This house calls for the introduction of two-year degrees as standard
This house calls for the introduction of two-year degrees as standard
The length of full-time undergraduate degree courses varies from country to country, and may not be standard even within one education system. However, around the world four-year degrees are most common, with five years or more not unknown in countries such as Germany and Italy. England stands out as the main example of three-year degree courses, although within the UK Scottish undergraduate courses are usually four years in length and this is becoming increasingly common elsewhere in the UK. Since 1976 the private University of Buckingham in southern England has pioneered two-year undergraduate degrees1, but until recently this had little influence on mainstream higher education in the UK or elsewhere. From 2007 onwards the UK government began to re-examine the way in which university courses were delivered, funding pilot studies for two-year degrees in several universities. 2010 financial pressures on the UK education system have led to a wider debate on whether two-year undergraduate degrees would be better for both students and the taxpayer.
This case presents the arguments for shorter undergraduate degree courses with the UK debate in mind – this would mean a reduction of most undergraduate degrees from three years to two. However, the arguments could equally well apply to other countries, where proposals may be for a decrease from four or five years to three. This may be particularly relevant to continental European universities, as the Bologna process2 by which European higher education will be harmonised towards a standard three-year Bachelor degree will affect them over the next few years.
1University of Buckingham, http://www.buckingham.ac.uk/about/twoyear
2Bologna process, 2009, http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/about/
| Points For | Points Against |
|---|---|
| It would help ease management and financial pressures which are becoming an increasing problem for higher education institutions. | Altering the current system in the UK would cause an imbalance between British and European systems. |
| A more work-intensive system would discourage those not suited to higher education from attending and provide a better environment for those who should be there. | The time scales in higher education are not based entirely on undergraduate study - research is also a significant factor. |
| Shorter degree courses are better for getting mature students into education. | The idea of 'student life', the involvement in student clubs, societies and organisations would be hindered if not rendered impossible by such time constraints. |
| A two-year degree is more efficient | Other education systems such as the International Baccalaureate offer a broader education up to degree level, and therefore require a longer, more in-depth degree system. |
It would help ease management and financial pressures which are becoming an increasing problem for higher education institutions.
Point
Universities are now under what is perhaps the most serious financial pressure they have ever faced1 - the UK government for example is cutting spending on education by up to 25%2 and allowing universities to charge higher tuition fees. Shorter degree courses will help to address these great pressures on all higher education systems. By moving students through university more quickly, they free up capacity so that the increasing demand for higher education can be met within existing resources. And as tuition fees rise in the UK3 and many other countries as a consequence of government funding cuts, students will benefit from shorter courses that will allow them to graduate with less debt.
1 Sharp, 2011,
2 Richardson, 2010,
3 Richardson, 2011,
Counterpoint
Higher education systems are under pressure at present, but shorter degree courses will not fix the problem. First of all, additional teaching weeks are not cost-free as academics will demand more money for their increased work-load and many of the resources used in a degree course (e.g. books, field visits, chemicals) will be the same regardless of how the teaching is scheduled. The University of Buckingham makes shorter courses work by charging more for lower tutor-student ratios, which implies increased costs if this were scaled up over the whole country. In addition, many poorer students part-fund their degrees by working for 20 weeks or so in their vacations1, so increasing their term lengths may actually force them either to take on more debt than at present, or deter them from pursuing higher education in the first place.
Improve thisA more work-intensive system would discourage those not suited to higher education from attending and provide a better environment for those who should be there.
Point
If modern students are not up to the demands of higher education, they should not be going to university in the first place. The over-expansion of higher education in the last twenty years has inevitably lowered standards among undergraduates1, as well as imposing greater costs on taxpayers. A two year system would undoubtedly be more intensive, and come with considerably less time off than the current system. This would most likely discourage those who see university as simply 'something to do before getting a job', thus increasing the value of a degree once more.
Improve thisCounterpoint
Suggesting that reducing the number of years for degree courses implies that currently all courses are too easy and give students too much time to do the work required. Of course this is not the case - achieving top marks in most courses is still very difficult, and reducing the amount of study time would inevitably inhibit the ability of students to study beyond the basic parameters of their course, which is a key part of university education. Geoffrey Alderman argues in The Guardian that there are many other problems with the current system which are unrelated to the number of students going through it, including the modern fixation with league table results. He argues that is is this "toxic combination of factors" that needs to change, and reducing amount of time spent at university will not affect them1.
Improve thisShorter degree courses are better for getting mature students into education.
Point
Those who left school at 16 or 18 but now want to go to college are often more serious about their studies, often with a more motivated and professional approach than 19 or 20-year-olds who have moved to university by default. We should seek to encourage such committed students, who often contribute a great deal to society and the economy upon their graduation. But mature students want focused, cost-effective courses that do not require them to take three or more years out of a career. For example, at Stafford University where 2-year courses are being trialed, Director for Academic Development Dr Steve Wyn Williams has said that "Many of our students who opt to do the fast-tracks are mature students who are looking for a career change who are often quite used to working during the summer period when they were in employment"1. It would seem then that the introduction of such courses would encourage more mature students to get better qualifications, and in the process be able to contribute more to the economy as well as learn more for themselves.
Improve thisCounterpoint
Making such significant alterations to the education system in order to better accommodate one (fairly minor) subset of students seems a little extreme. A study in America showed that mature students over the age of 25 accounted for 36% of the total number of undergraduates1, and although this is a significant proportion, it is nowhere near enough to consider changing the entire university structure. In the UK the number of mature students may be even less, with 30% at Oxford Brookes classified as mature2, and only 14% at University College London3. Beyond the simple case of numbers, it is also important to consider that even in the mature section of students, shorter degree courses will not necessarily be better. Part-time courses and training for those already with careers are also widely available.
1 Center for Postsecondary and Economic Success, 2011,
2 Oxford Brookes University,
3 University College London,
A two-year degree is more efficient
Point
By teaching students for 40 weeks a year rather than less than 30, the same amount of teaching time can be provided so that students reach degree standard faster. The University of Buckingham has shown over many years that this can be achieved with no loss of quality - they remain highly placed in comparative league tables1. At the same time laboratories and lecture theatres do not stand empty for half the year, while students still have 12 weeks of vacation in which they can read and reflect on their learning.
1 University of Buckingham, 2011,
Improve thisCounterpoint
Academic institutions are about more than churning out results - if anything this de-values the entire system to the detriment of those who are genuinely suited to real academic study. The fact remains that none of the most highly ranked universities have made a move towards shortening their courses, and while the University of Buckingham has shown that it can achieve similar results in less time, this does not automatically mean that the system is better. Recently in Britain the government has come under pressure to reduce the number of people going through the system as such a focus on numbers and statistics has, according to a report by the Association of Graduate Recruiters, "driven down standards and devalued the currency of a degree and damaged the quality of the university experience"1.
Improve thisAltering the current system in the UK would cause an imbalance between British and European systems.
Point
This could result in institutions failing to attract vital international students as well as reducing the value of British degrees should people look for employment abroad1. The Bologna process of harmonising higher education systems across Europe has many benefits, among them increased opportunities to study abroad, either for the whole or for part of a degree. It will also ensure all degree qualifications are seen as credible by international employers, and make it easier to apply for and undertake advanced study beyond undergraduate level. English and Welsh universities already have work to do to ensure their three-year courses meet the Bologna standards (many are increasing courses to four years). Adopting a two-year course structure will effectively remove the UK from the Bologna process, denying its students the benefits and weakening the UK's ability to market its degree courses to international students.
Improve thisCounterpoint
This arguments suggests that even the differences between the UK and European systems now would have a serious detrimental effect on the prospects of UK graduates. As this is evidently not the case, why do we need to adopt a blanket system that is not necessarily suited to the specific needs of the country, and more importantly not suited to the needs of our students. A Parliamentary discussion on the introduction of the process asserted that Britain already has "a global reputation for high quality
HE provision maintained by a well-developed and independent quality assurance system"1. It is second only to the United States in attracting foreign students to study, so assuming that bringing the system in line with other European countries will improve it is illogical, and may in fact take the unique edge away that attracts so many to UK universities.
1 House of Commons Education and Skills Committee, 2007, (p. 24)
Improve thisThe time scales in higher education are not based entirely on undergraduate study - research is also a significant factor.
Point
Universities are designed to be places of both education and of research. Students gain hugely from being taught by academics who are themselves engaged in pushing back the frontiers of knowledge while society gains culturally and economically from the discoveries and insights produced by universities. At present this is possible because teaching only occupies about half the university year, allowing academics to maintain a serious programme of research. This research also makes up an essential part of university funding, as they are given grants based upon the quality of their research1. By compressing undergraduate courses by increasing the number of teaching weeks threatens to disrupt this balance and harm the quality and quantity of research, especially given the significance of this research as regards the ranking and funding universities receive2.
1 Higher Education Funding Council for England,
2 Lipsell, 2008,
Counterpoint
Although the amount of time available would be reduced by a shorter degree system, the financial savings made by increased efficiency would most likely cover the gap from research funding, or at least allow universities to take on more staff to conduct research. Beyond this we must also consider that the role of university may be changing - with the privatisation of many universities seen as almost inevitable1 - the "Universities White Paper" published by the government confirms movement in this direction2. As such, universities will have to perform well in research assessments in order to attract what will essentially be 'customers' - the students of the future.
1 Curtis, 2002,
2 BBC News, 2011,
The idea of 'student life', the involvement in student clubs, societies and organisations would be hindered if not rendered impossible by such time constraints.
Point
Part of the student experience is the opportunity to take part in a wide range of extra-curricular enrichment activities, such as sport, politics, reading groups, creative or charitable projects and even debating. Not only are these valuable in their own right as part of the wider education of a young person, they also provide opportunities to develop leadership abilities and other skills of great value to employers and society as a whole, according to research by the Montana State University1. And extra-curricular activities bring students from different disciplines into contact with each other and so broaden academic horizons. If a more intensive degree-course is to be adopted, such enrichment opportunities will often be lost to the detriment of both the student and society.
Improve thisCounterpoint
Enrichment opportunities are still possible within a shorter degree course – the students spend no less time at the university than they would on a traditional course, it is just spread over two years instead of three. Arguably two 40-week academic years allow students better opportunities to cooperate with their fellows, as projects and planning are not constantly disrupted by long breaks. In any case, although some undergraduates do very worthwhile enrichment activities, it is not an area that would detrimentally affect the vast majority of students, who would of course still be able to do at least one or two activities outside their studies anyway. It has also been suggested that in the current economic climate, getting a part time job during university gives better graduate prospects than joining clubs and societies1.
1 Quinn, 2002, http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2002/oct/19/students.schools1?INTCMP=SRCH
Improve thisOther education systems such as the International Baccalaureate offer a broader education up to degree level, and therefore require a longer, more in-depth degree system.
Point
Outside England, the broader education provided for 16-18 year-olds requires a longer undergraduate degree. In the USA and most European countries (including Scotland) a wider range of subjects are studied to 181. This produces better-rounded individuals than the narrow A-Level system and ensures that decisions made at the age of 15 don't limit academic and career choices later in life - many young people have voiced concerns over the growing significance of their A-level choices over their potential to get into university2. In such systems the first year or two of university typically involves studying a range of sujects before choosing a major discipline to specialise in for the final two years of undergraduate study.
1 International Baccalaureate,
2 Tobin, 2011b,
Counterpoint
In general, countries with a broader, less in-depth education system up to degree level do have longer degree courses to compensate for this. In Britain young people are encouraged to specialise at A-level, and although in some cases this limits those who are still uncertain as to what they want to do, for many it is the ideal way to begin specialising in the subject they enjoy. Furthermore this means that they are better prepared to take their chosen subject to the next level and should not require the extra time often used at university level getting all undergraduates of the same year to the same basic standard. Top ranked universities often require this level of commitment to the subject, demanding specific A-Levels and the highest grades for competitive courses1. Given this level of specialisation the system creates before university, it follows that students in the UK should be able to cope with a more intensive and fast paced degree course in their chosen subject.
Improve thisBibliography
Information on the two year degree courses at the University of Buckingham: accessed 26/08/11Information on the Bologna Process: accessed 26/08/11University league table positions for the University of Buckingham: accessed 26/08/11Report on the Association of Graduate Recruiters "Call to scrap 50% university student target", BBC News: accessed 26/08/11Article "Universities struggle with 'unparalleled uncertainty', Heather Sharp in BBC News, 14 May 2011: accessed 26/08/11BBC News article "Budget: Education spending faces 25% cut", Hannah Richardson, 23 June 2010Article "Tuition fees: 9K standard at a third of universities", Hannah Richardson in BBC News, 12 July 2011: accessed 26/08/11BBC News report "Portsmouth student became bus driver to fund university": accessed 26/08/11Article "University targets have 'devalued' degrees", Graeme Paton in The Telegraph, 09 March 2010: Article "Why university standards have fallen", Geoffrey Alderman in The Guardian, 10 March 2010: accessed 26/08/11BBC News report "Staffordshire university defends its two year degrees", 11 October 2010: accessed 26/08/11Statistics for mature students in the USA: accessed 26/08/11Statistics for mature students at Oxford Brookes University: accessed 26/08/11Statistics for mature students at University College London: accessed 26/08/11Article "Moves towards university privatisation 'unstoppable", Polly Curtis in The Guardian, 30 October 2002: accessed 26/08/11BBC News report "At-a-glance: Universities White Paper", 28 June 2011: accessed 26/08/11Statistics and information on research funding: accessed 26/08/11Article on Research Assessment Exercise, "Make or break week", Anthea Lipsett in The Guardian, 16 December 2008: accessed 26/08/11Article "A-level subjects: What universities want", Lucy Tobin in The Guardian, 1 February 2011: accessed 26/08/11Information on the International Baccalaureate: accessed 26/08/11Article "Pupils confused by 'preferred' A-levels", Lucy Tobin in The Guardian, 1 February 2011(b): accessed 26/08/11Article "Confused about university societies?", Su Quinn in The Guardian, 19 October 2002: accessed 26/08/11Article "The Importance of Extracurricular Activities in a Student's Life", T. Sweeney on www.googobits.com, 14 June 2005: accessed 26/08/11Parliamentary report on the Bologna Process: accessed 26/08/11Article " Two-year degrees may disadvantage UK graduates, Harriet Swain in The Guardian, 3 August 2010: accessed 26/08/11
Curate this debate
If you are an academic or highly knowledgeable about a particular debate could you give an hour or two a month to curate a debate?
Be a debatabase editor
Idebate needs editors from around the world to check, moderate and create content for debatabase and the site more generally. Editors are vital in making the site run smoothly and ensuring that debates are as informative as possible.
