So much in life comes down to timing. And in many cases the mechanics of life are stacked against us so that the timing is less than ideal. For example, many people start their families at the same time that their professional lives take up a large chunk of their time. That’s just the way it is: Biological and Financial requirements collide at the same time. Certainly it would be better in terms of efficiency if the 15-20 years of retirement could be spent while children are being raised instead of when one’s health is deteriorating and offspring have long since sprung.
Well, the retirement v. family timetable is going to be impossible to align. But how about education? Is four years of college really necessary on the heels of 13 years of schooling? How did we arrive at four years as the magic number before someone is pronounced ready to inflict their college intellect on the world?
I think four years is arbitrary, and in many cases overkill. I completely buy into the need for higher learning, and even that a sustained period of time away from home (for those who have the means), in the relative seclusion of a learning environment can be very positive. But I’d venture to guess that more than 90% of students who attend a US World and News Report “Top” institution attends for 4 consecutive years. Is that really the optimal duration and timing for all of them?
In terms of economics I think the answer is definitely “no”. Let’s imagine a world where 3 years of college were as commonplace as 4 years. Do we really think there would be a noticeable difference in the competencies of those graduating? Perhaps for certain vocations the answer is yes, but those students require additional years of education anyway. For most Liberal Arts graduates (who still make up the majority of graduates) is there any real difference, other than saving $50K, that is derived from going to college for 4 years rather than 3? Sure, the 3 year student may not gain exposure to as many different types of subjects as the 4 year student. But wouldn’t that line of thinking suggest that 5 years of higher learning is even better than 4, and 6 is better than 5, etc.?
If anything, presenting 3 years of schooling as a more viable option would encourage students to focus their time in school more directly. Sleeping late, drinking hard, and partying through the night are all activities often associated with undergraduates. Can’t we at least look to move the Sleeping Late part of the equation to later in life and save some time and money?
And moving to 3 years of college post high school could work for all involved, including the universities. What if instead of needing $200k to attend a four year school, students pay $165K for three years of schooling? The institutions get a bigger chunk of money over a shorter timeframe ($165K v. $150K). In return for this windfall to the schools, the individual is allowed to take eight additional courses AT ANY TIME THROUGHOUT THEIR LIFE at any university participating in this 3 year program.
That’s where the efficiency/timing part comes in. There are many courses I took in college that did not seem relevant to me at the time that would certainly seem so now. There are other courses offered now (like Social Marketing) that simply weren’t around then. Doesn’t it make more sense for me to take those courses now then it did for me to enroll in “Thanatology” back in sophomore year?
The 3 year plan would make a college degree more affordable, provide an opportunity for retraining and additional learning later in life, and increase the funds for colleges across the country. “Four More Years” should be the chant for Obama, not necessarily for high school graduates.
....and while we're at it, let's change it to the NC Single A....the second A is redundant
Posted by shimdogger 
