The Three-Year BA: Is Faster Necessarily Better? : CAMPUS CORRESPONDENCE

The idea of a three-year baccalaureate has gained a certain notoriety, chiefly because S. Frederick Starr, the president of my college, has been one of its biggest promoters. In May, I’ll be graduating--after three years. Is Starr right?

Theoretically, there is no reason why the four-year baccalaureate is sacrosanct. Indeed, it is basically a historical coincidence: In 1636, Harvard modeled its education system on the four-year plan then current at Cambridge and Oxford. Since then, the two British schools have instituted three-year programs.

Practically speaking, though, the three-year program does involve trade-offs. It seems that the closer I get to graduation, the less I want to leave Oberlin. Staying would mean more opportunities to meet new people, and taking classes I wasn’t able to. Alas, the list price for my nostalgia is about $25,000. And since the main reason I opted for the three-year program was financial--I receive substantial aid--my desire to stick around will have to remain unrequited.

Three-year BA programs can take at least two forms. In one, a student may accelerate completion of the four-year degree through Advanced Placement tests and summer-school transfer credit. This is the route I chose at Oberlin. It does not require colleges and universities to create a special program. Students simply fulfill the normal course requirements--but at a faster pace.

The second type of three-year program would not rely on external credits. To succeed, students would have to be single-minded in their studies, forswearing virtually all but the books.

This kind of program has many drawbacks. Colleges might be inclined to push their financial-aid students into these programs as a cost-cutting technique, thus creating two classes of student: One able to afford a “full” education, the other consigned to the “no-frills” one. This can only exacerbate class differences in American society as a whole. Second, who is to decide which course is a “frill” and which is not? It should be noted that it is the diversity of the curriculum at most U.S. universities that keeps them globally competitive and attractive to foreign students.

Nor would the three-year BA necessarily compel high schools to improve, as some have contended. Educators are already trying to upgrade secondary education. It is sheer arrogance to think that high schools would be “shocked” into offering a sounder education, not to mention Advanced Placement courses and links to colleges nearby, because universities suddenly decided that a three-year BA was the preferred route to success. This is not to say that educators should not work to make the secondary system stronger. Rather, it is academically irresponsible to base changes in the curriculum of a university on projections of what may or may not happen in the nation’s high schools.

If a student is academically prepared and has the desire, he or she should go for the three-year BA. If not, it is not something to be pressured into.*