. I failed art. Grade 10 Economics was more akin to Commercial Studies than actual Economics, which didn't really spark my interest in it, despite doing fairly well in it. I didn't like Accounting. I was average at DT. We did not have a Sociology teacher at the time. Which left me with...Computer Studies, English Lit, French Lit, Chemistry, Physics, Biology and Additional Maths, out of which, four (used to be five; got dropped to four for my year for some reason unknown to me) had to be chosen, along with the compulsory Maths/English/French to take up to O-Level (GCSE alternative; common option for foreign countries). Not much choice now, is there?

Oh, did I mention that we actually get our subject combinations shortlisted for us? So, it's options 1-11, with 1 being ScienceA, 2 being ScienceB (note: only difference is one of them do Bio and the other do Computer S.) and so on. So, if I do Economics, I cannot do science. If I do Literature, I cannot do science. Science was probably the only thing I was interested in then, people encouraged me to do it and I was told I could do literature or art for A-Levels if ever I wanted to, despite never having done them. It's pretty much the same story for A-Levels, people doing Maths/Physics/Economics are unheard of. In my first year of year 12, I was doing Maths/Phys/English Lit. (I had to "fight" to get that combination) and people were looking at me as if I had just flung out my wang straight at their faces. Anyway...

Bottom line is, I (and my peers) have no knowledge of economics or sociology. Nor history for that matter. We only studied history in primary school and it's shame that I've forgotten most of it. Hopefully that should change within the coming years, while trying to sort my act out, I'm going to find some time to catch up on that.

My main complain I suppose is something like that: "If you're going to base your education system on that of England, at the very least, you might want to get it right repugnant imbeciles."

 

[Mépris]

Have you thought about going back to the Governor and say, "We'd love to - now please make sure that all the high school grads are 100% ready for college?"

There are lots of good reasons to resist going to 3 years, but in my mind, one of the largest is that students arrive to college unprepared. Whether going from 4 to 3 for a well-prepard student is a good idea is questionable, but doing it for an unprepared student is impossible.

In that case, then the addition of a, possibly optional, thirteenth year in high school, for those wanting to go to college, wouldn't be a bad idea. That would, however, also result in nearly the same flaw the English system have - specialisation before university/college.

As for the general education requirements; I really don't know about that. As has been hinted before, I don't like the method of "early specialisation" and kicking the ball over to the other backyard (college to high school to junior high) would create the platform for just that.

The way I've always seen it/been told about it; America's about giving opportunity to her people. It's theirs to take. Would it be sensible to have the 'gen. ed' requirements turned into electives, then? Or would forcing people to do these courses fitting into that category be a better option, since it would ensure all college grads have broader knowledge, in one way or another?

 

[Sankaku]

I am a bit strange but I think choice is the key all the way through.

Students in High-School should have choice to specialize or not. i.e They should not be forced into a system like English A-Levels, but to have it available. The IB and AP programs are a decent attempt at this, but they could be better and they are not offered everywhere.

Students in University should have choice to do many general subjects or to specialize, if they wish. There is no time-limit on learning. The only artificial constraint is whatever the system has decided is needed for a piece of paper. Make it more flexible and stop trying to make all degrees from all Universities in the whole world look the same. A fine arts degree is radically different than a Science degree (they both have their place). Why do they all have to take the same amount of time?

The whole phenomenon of people going to University for 3 or 4 years just for a piece of paper is a complete disgrace. I doubt it is possible to reverse, but we should try anyway. People have mistaken the finger for the moon.

Go to university to learn. Take as much time as you need to learn it properly.

 

[Jokerhelper]

The whole phenomenon of people going to University for 3 or 4 years just for a piece of paper is a complete disgrace. I doubt it is possible to reverse, but we should try anyway. People have mistaken the finger for the moon.

Go to university to learn. Take as much time as you need to learn it properly.

No offense but I think you're being too naive. When students have to invest tens of thousands of dollars with loans and lines of credit into their education, it's hard to ask them to only care about what they're learning without worrying about the monetary value of their degree.

 

[cristo]

We only studied history in primary school and it's shame that I've forgotten most of it. Hopefully that should change within the coming years, while trying to sort my act out, I'm going to find some time to catch up on that.

That's a problem with your school, not with the system. I took two humanities subjects at GCSE level (geography and history) along with maths, physics, chemistry, biology, french, english lang and lit.

That would, however, also result in nearly the same flaw the English system have - specialisation before university/college.

I don't see that this is a flaw. You're taught a wide range of subjects up to the age of compulsory education (16) and then narrow down to 4 or 5 subjects for two years after that. Those who are able, then go on to university to specialise further.

 

[Mépris]

I am a bit strange but I think choice is the key all the way through.

Students in High-School should have choice to specialize or not. i.e They should not be forced into a system like English A-Levels, but to have it available. The IB and AP programs are a decent attempt at this, but they could be better and they are not offered everywhere.

This would mean having to have more, much more teachers and paying them. (obviously) Generally, bigger institutions have more choice available. I've heard of schools in the UK offering both the IB and the A-Levels. I'm not sure how they go about to doing it though. I know of a local school which is currently trying to implement that and by the look of things, it's going to fail. I hope not but both have fairly different syllabi and teaching Standard Level Maths with AS Maths is just not going to work. Although it does have more chances of working than HL Maths with A2 Maths. Not with that school anyway. Why? They don't have enough teachers. Not enough competent teachers anyway, it seems.

As someone who's had experience with both IB and A-Levels, I don't think neither is the better choice. While the IB provides room for more breadth of study, it does not mean that you get to take these subjects up for further study at university. Only your three higher level subjects matter. If you go to a small school, you won't have enough choice. In my five month stint in the IB, the only languages I could choose from were English as First language and French as Second Language; no Japanese, German, Italian, Spanish or Mandarin. No Economics. I couldn't do History because it clashed with my Physics class.

Also, saying A-Levels cannot provide breadth is wrong. I've heard of people doing 4-5 subjects at A2, some of whom do subjects from a fairly broad range. The key is a more flexible time table which can exist if there is a sufficient number of teachers.

Students in University should have choice to do many general subjects or to specialize, if they wish. There is no time-limit on learning. The only artificial constraint is whatever the system has decided is needed for a piece of paper. Make it more flexible and stop trying to make all degrees from all Universities in the whole world look the same. A fine arts degree is radically different than a Science degree (they both have their place). Why do they all have to take the same amount of time?

The whole phenomenon of people going to University for 3 or 4 years just for a piece of paper is a complete disgrace. I doubt it is possible to reverse, but we should try anyway. People have mistaken the finger for the moon.

Go to university to learn. Take as much time as you need to learn it properly.

This sounds like an interesting idea. Various courses available, one can choose as many/little as they want across the board. Then, depending on the courses they've chosen; which category/field (physics; neurobiology; sculpture; or even something as broad as 'science') these courses fit into and if they've gotten enough credits, are awarded 'x' or 'xy' degree. Wait...this sounds like a more "liberal" approach to the US college system, no? Then again, I might be wrong, considering I've not yet had an inside look to how university/college functions.

 

[Mépris]

No offense but I think you're being too naive. When students have to invest tens of thousands of dollars with loans and lines of credit into their education, it's hard to ask them to only care about what they're learning without worrying about the monetary value of their degree.

True, true.

That's a problem with your school, not with the system. I took two humanities subjects at GCSE level (geography and history) along with maths, physics, chemistry, biology, french, english lang and lit.

No, system. If you'd have paid more attention, you'd have noticed I was talking about another country (former British colony) whose education system is based on that of the English.

I don't see that this is a flaw. You're taught a wide range of subjects up to the age of compulsory education (16) and then narrow down to 4 or 5 subjects for two years after that. Those who are able, then go on to university to specialise further.

Again, it depends on whether the choice is available. I doubt all schools would have as wide a range. Mal4Mac, who by the looks of it, is in the UK, didn't seem to have the choice at his school.

 

[cristo]

No, system. If you'd have paid more attention, you'd have noticed I was talking about another country (former British colony) whose education system is based on that of the English.

Well then that's not a problem with the English system, but rather with the system in your country.

Again, it depends on whether the choice is available. I doubt all schools would have as wide a range. Mal4Mac, who by the looks of it, is in the UK, didn't seem to have the choice at his school.

I can't comment on that, but I went to a state school. I know lots of schools that provide a wide range of A level subjects.

 

[Klockan3]

There is some evidence that gen ed science requirements for non-science majors do produce results.


However, it is possible that not everyone will believe that these results are unbiased.

According to it Sweden is far ahead of the US and we don't have gen ed requirements in college. We do however have compulsory physics, chemistry and biology in middle school.
http://www.arcsfoundation.org/pittsburgh/JMiller.pdf

 

[Mépris]

Well then that's not a problem with the English system, but rather with the system in your country.

My main complaint I suppose is something like that: "If you're going to base your education system on that of England, at the very least, you might want to get it right repugnant imbeciles."

Eh.

I can't comment on that, but I went to a state school. I know lots of schools that provide a wide range of A level subjects.

That's good then. The main problem here, in my opinion, with regards to specialisation, is that it's very unlikely that youth, in general, have any sort of clue of what to study and if they actually would genuinely like to further their studies in any way and I believe that the system restricts choice.

Personally, I don't mind the additional year spent for a bachelor's degree, I would rather much do that and still have the choice to do pretty much anything I want. ;)

 

[Andy Resnick]

I would assume the 4 year bachelor in the US, gen ed ads time required to take the degree but aren't providing any tangible reward.

But how do gen ed do this better than for example science courses? Dismantling statements/arguments and analyzing their parts is important and trained in every subject and it is more emphasized the higher up you get.

This reasoning is perfectly fine for the student that already knows what they want to be when they grow up. For the vast majority of students, this is not the case. Already, hypercompetitive medical schools select for students that decided they want to be doctors when they were in middle school, and have built up a resume/CV specifically for this purpose over 10+ years. Does this make them better doctors?

Universities should not be in the business of churning out thoughtless robots.

 

[Andy Resnick]

In that case, then the addition of a, possibly optional, thirteenth year in high school, for those wanting to go to college, wouldn't be a bad idea. That would, however, also result in nearly the same flaw the English system have - specialisation before university/college.

I agree- and one strategy to deal with a shorter BS program is to make more use of Community Colleges. For example, a high school graduate takes their freshman year/gen ed classes at a community college. Is that good? I say no.

 

[cristo]

Eh.

Are you speaking English now, or just grunting?

That's good then. The main problem here, in my opinion, with regards to specialisation, is that it's very unlikely that youth, in general, have any sort of clue of what to study and if they actually would genuinely like to further their studies in any way and I believe that the system restricts choice.

Maybe that's something to do with your culture, but I don't think we should be treating 16/17 year olds like 8 year olds and telling them that they are unable to make a decision as to whether they want to further their education. No, instead, at the end of compulsory education you should be given the choice as to whether you wish to stay on in education or not. If so, then you choice to reduce the breadth of your study by about a half in order to study in more detail. Students are given help with these decisions; it's not like people just toss a coin.

 

[cristo]

This reasoning is perfectly fine for the student that already knows what they want to be when they grow up. For the vast majority of students, this is not the case. Already, hypercompetitive medical schools select for students that decided they want to be doctors when they were in middle school, and have built up a resume/CV specifically for this purpose over 10+ years.

This isn't a comparison that can be made (presuming we're still talking about the original question), since medicine in the UK is an undergraduate degree.

 

[Andy Resnick]

This isn't a comparison that can be made (presuming we're still talking about the original question), since medicine in the UK is an undergraduate degree.

In the US, medical school is a professional version of graduate school, much like Law, Nursing, Dentistry, or Business. Typically, "pre-med" (undergraduate) students major in biochemistry, biology, etc.

My point is that shortening the time-to-degree will preferentially select for students who decided on their career early in life, prior to entering college. This may be fine for the majority of PF posters, but this is not fine for the majority of college students (or people in general). Furthermore, it's debatable whether selecting for "early career adopters" is good for *any* profession.

 

[Mépris]

Maybe that's something to do with your culture, but I don't think we should be treating 16/17 year olds like 8 year olds and telling them that they are unable to make a decision as to whether they want to further their education. No, instead, at the end of compulsory education you should be given the choice as to whether you wish to stay on in education or not. If so, then you choice to reduce the breadth of your study by about a half in order to study in more detail. Students are given help with these decisions; it's not like people just toss a coin.

I take it you had particularly good career/further education guidance? In my experience, it was rubbish. For the most part.

And this:

This may be fine for the majority of PF posters, but this is not fine for the majority of college students (or people in general).

 

[Klockan3]

This reasoning is perfectly fine for the student that already knows what they want to be when they grow up. For the vast majority of students, this is not the case. Already, hypercompetitive medical schools select for students that decided they want to be doctors when they were in middle school, and have built up a resume/CV specifically for this purpose over 10+ years. Does this make them better doctors?

Universities should not be in the business of churning out thoughtless robots.

It is not like you can't take courses offered in high school later on in life just like you do in the US, why are you so narrow minded? Most colleges offer a year of high school physics/maths/chem to get eligible for science degrees. But a large majority of those who chose to study science went for the science track in high school which is a common track for most since it makes you eligible for every college track while for example the social science track don't.

Also the over-competitiveness over medical school is not like this at all, it is due to the supply for medical education not satisfying the demand which presses up the wages of physicians, which in the end means that they are basically overpaid in terms of how hard it is to get that position. Thus people put in ridiculous amount of work getting those golden seats in the classroom since that seat is worth so much. If you instead supplied seats to everyone interested and then had much stricter rules once you were there all of those problems would be gone.

My point is that shortening the time-to-degree will preferentially select for students who decided on their career early in life, prior to entering college. This may be fine for the majority of PF posters, but this is not fine for the majority of college students (or people in general). Furthermore, it's debatable whether selecting for "early career adopters" is good for *any* profession.

Honestly, what is the difference between this and the current American system where you already can choose to study calculus, physics, chemistry and biology in high school? Why not just make that curriculum the norm instead with some gen ed on the side? Then you would have the Swedish high school, even in the science track we still have to study history, geography, Swedish, English, a third foreign language(you start with it in middle school), social science and then some electives. Our high school isn't any more specialized than yours, it is just standardized in such a way as to make colleges able to require things out of their students while in the US all colleges have to assume that the arriving students don't know anything at all.

 

[Andy Resnick]

It is not like you can't take courses offered in high school later on in life just like you do in the US, why are you so narrow minded? Most colleges offer a year of high school physics/maths/chem to get eligible for science degrees. But a large majority of those who chose to study science went for the science track in high school which is a common track for most since it makes you eligible for every college track while for example the social science track don't.

I think you missed my point- the current Governor of Ohio is trying to decree that 60% of all 4-year BS/BA degree programs offered by state universities be changed to 3-year programs by 2014.

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/04/kasich_asks_for_3-year_pathway.html

My question is simply "how can this be done while ensuring our graduates remain competitive with 4-year degree programs?" For self-driven students who (1) are fully prepared for college and (2) know what they want to major in prior to entering college, this is not a concern.

However, these students do not represent 60% of the college population. What then, of the underprepared student who wants to go to college? On one hand, there is the consumerist approach to a degree- you pays your money, you gets your parchment. It is arguable whether this person will be served by a 3-year program. On the other is the student who does not know what they want to do, but is willing to put in the time and effort needed to get an "education" and find out. How does a 3-year program give this student the ability to make a decision? Offering an extra year of remedial education goes directly against shortened programs. Making a 4+1 BS/MS into a 3+2 BS/MS is a possibility, but is likely to be considered a dodge.

 

[Sankaku]

No offense but I think you're being too naive. When students have to invest tens of thousands of dollars with loans and lines of credit into their education, it's hard to ask them to only care about what they're learning without worrying about the monetary value of their degree.

I agree - I am completely naive. Perhaps I would rather call it idealistic. The world doesn't change unless we have a bit of idealism floating around.

The problem is that many kids should not be in university at that point in their lives. Later, maybe, and when they have a better idea of what they want/need out of education and the understanding of its real costs.

I agree- and one strategy to deal with a shorter BS program is to make more use of Community Colleges. For example, a high school graduate takes their freshman year/gen ed classes at a community college. Is that good? I say no.

Why is this bad? Why not do away with the last 1 or 2 years of high-school and the first year of university (in the US and Canada) and call it 'early college' then let people of any age study what they need? Then Universities could be more strict about admitting people who were prepared for the next stage. This is somewhat like the old "Sixth-Form Colleges" in the UK (A-Levels), except I wouldn't force that kind of specialization.

All the general-education and survey courses could be pushed back to the 'early college' level where they belong. There are people teaching them now - why not just teach them somewhere else? Yes community college is part way there - we should just organize it better.

It is not like you can't take courses offered in high school later on in life...

Exactly. The whole age-lockstep idea of education has people confused. Why should every 18-year old get a Bachelor's degree? Someone in their 50's should feel comfortable just signing up for a course in History or Biology, because they realize they need it in their lives. I have sometimes mused that people should be prevented from going on to University until they have worked at least 3 years. Difficult for continuity, but great for maturity.

Yes, I am naive. But I think some of us need to start thinking outside the box.

 

[twofish-quant]

Maybe that's something to do with your culture, but I don't think we should be treating 16/17 year olds like 8 year olds and telling them that they are unable to make a decision as to whether they want to further their education. No, instead, at the end of compulsory education you should be given the choice as to whether you wish to stay on in education or not.

The trouble is that this is a "pseudo-choice." It's not a real choice. Also those choices have consequences that impact me. If people make some choices that cause the economy to get shot to hell and me to pay for it, then I think that I should have some input into their "choice."

 

[twofish-quant]

I agree - I am completely naive. Perhaps I would rather call it idealistic. The world doesn't change unless we have a bit of idealism floating around.

You also need some hard nosed cynicism to change things.

The problem is that many kids should not be in university at that point in their lives. Later, maybe, and when they have a better idea of what they want/need out of education and the understanding of its real costs.

Perhaps, but then we have to ask the question of where we put 18 year olds. In much of the world the university has turned into "young adult daycare." Maybe that's not the job of the university, but if a university doesn't do this, then we really have to find some other institution that does it. In the 1940's in the US and in a lot of other countries, it's the military.

There's also a chicken and egg problem. Universities provide a structured environment in which you can drink too much, sleep with the wrong people, and do generally stupid things without causing a huge amount of permanent damage. Doing stupid things and then getting in non-permanent trouble is part of how you grow up.

Why is this bad? Why not do away with the last 1 or 2 years of high-school and the first year of university (in the US and Canada) and call it 'early college' then let people of any age study what they need?

$$$$$

At 18 to 21, you can still count on your parents to pay for things. If you are 40 you can't. The other problem is that wealth creates wealth. If you start out at 21 with "stuff" you can use that "stuff" to get more stuff. If you wait until 30, then you don't have "stuff" that you can use to get more stuff.

One other thing is human biology. Around 30-40 you start having kids, and once you have kids, you are going to be spending two decades focusing on them. If you don't have a steady income by age 30, then when you have to raise kids, you aren't going to have much time or energy to do much else.

All the general-education and survey courses could be pushed back to the 'early college' level where they belong. There are people teaching them now - why not just teach them somewhere else? Yes community college is part way there - we should just organize it better.

Cynicism kicks in. If you want to move things to community colleges and then massively fund community colleges, than that's great. The trouble is that what is more than likely to happen is that you move stuff to community colleges, and then you don't fund the community colleges.

Exactly. The whole age-lockstep idea of education has people confused. Why should every 18-year old get a Bachelor's degree?

Because without that piece of paper their resume gets tossed in the trash, and then end up with the "losers of society". Education translates into social status, and having stuff let's you get more stuff.

One thing that I find interesting is that you have all of these reports saying that people don't have to get a college degree, but then I don't see any of the people writing those reports sending their kids to vocational school.

I have sometimes mused that people should be prevented from going on to University until they have worked at least 3 years. Difficult for continuity, but great for maturity.

Work where?

Yes, I am naive. But I think some of us need to start thinking outside the box.

I don't think the problem is thinking outside the box. There are a lot of interesting ideas, but the trouble is what happens when you hit the cynical world of money and politics.

Also, I think that part of the problem is that academia itself has a "now or never" mentality, and a lot of the social rigidity in academia is getting pushed into the general society. I do think that we are heading for a general "social crisis" in the United States, and the issues of education are just part of a social system that is broken.

 

[twofish-quant]

It is not like you can't take courses offered in high school later on in life just like you do in the US, why are you so narrow minded?

Except that in the US, once you hit age 30, you are going to be too exhausted by family and your job to learn anything new. One problem with the US system is that if you lose your job, you lose pretty much everything, so what happens is that people put a huge amount of effort into keeping their job, rather than do something "new."

So yes, you can't take courses once you start getting into child-bearing/child raising age.

Thus people put in ridiculous amount of work getting those golden seats in the classroom since that seat is worth so much. If you instead supplied seats to everyone interested and then had much stricter rules once you were there all of those problems would be gone.

The problem is that if doctors salaries go down then the debt that US students have in attending med school becomes unpayable.

Our high school isn't any more specialized than yours, it is just standardized in such a way as to make colleges able to require things out of their students while in the US all colleges have to assume that the arriving students don't know anything at all.

You aren't going to be able to standardize curriculum in the US. One thing about US schools is that they are funded locally, which means that people try very hard to keep their money going to their kids, and they scream once you move the money to other people's kids. This means that if you happen to be born in a place with a bad tax base, you are pretty stuck.

 

[twofish-quant]

What then, of the underprepared student who wants to go to college?

They get screwed. Let's be clear that a lot of these proposals to cut colleges are intended to save money by screwing over people. Increasing quality of education isn't very high on the list of priorities here.

 

[MATLABdude]

I think you missed my point- the current Governor of Ohio is trying to decree that 60% of all 4-year BS/BA degree programs offered by state universities be changed to 3-year programs by 2014.

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/04/kasich_asks_for_3-year_pathway.html

My question is simply "how can this be done while ensuring our graduates remain competitive with 4-year degree programs?" For self-driven students who (1) are fully prepared for college and (2) know what they want to major in prior to entering college, this is not a concern.

However, these students do not represent 60% of the college population. What then, of the underprepared student who wants to go to college? On one hand, there is the consumerist approach to a degree- you pays your money, you gets your parchment. It is arguable whether this person will be served by a 3-year program. On the other is the student who does not know what they want to do, but is willing to put in the time and effort needed to get an "education" and find out. How does a 3-year program give this student the ability to make a decision? Offering an extra year of remedial education goes directly against shortened programs. Making a 4+1 BS/MS into a 3+2 BS/MS is a possibility, but is likely to be considered a dodge.

Maybe it'll just start the dominos rolling towards 3 year degrees everywhere? No, not with further high school prep, or more intensive programming, but just because nobody else will be offering 4 year ones.

 

[cristo]

The trouble is that this is a "pseudo-choice." It's not a real choice. Also those choices have consequences that impact me. If people make some choices that cause the economy to get shot to hell and me to pay for it, then I think that I should have some input into their "choice."

How is this a pseudo choice? At 16 years old, the age where compulsory education is over, a young person can choose whether to stay in school/college (the UK definition of the word) or leave and get a job. There's nothing pseudo about that! Why should you have a say in their choice?

 

[Klockan3]

Except that in the US, once you hit age 30, you are going to be too exhausted by family and your job to learn anything new. One problem with the US system is that if you lose your job, you lose pretty much everything, so what happens is that people put a huge amount of effort into keeping their job, rather than do something "new."

So yes, you can't take courses once you start getting into child-bearing/child raising age.

But that applies just as well to the current education system, what I mean is that putting some early courses in college as required courses in high school for certain majors instead doesn't hurt mobility later on.

The problem is that if doctors salaries go down then the debt that US students have in attending med school becomes unpayable.

Yes, you can't really change that one with a big sweeping reform, and it seems like medical studies are overly popular all over the world so I don't know if there is a good fix for it really.

You aren't going to be able to standardize curriculum in the US. One thing about US schools is that they are funded locally, which means that people try very hard to keep their money going to their kids, and they scream once you move the money to other people's kids. This means that if you happen to be born in a place with a bad tax base, you are pretty stuck.

But this is kind of the root of the problem, isn't it? Without some sort of standard in the education the colleges basically have to start over from the beginning since you can't rely on the students having any knowledge at all. A good example is that here every kid who graduates high school can speak English, thus there are no problems with having American course literature or classes taught in English. That wouldn't work if there were some schools which for some reason refused to teach that much English, instead we would be forced to use inferior literature and we wouldn't be able to use foreigners as TA's or lecturers.

 

[twofish-quant]

How is this a pseudo choice? At 16 years old, the age where compulsory education is over, a young person can choose whether to stay in school/college (the UK definition of the word) or leave and get a job.

That assumes that jobs exist, which for the most part they don't. If someone in the US graduates from high school and wants to get a job, I can't think of any jobs that will keep them at reasonable standards of living.

Also, any non-trivial job will require you to be constantly in school.

Why should you have a say in their choice?

Because whatever they do they will be doing it directly or indirectly with my money.