1. CONTROVERSY: A three-year bachelor's degree for some programs?
Some of our respondents think that a three-year bachelor's degree is obviously a good idea. They have thought about it for a number of years and have made up their minds in favor. Others argue against it, suggesting that college is also a social maturation period that shouldn't be hurried, or that shortening the degree will just mean cheapening it. There is much more receptivity, however, to encouraging more students to begin college work in their last year of high school, and there is a great deal of concern that classes should be available so that it is possible for people to finish a degree in four years.
(a) Three-year bachelor's degree, it is unquestionably a good idea. There is not the slightest question about it.2. CONTROVERSY: Higher fees for professional schools?(b) I have long thought either that we can do more in less time, or do more in the same amount of time. If you look at other institutions around the world, many expect more from their students. It is obviously the kind of thing we ought to be looking at.
(c) The idea of a three-year bachelor's degree is more of what I call the watering
down aspect in higher education. We don't want to tell people they need more, but the tendency is to water things down until it is almost irrelevant. We say, "do more with less," but the way that would come out, if it were put on the institutions, is that we would be getting less for more money.(d) Some pretty smart people in higher education think it makes sense to shorten the degree program itself. The idea appeals to me if it involves including more in the limited time, and maybe some combination of eliminating duplication between the last year of high school and some college requirements, but also being very demanding in the three years. It seems to me that the three years would have to be thought through more carefully. If we look at a situation where the resources aren't there for business as it was, then you look at ways of accomplishing desired goals in the light of reduced resources. A serious look at whether a ba could be done in less time should be part of that.
(e) A three-year bachelor's degree doesn't make sense. If you are going to go to three, why not go to two years, and if California does it alone a student from California will be at a comparative disadvantage to a student from Michigan.
(f) My instinct is that a three-year bachelor's degree misses the other function of higher education, which is socializing young people. But if we were to have some kind of serious national service program then it would make sense, and perhaps after a maturing year of service young people could accomplish their academic work in a shorter period.
(a) Leaders and policy makers come out of the professions, particularly law. We may have too many lawyers in general, but we don't have nearly enough Latino students in law schools.(b) Young people who are otherwise eligible and qualified to get those types of degrees shouldn't be excluded because they can't afford it.
(c) It is important to provide a professional opportunity to people who couldn't afford a real competitive tuition. Upward mobility and a different career path are made possible by a lower cost structure. I have the same concerns with increased fees at the graduate as at the undergraduate level.
(d) Do we want to end up being what England was in the 1950s, so that people are only educated if they are affluent? Is that our objective? I hope not.
(e) Many young people don't have sources of income, and may be in debt by the time they get to law school. I'd have to be persuaded that raising the professional school fees is a good idea.
(f) Professional students should pay a higher percentage of graduate education. In the 1960s the concept was that the state needs to help create a professional middle class. To do that we need to subsidize professional schools. We did it, there is now a plethora of professionals. I am a lawyer and we have too many lawyers.
(g) It is absolutely right that the state shouldn't support professional education.
(h) When people are in graduate school getting a degree in law or medicine they should pay for it, and the fees should be closer to what they would pay in a private school.
(i) The state shouldn't subsidize the professional programs. California is way out of line on this. In most places fees are much closer to real cost. There are also liabilities, especially the level of debt. But it seems absurd to me that we subsidize law schools and then a lawyer starts at $70,000 per year. Some poor guy who makes $30,000 a year shouldn't subsidize a law student who is going to make 70K.
(j) As a matter of public policy, it is wrong for taxpayers to finance graduate degrees in certain professions. Law schools, doctors, engineers, all of this should be financed 100% by students themselves or by loans.
3. CONTROVERSY: A greater role for private institutions?
Several of the recommendations in Time for Decision deal with greater
utilization of resources in the private institutions. One idea is to shift
support toward individuals, and let them take the scholarships to private
or public institutions. Another idea is to explore utilizing space in private
institutions before building new campuses. Many of the panelists think that
this is an excellent approach. Others see these strategies as a form of
school vouchers for colleges which will weaken the public system and be
open to abuses.
(a)I am very much in favor of shifting support toward the students. What it does is to bring in more competition, and it may break up the monopolistic character of higher education.(b)What is wrong with working more closely with private institutions? I really don't know what the difference is anymore between a public and private institution. The public institutions do their own fund raising and the privates get money from the government.
(c)Suppose the state is spending x dollars on higher education. Right now they are supporting schools, which is inequitable. The state says, if you are smart enough to go to UC we give you a four-year scholarship. But there is not a penny for you if you want to go to Cal Tech or Pepperdine. It is a very inefficient way to use the money. We ought to decide how large a scholarship we want to give and offer them on a strictly competitive basis.
(d)It doesn't make a lot of sense to me to shift support from the institutions to individuals. You have mixed experience surrounding the voucher systems. The GI Bill, which in effect said pick your institution, was more problematic than most people realize. A fakery went on in so-called vocational schools that got in on it. I would rather fund the institutions and make damn sure they are good, and we have at various levels in the past proven that we can create good institutions.
(e)Wealthy people would certainly applaud utilizing the private institutions. Many of my friends are UC or CSU graduates, but now they want their children to go to private schools. This would subsidize the privates.