However, if graduation rates were reported in terms of tuition paying semesters, the Florida public university graduation rates would not look so good, since many “four year” graduates paid 8.5 or 9 semesters’ worth of tuition (and foregone a summer of work earnings) instead of 8 semesters’ worth of tuition.
@ucbalumnus True, but the Board of Governors are not interested in the 4 year graduation rates. They do track 6 year graduation rates.
You can see this in the performance funding model being used in Florida. Common metrics include % of Bachelor’s graduated employed and/or continuing education, average wages of graduates, cost per undergraduate degree, 6 year graduation rates, academic progress rates (freshman retention), Bachelor’s degrees awarded in STEM, university access rates (% of undergraduates with Pell Grants), etc. It’s very “outcome” focused.
A University that does well in these metrics, get additional funding, one that does poorly, loses funding.
I was working in the SUS of Florida when the summer requirement in its current form went through. At least as the faculty I know saw it, it was a grab for tuition dollars, pure and simple. (Bright Futures shorts the universities just a little bit.)
It’s not limited to public universities.
Some private colleges including some Ivies I know of insist an undergrad finish in 8 semesters or less with exceedingly few exceptions if any. It forced a few old neighborhood friends who were dealing with a sudden onset of severe illness or serious family issues to finish elsewhere.
There is no way a school can “insist” a student finish in 8 semesters. Please provide proof of that statement.
^^In my daughter’s private college, she had to meet with an advisor every semester for approval of her schedule. Anything that would deviate from a 4-year grad rate required the Dean’s approval. But the would make exceptions for severe medical emergencies and other life events.
Something similar for my son’s friend who attended UCLA Engineering. To take any courses, other than those proscribed to be on track for graduation in 4 years, required special approval. He did well enough, so he didn’t have to repeat any courses, which may put others on a 5-year track.
And, fwiw, merit and need-based aid at many privates is capped at 8 semesters. So, there are large incentives to get out. 
Actually, they can by having clearly stated rules that if one doesn’t finish within a certain number of registered semesters, they’d have to go elsewhere to finish their BA/BS degree or in the case of those trying to complete a double major, force the student concerned to graduate with only one of the majors if completing the second one requires more semesters beyond the initial 8*.
That doesn’t include time off so it’s fine if a student takes leave of absences during undergrad…so long as he/she takes no more than 8 semesters to complete all undergrad degree requirements.
- One colleague was so angered at being forced by his private U to graduate with only one of his two desired majors because they didn't want students to stay beyond 8 semesters he was adamant about refusing to donate to his private U or recommend younger relatives and friends attend.
I have a former colleague who pretty convincingly argues the following -
Want to improve the 4-year graduation rate at public flagship universities, particularly those that are more selective than average? An easy way to do this is to raise net in-state tuition by 25-50%. He’s got lots of data to support his claim. Basically - to a far greater extent than most people want to admit - students who attend these flagship universities disproportionately come from upper-middle class and affluent families, and their parents can afford (with some grumbling perhaps) to pay an extra couple semesters of tuition. This allows many kids to delay graduation for “not-good” reasons, such as wanting to take the minimum number of credits in order to have easier work loads or to be able to party more, switching majors unnecessarily, or avoiding having to get a job since they are having fun as a student.
There are a few case studies showing that doing this could get 4-year graduation rates up by 10% or more. Better advising would also help a lot.
Raising tuition might force some kids to have to take a semester to work (reducing the 4-year graduation rate), but this is much more than offset by upper-middle class parents dropping the hammer and forcing their kids to get their act together and to graduate on time.
Anyway, raising tuition to get 4-year graduation up is a political non-starter, but it does help explain why a lot of students take longer than 4 years to graduate.
Purely economically, not having students graduate in 4 calendar years is pretty costly to the student even if they only end up paying for 8 semesters. Other than co-op programs, there’s a pretty large opportunity cost for them to not getting a full-time job for an extra 1 or 2 years - it doesn’t just cost them the earnings from their starting salary, but it delays them building marketable skills and achieving their full earnings potential. You could argue that students taking classes in the summer so they can graduate in 4 years or less also benefits them since they could then start their full-time employment on time.
If it is called a 4-year degree, it is meant to be completed in 4 years. Otherwise it would have been called a “4 to 6 year degree”. You should absolutely be forced to graduate in 4 years to make space and resources available (dorm room etc) for incoming kids. The only exceptions should be made if health or other complications need to be accommodated. College should not be a haven for kids escaping parents to party. And if you decide to leave to start a band, launch a startup or go on a religious mission, that’s your decision - you dropped out for a reason that did not have to do with health, family issues, service to the country in a war etc etc. College should not be a platform from which you can take multiple diversions. You are blocking the resources of the college - it is not your mom’s pad.
As for needing to accommodate people who wish to get a double major, that at least has some academic reasoning that I can sympathize with - I was in a very similar situation to your friend @cobrat. Maybe once you do graduate in allocated time, you can always add on a 2nd major and apply for a 2nd degree with 90% of the credits carried over from the 1st degree? I don’t know. Just thinking aloud. It is ok to allow for 2nd major spillovers but they should be treated as extensions of your completed degree not a way to extend your degree.
Another aspect to consider is that most universities take in new students on a fall cycle so dorm rooms and other resources are re-allocated from recent graduates to freshmen every fall. So a senior who misses graduating in 4 years and needs only 1 semester might as well stay on for 2 more. Besides the stats, this is another incentive for colleges to push kids through in 4 years. The reason most colleges love AP/IB/DE kids is because these kids have a much higher probability of graduating in time.
@al2simon I completely agree on the opportunity cost point you raised. From a student’s perspective - there are so many benefits to graduating on time that someone might consider those who took lower credits per semester or took breaks, weak candidates for work. They might do the same in their jobs. Why should anyone assume they are suddenly more mature? Why even give them a chance? Who cares if the company misses out on a few good hires by avoiding those who graduated late or studied weak majors or went to unknown colleges or had low GPAs for that matter? There are always a million youngsters looking for jobs. This, then is another opportunity cost to those who decide to take it easy.
As for the raising tuition bit, I am not sure how that can be verified but it is an interesting theory for sure. Maybe the state colleges should do that and be more like the 100% need met Ivies?
Re #65
UCB engineering requires students to ask permission for any extra semesters beyond 8 (4 for junior transfers). UCB L&S has a 130 credit unit limit for students who take more than 8 (4 for junior transfers) semesters. SJSU allows seniors with excessive credits to take only those courses needed to fulfill subject requirements to graduate as soon as possible. Texas publics have a rebate if one graduates with no more than 3 credits attempted over the minimum needs to graduate in one’s major.
It would not be surprising if similar policies existed in many public universities. However, those with many part time, commuter, or nontraditional students may be credit instead of semester based.
Re #67
Would not be surprising if that worked for students from upper income families. But it needs to come with better financial aid for in state students from lower and middle income families, so that they do not drop out due to running out of money, or cannot attend at all due to being priced out.
@dfbdfb Exactly, the normal fall/spring tuition cycle “pays” for the faculty and facilities, so the summer term is “profit” (In a very simplified manor). The more credit hours generated (which equates to tuition) over the summer, the better the overall financial picture.
Of course, that does mean someone has to teach these summer classes, but it’s still a net positive for revenue and margins. All of those Florida kids really have other things they would rather do in the summer, than take Calculus 2.
Over 1/3 of the students in Florida’s system are Pell Grants recipients. It would also lead directly to higher amounts of student loans. Other states have tuition rates 100%+ higher than Florida’s and still have the same issue with on time graduations. I think easy access to student loans would compensate for the increase in tuition rates.
Then again a 50% tuition rate increase wouldn’t happen in Florida. The legislature would have to approve a very unpopular increase in Tuition, and THEN come up with a way to fund all of those pre-paid programs that now have to pay out 50% more…
Except that they aren’t called “four-year degrees”. Technically, they are called “baccalaureate degrees”. Yes, they’re colloquially referred to as four-year degrees, but that’s just because we’ve decided as a culture that that’s the expected length of time for someone to acquire that body of knowledge if they’re focusing on it full-time. There’s nothing magical about four years, though; consider the Commonwealth system, where one might well call it a “three-year degree” in many cases.
@dfbdfb I understand your point but every baccalaureate curriculum here is planned out for exactly 4 years. That is also why they look for 16 years of education as well when students from Switzerland or the UK or one of the ex-colonies applies for a graduate degree in the US. So the entire system does expect you to graduate in 4 years. And if terming it a 4 year degree seems arbitrary, then requiring 120 semester credits to graduate is also arbitrary - why should it not be 110 for 1 student and 143 for another one? If we define a minimum credit requirement, we must also specify a time requirement as well. Leeway can be afforded for unusual circumstances but we have to state 120 semester credits in 4 years. And for more time, you need to apply for approval.
The commonwealth system has its own quirks - they have seemingly no GEs - and they immediately get immersed in their majors but there too the universities do expect to have you graduate in their stated time limits - 3 years.
We must require everyone to graduate on time. If it is not possible for an reason, then it should still require approval - letting kids decide what pace is best for them will only give them wrong ideas about what is possible in real life. It is not as accommodating to slackers. We have let standards slack too much. The college system should be more brutal.
This is actually an ongoing item of conversation within higher education—not really to the point of leading to changes, but there’s definite recognition that the arbitrariness of the way we measure student progress and achievement is problematic.
I take issue with your use of the word must in that statement.
maybe i should use the word “should” instead of “must”.
the point I am making is that if we are, currently, inflexible in defining academic achievement in terms of credits, we have to be consistent and be inflexible in terms of time limits as well. it is “x” credits in “y” time.
otherwise it is equivalent to being too flexible in terms of time allocated to accomplish a task but not being flexible at all in redefining the task based on individual circumstances. and that would be inconsistent.
PS: how do I get those grey boxes when I quote someone?
Not every. Examples:
- BArch programs are normally 5 years. (NAAB accredited architecture bachelor's programs)
- Dartmouth ABET-accredited engineering takes 1-3 extra quarters beyond 4 years.
- Florida public universities require the summer session, meaning 8.5-9 semesters of tuition-paying attendance for many students who graduate "within 4 years".
- Schools with curricula built around co-ops normally have 5 year bachelor's degree programs, although with 8 semesters or 12 quarters of tuition-paying attendance. Many other schools have optional co-ops.
- 3+2 engineering programs are normally 5 years.
- Bachelor's programs for non-traditional students may take different amounts of time (e.g. for part time students who have work or family obligations).
At some schools where the minimum credits is (for example) 120 to graduate with a bachelor’s degree, there may be some majors where slightly higher numbers of credits are required due to subject requirements taking that many. Engineering majors are among the more common ones, although they can still be completed in 8 semesters if one is willing to take slight overloads.
Okay, but consider the following, taken from the university where I work (though it’s a model that’s pretty widely used, at least at places on a semester calendar): If we define the number of credits required for graduation as 120, and nearly every course is 3 credits, then 15 credits per semester results in graduation in 4 years.*
However, 12 credits per semester is also full-time under federal rules, and at 12 credits per semester, 120 credits results in graduation in 5 years.
Is there something inherently better about the first path than the second one? I mean, tradition points to the first one, but I see a lot of students who are dealing with child-rearing or caring for grandparents, or who are holding down a half-time (at least) job, or who came into college without the cultural capital to really know how to handle a college coursework schedule—for them, 12 credits per semester seems eminently reasonable.
Also, separate issue: At an institution where tuition and fees are charged on a per-credit basis, the tuition cost is identical (leaving aside potential inflation and the one year’s worth of opportunity cost), so there’s no difference there unless there’s an additional year of room and board (which, really, would be paid anyway, just to a different entity).
- Assuming no time conflicts for prerequisites, and so on. Sometimes not being able to do this isn't the fault of the student, unfortunately.