<p>There are so few new jobs for traditional practicing attorneys, and ever more law school graduates with massive debt, desperate to earn a living. Very, very sad to see. WAY too many law schools. They could close half of them tomorrow.</p>
<p>I can honestly say–at least for me–that I used zero of what I learned UG for law school. Instead, the most useful thing for law school was my clerking experience on the side and during the summer, which taught me the “real world” of legal practice, beyond the theoretical, and helped my schooling immeasurably.</p>
<p>Law is a true “apprenticeship” profession. You learn by doing, and being mentored. You can learn legal theory, how to think like a lawyer, and how to research–all in law school, but you are next to worthless until you actual learn to practice after a few years.</p>
<p>The whole education system needs to be blown up (and law school is a perfect example of that) as the arguments for intellectual exploration, while valid, don’t sit well considering the cartoonishly absurd cost of college nowadays. Personally, I would’ve preferred to just go year-round full-time and get it over with, but my alma mater, USC, didn’t allow for that - the only financial aid available over the summer was loans, and very few classes in my particular program (film school) were offered.</p>
<p>One of my high school classmates went to our local community college and transferred to a good state school after one year as a junior. That’s always impressed me - going full-time through the summer, fall, winter, spring, and summer quarters and doing an entire Associate’s degree.</p>
<p>This system needed to change a long time ago, but, as with health care, I’m skeptical whether any REAL change is coming. In the meantime, I tell the kids I’ve worked with that college has to be a dispassionate business decision, and to also take a good long look at Peter Thiel’s fellowships, offering highly qualified high school seniors scholarships to move to San Francisco and start a business. Sounds appealing to me!</p>
<p>Most 3-year BA/BS degrees assume that students have completed, before enrollment, the equivalent of 4 college semesters in one foreign language and either the equivalent of 3 semesters in another one OR calculus (or both), plus the equivalent of 5 or 6 APs. Some high school students in the US do that already - but not the majority.
The reality is that, in most of the world as well as in the US, one must have a certain degree of general knowledge and culture (=GE) in order to be considered “educated” and not just trained - a college isn’t a trade school and a college degree reflects a certain number of classes taken and passed that ensure broad understanding of the world in which we live as well as our collective past, theoretical knowledge of a subject and its application, and a variety of higher-level skills.
Note that there are lots of training programs, including apprenticeships , that don’t require much in terms of GE, although these do require proficiency in English and Math in addition to the chosen trade. For students who want purely job training, the apprenticeship model could be expanded - they’d work for a business for 3 days for reduced wages (minimum wage if the normal wage is three times higher, for example) and go to class for 2 days, mixing basic education (practical math, English for communication) with theoretical knowledge about the trade, this year-round (with 3 weeks vacation spread over the whole year) with each year completed increasing the wages. Apprenticeship programs typically take 2-3 years in other countries. There’s no reason small businesses as well as students couldn’t benefit from this scheme to train bakers, plumbers, masons, but also managers, accountants, sport coaches, etc.
Of course, it’d put some colleges out of business…</p>
<p><<<
Even bigger ripoff, both in terms of money and time, is the 4 year pre-med undergrad degree.
<<</p>
<p>Since only 2-3 schools in the nation even have a “premed undergrad degree,” I think you must mean the req’t that a med school applicant must have an undergrad degree of some type. I guess you prefer the system that other countries have where they admit med students after high school. </p>
<p>There are problems with that approach as well. Many kids haven’t yet matured while in high school, so only admitting the qualified HS school student is going to leave out the many (often boys) who don’t grow up til college. And, really, how many 17 year olds really know what they want in life?</p>
<p>I do think that there is value in at least having undergrad premed prereqs. It weeds out the students who “can’t cut the mustard.”</p>
<p>I think there is also value in having med students be over age 21 in nearly all cases. </p>
<p>I can only speak to the cirriculum at UMass Amherst to say that both of my nieces felt that while some of their classes were more challenging than others (of course) they both graduated early and had plenty of time each semester to chill. They start school Labor Day, have a month off at Xmas, a March break and out in May. Even they laughed about how little they were in classes. I would be interested to see what the normal schedule is like at some other schools. I think this is another example of us making excuses for our kids when we say 5 class is too difficult. Maybe for some, but I think not for most. Most of the college kids I know have PLENTY of time for socializing and TOO MUCH time for partying, especially with the price tags attached to some of these schools.</p>
<p>And yes, community college fills a need but it isn’t for everyone. </p>
<p>The UK has 3-year degrees, but recently a number of universities have expressed concerns that particularly in STEM subjects some students are so inadequately prepared at high school that they have to complete an additional ‘foundation year’ <em>before</em> enrolling on the 3-year degree. So 3-year degrees are not always a panacea to cut costs, unless (a) a student has decent preparation at HS, or (b) we accept a less in-depth level of knowledge from graduates. </p>
<p>That what UK did. In Hong Kong, it has been through the transition twice (4yr to 3yr and then back to 4yr). In theory, it would save some money, however, the reality is mainly in boarding. You still need to have the same credit hours to graduate. The actual saving may be by increasing the class size which can be done without shortening the program. There are many problems during the transition though. Image the last class of 4yr program and the first class of 3yr program graduate at the same time. Also, the school need to admit more freshman to maintain the total size of student body. In my opinion, it is not worth the effort and the saving would be minimal if any. A better way that many schools are already using is to have a flexible program that one may graduate in shorter time. You don’t need to change the whole system to do that. Unless the school lowers the graduation requirement, I don’t really see how would a 3 year college program can be more helpful than what it is right now.</p>
<p>It is nice that someone other than the parents of students are thinking about the skyrocketing cost of a college education, but isn’t it a pipe dream to have a 3 year degree program since according to the SAT and ACT researchers, more than half of all test takers are not sufficiently prepared for college and the current average time to graduate college is 5 years. In addition, currently a third of all students who start college do not earn a degree.</p>
<p>I do agree with the idea of many posters that if a student wants to obtain a graduate degree that graduate credits should be used to obtain an undergraduate degree in 3 years rather than require students to complete all the undergraduate elective courses before being awarding a degree. Seems to me that graduate courses should satisfy the undergraduate elective requirements to obtain the undergraduate degree if a student so chooses to cut costs.</p>
<p>Currently there are a few schools that have joint BS/MD, BS/DO and BA/JD programs that do just that.</p>
<p>A three year bachelor’s is quite possible at a number of schools already, especially as more add J or May terms and increase summer classes, sometimes offering these at discounted rates because fin aid is unavailable. As mentioned many times, AP/DE credits would also allow for an early finish for many top of the high school class kids. </p>
<p>Color me an idealist, but I would not want to make a 3 year bachelor’s the norm. With an average student debt at 28k (as reported by the project on Student debt), I don’t see a huge loan crisis and most students leaving school with an unmanageable debt burden. With 2/3 of students changing majors, I don’t see how speeding up the time to bachelors by eliminating GE an plunging right into a major helps. You think 18 years olds will suddenly become better at knowing for sure what they want to do and what they are skilled enough at to accomplish (none of them ever pick a major for which they have little aptitude just because it leads to t a “good job”)? </p>
<p>I don’t think this would work well for engineering. Internships are important and the humanities class make you more well rounded. And it is important to improve communications skills.</p>
<p>As others have pointed out, it’s already possible for the well-prepared who have credits from AP/IB/CLEP/CC to graduate in 3 years, but for most American kids, many of whom don’t belong in college in the first place and have to take remedial classes to catch up? I don’t think a 3 year college education would do them any good. I also am of the opinion that a law education should be gotten more through apprenticeship than the current American system, but for those advocating a shorter time to an MD,
That’s already possible; just get in to one of the several accelerated MD programs that are out there.
From what I’ve heard, the kids in the UMKC 6-year MD program aren’t generally terribly happy (not surprising considering that they pretty much have zero down time for 6 years straight).</p>
<p>Many schools measure progress by credit hours completed, not years or semesters. It’s only the expectation that it will take 4 years (instead of 3) that keeps many kids from finishing in 3 years in everything EXCEPT engineering. In fact, for engineering students, the CC option (do 2 years at CC and then finish the bachelors at the local U) means 5 years total because the issue is not getting the 128 (or so) semester credits, but getting the prerequisites for more advanced classes. You have to take X class before taking Y, before taking Z, and if X isn’t offered at the CC, you sometimes just can’t get the classes to fit right.</p>
<p>But for students who routinely take 20+ (semester) credit hours per semester in departments that don’t have many courses in sequence, it shouldn’t be that hard to graduate in 3 years. It would be hard to work during that time, and substantial outside interests would need to be put on a back burner, but it’s definitely do-able.</p>
<p>@gearmom, I agree that some majors require at least four years, engineering certainly being one of them. </p>
<p>FWIW, I will stand up and say if students are not prepared for college and have to take a year of gen ed requirements in order to progress, these are exactly the types of students who are perfect for community college. </p>
<p>I’m not sure if I would want D to begin a program knowing that it is three years only. I do want her to have fun, take elective courses and join clubs, etc. but if she gets credit going in and is able to graduate early, I would certainly consider it. Bates is one of her top choices and they give alot of credit for IB courses. If their financial package over four years isn’t affordable, we’ll crunch the numbers for the 3-year plan and it could feasibly be another option if she so chose.</p>
<p>In many cases, it is possible to fit all of the major requirements for many majors plus a typical number of GE courses into three years’ worth of courses. The fourth year worth of courses would be free electives to complete the minimum number of credits or courses specified for graduation (typically 120 to 128 credits or 30 to 32 typical size courses).</p>
<p>If the minimum number of credits or courses specified for graduation were lowered to three years’ worth (90 to 96 credits or 23 to 24 typical size courses), but all other requirements for the major and GE courses remained the same, that would still ensure that the student had what the school considered a broad understanding of the world along with his/her major, but allow the option to graduate in less than four years, even without AP/IB/college credit going in. Of course, that would not apply if the student chooses a major that (along with GE) requires four years’ worth of courses, or if the student chooses to stay four years for additional free electives.</p>
<p><<<
but for most American kids, many of whom don’t belong in college in the first place and have to take remedial classes to catch up? I don’t think a 3 year college education would do them any good. </p>
<br>
<br>
<p>True.</p>
<p>And, it’s a shame and waste of money for certain states to be generously funding FA for such kids to go to universities before they have those remedial classes out of the way. </p>
<p>The UCs and CSUs in particular, should require those who need to take sub100 classes to take them either the summer before matriculation at a nearby CC or to delay enrollment by a quarter, semester, or year while they get “college ready” at their local CC. It is ridiculous for the state to provide a Cal Grant and the feds to provide a Pell Grant (all totally about $20k per year) for a UC student to start school, only to be taking classes that are essentially high school level. </p>
<p>I would float idea of much higher level of education in 1 -12 and make it 1 -10 also starting at 7, not 6.
This will eliminate taking lower level / remedial classes in college and lots of tutoring / prof. hours activities as most of this material will be covered in HS. This will also eliminate frustrations of great number whose dream of engineering, pre-med and some other math/science related majors are derailed after realizing that their HS background is simply not enough for these majors, hence it will eliminate lots of switching majors and lots of classes outside of “graduating” major.
Then, I do not see any problem with 3 years in non-engineering majors and 4 in engineering majors.<br>
The fact is that colleges do not have academic problems (yet, untill some of those stupid, politically correct classes that are pushed into campuses). The problem is in k - 12. While schools abroad are preparing EVERYBODY for college, here the idea is that some highly motivated and selected group is only capable, WRONG idea, actually kids perform much better when they are challenged and not bored with the stupid busy paper work that require no brain activity.</p>
<p>Oftimes students with limited funds take running start classes while they are in high school.
Two years of running start paid by the district, and they are admitted to the local universities with junior level standing.
Lots of ways to save money that are already out there f you think about it.</p>
<p>Indeed. The kids who rack up 6 figures in debt or blow through $200K+ in college money and can’t find a job all invariably had cheaper options that they turned down. Some of which may have given them the skills to be employable.</p>