The college experience may be idyllic, but it’s also wasteful and expensive, both for students and institutions. There is simply no reason undergraduate degrees can’t be finished in three years, and many reasons they should be.Switching from four to three years would be simple; it would mostly be a matter of altering calendars and adding a few more faculty members and staff. Some institutions have already shortened programs for graduate degrees: Northwestern Law School has pioneered a two-year degree, while Texas Tech University offers a three-year medical degree. But the idea has yet to percolate down into undergraduate programs, though the advantages would be even more pronounced.
To the Editor:Stephen Joel Trachtenberg and Gerald Kauvar presume that students entering college are so well prepared that they can have their education compressed into three years. They aren’t, and they can’t.
They presume that faculty members can devote summers to instruction. They can’t if they pursue research, which remains a hallmark of academe and a tenure requirement.
Most devastatingly, they presume that all disciplines fit neatly into a three-year package. Science and engineering don’t, and if three years becomes the norm, the American work force will become even more technologically disadvantaged than it already is.
Michael S. Lubell
New York, May 25, 2010The writer is a physics professor at City College, CUNY.
I think I am with Professor Lubell. I can't imagine what college would have been like if I was supposed to squeeze all of chemistry into 3 years instead of 4. I envision it going one of two ways: Either people would leave college not knowing enough or they would be forced to specialize early. You would leave college with an organic chemistry or physical chemistry degree, but probably wouldn't have a good grasp of other subdisciplines. This would be a disservice to the science in an increasingly interconnected world.
Add Comment
Subscribe to Comments
Log In 
