Recap
Sorry about the short break in these series of posts but I needed to escape a Canadian winter for a week or so. I am now back (and so is winter).
So far in this series I have argued that institutions need to drive down costs without cutting the quality of learning or research if a public system of mass higher education is to be financially sustainable and maintain public support. I laid out a number of suggestions in the following posts:
-
Universities and colleges in crisis: 3. The need to focus on costs rather than benefits
-
Universities and Colleges in Crisis: 5. Reducing the costs of courses and programs
- The crisis in universities and colleges: 6: too much (useless) research
Now for one more strategy.
Shortening the time to qualify
One way to reduce costs is to move away from time-based qualifications, to qualifications based on learning achievement. The British Open University when it was created stated that anyone was able to take their degree programs, irrespective of their prior qualifications, but only those who met the requisite standards for a degree would be awarded one. There is no set time for this. If you could meet that standard within two years or four, it was meeting the standard that counted, not the length of time studying.
Some institutions, such as Western Governors’, use competency-based learning to allow students to study at their own pace. Courses are designed, and learner support provided, so that students can choose the intensity of their studying to suit their needs and take exams when they think they are ready.
Bachelor programs in England and Wales and in many other European countries are three years, not four, as in North America. The difference is that North American institutions offer more breadth, with a wider range of program offerings, while European universities are more focused on depth within a particular subject domain.
However, even in Europe, many universities require courses in four different disciplines in the first year, so students can try subjects not studied at school. For instance I entered the University of Sheffield Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences intending to study French and English Literature (my best two subjects in high school), but in my first year at university I also was offered the choice of studying economics and psychology, which I had not taken at school. After my first year, I enrolled in a two-year honour’s track bachelor’s degree in psychology. Having taught in both Canadian and US universities, I find it difficult to argue that North American undergraduates learn more/better in four years than Europeans do in three. It is not the total length of time spent studying that matters, but the intensity and focus.
This means enabling students to study at their own pace and be assessed when they are ready. It means breaking away from the two or three semester per year and three-credit Carnegie system, to enabling students to take an exam whenever they are ready. This is now possible with learning materials accessible online at any time. Good course design will ensure that students have deadlines and a planned study schedule, but these may vary from student to student based on their needs. Students wanting to combine studying with part-time work for financial reasons will have a different schedule than students who want a degree as quickly as possible, and no other commitments. Mature students returning to college for further qualifications while working full-time will want a different schedule. With mass higher education we have many different students with very different needs. One size does not fit all. We now have the ability to design courses to give that flexibility to students. Also students will work harder if they can see that it will save them money to finish more quickly (and allow those who want to be permanent students to be so, as long as they pay for it). This however means governments rethinking financial aid to enable this flexibility in learning, for instance tying interest-free loans to time to completion of a program.
Again, a three or four year bachelor’s degree does not have to be either/or. Students should have the choice of whether to focus on a three year, more specific degree or a four year, more general degree. However, there would be major economies resulting from those choosing a shorter degree.
These more flexible approaches regarding study time not only enable students to match their studies to their personal requirements, but offer ways in which they can qualify more quickly, and thus reduce costs.
Up next
In the last of this series, I will pull together all my suggestions and look at the two greatest obstacles to reducing costs in higher education.
Dr. Tony Bates is the author of eleven books in the field of online learning and distance education. He has provided consulting services specializing in training in the planning and management of online learning and distance education, working with over 40 organizations in 25 countries. Tony is a Research Associate with Contact North | Contact Nord, Ontario’s Distance Education & Training Network.
A wonderful call out Tony, but (as a graduate of the British OU,- the only way for me – and then an employee for 16 years) I should point out that offering learners that kind of huge flexibility is highly complicated to operate and has high costs. Indeed many students took lots of time to obtain their excellent and wonderfully student centred degrees.( I did hear of at least one person who took 30 years!) Maybe with modern systems and new determination and vision it would be possible again to secure the kind of volume that underpins flexibility.
Nice to see you here, Gilly !
Circa 10 years ago when I was more involved with the venture crowd than I am now, I came across a number of faster-moving US universities (not only WGU) that offered, often online, programs that allowed students to graduate in under the 4 years. Though some of these have vanished or been taken over, which tends to confirm how hard it is to do this (and cover costs), I came across a whole article itemising the current options in the US – see https://research.com/degrees/best-fast-track-accelerated-degree-programs-in-america
As Gilly points out “offering learners that kind of huge flexibility is highly complicated to operate and has high costs”. Issues that governments tend to forget are to allow time to refurb buildings and equipment (IT and estates departments are really busy each September) and that many universities in attractive cities make a fortune out of student accommodation by renting it out to summer visitors (including many North Americans!)
We have tried this in England more than once but the schemes the government put forward seemed doomed to fail (they tried not to provide 3 years worth of funding) and most universities, especially elite ones, were very unenthusiastic. Nevertheless there are some two-year degrees around and a useful list (targeted at Canada!) can be found at https://www.studyin-uk.ca/study-options/two-year-degree/
My travels round Europe and perusal of Eurydice-type reports suggest that you are not correct, Tony, that most EU countries have 3-year degrees, most seem to have 4-year. Like Scotland does. I find that there is in EU and Scotland absolutely zero interest in reducing the length of degrees – but remember that some have a generation ago had already to crush even longer ones into 4 years when the Bologna reforms started to bite.
Many thanks for this, Paul, and especially the references which are REALLY useful and interesting.
I know the University of Bristol offers a four year, high-school entry, master’s degree in Mathematics for high flying math students. Are there other examples in other subject disciplines?
I’m more interested though in fast-tracking courses, so students can complete early and move to another course without having to wait several months. This would need though more self-standing course designs and on-demand online curricula, materials and feedback. Definitely feasible, though, with a good, long-term business plan.
There is a a lot to unpack around time to qualify.
First, there is the range of different ‘time-based’ qualifications. As already noted the landscape is dominated by 3 and/or 4 year first degrees. These are often set out in national qualification frameworks with designated levels of study within and for the end point of those qualifications. Thus in the UK we have the four year integrated masters degrees that Tony mentions that are treated as being undergraduate but have their final year of teaching nominally at post graduate level but that being less study time than a ‘full’ Masters. In the UK at least there are also sub degree qualifications – certificate and diplomas of HE – for 1 and 2 years study respectively at appropriate levels.
Second there is the acceptability to the market of these various qualifications. Although the CertHE and DipHE exist few students aim for them and few employers really know what they are, preferring a full degree (the introduction of a 2 year foundation degree back in the noughties did not do well). The integrated masters are quite popular but are largely based in STEM subjects and are a product of professional bodies making them an important pathway in gaining professional status. And as Paul notes above there are two year first degrees (I type this 5 miles from the leading proponent of them in the UK – Buckingham University) but they are not common. In part I think this is down to more and more students being effectively part time students in the sense that they undertake significant part time work to help pay their way while studying even though that study is classified as full time for data collection purposes.
So to encourage shorter periods to qualify requires a culture shift in what qualifications are necessarily needed to satisfy the wants of both students and employers as well as the supply and demand cost structures of providing those qualifications.
Many thanks for a great comment, Andy. I agree that some professional associations are extremely conservative regarding any changes in time to qualification (or even mode of delivery in the past, though that now seems to have improved in most disciplines.) I also think Quality Assessment procedures can crush any innovation in teaching, but that depends to some extent on the national QA authority, and the members on the review committees. However, our universities in Canada have no such excuse for not innovating, as very few if any have a regulated QA process to go through once they get provincial recognition (although most programs have some form of external review). One area of progress here in Canada has been microcredentials, but again a huge effort is needed to educate employers and students of their value, and what they mean. Still I think this is partly the job of our HE institutions