With the end of the academic year upon us, questions about the three-year degree proposals from Queen’s Park last year inevitably return to mind. In 2012, the Ontario government proposed the creation of a three-year degree model, with the objective of replacing the four-year degrees currently offered by major universities throughout the province. The plan is still in its infancy, but a pilot program is currently being developed and may be implemented by the end of the year.
The plan is based on the economy’s need for a practical workforce to meet growing demand within a relatively short period of time. It is believed that this cannot not be achieved through four-year degrees.
The justification for these proposals is not limited to the issue of labour resources, but a concern for the financial welfare of university students. In the past, U of T offered three-year degrees; these were officially discontinued between 2002-2004. Between 2003-2004 and the current academic year, tuition fees have increased significantly. Those advocating against four-year degrees believe that three-year degrees provide a less expensive option. But before reaching such a conclusion, we must take into account the recent global recession, the expanding student population, and and the inclusion of financial aid.
But there are also people who favor the current four-year degrees. They argue that students are better prepared after four years of study.
“The downside is experience and networking,” says Michael, a first-year Rotman student. Michael believes that while a three-year degree may be more financially pragmatic, more time invested into higher education better equips people with the necessary skills, to make them more competitive in the job market.
Michael is not the only university student to be suspicious of the proposals. In a recent survey conducted by the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario, 64 per cent of 850 students considered a four-year degree to bemore valueable than a three-year one.
A four-year degree provides more opportunities for students than its three-year counterpart. As the job market becomes increasingly competitive, employers look for more experience and training. Generally, students can fulfill this requirement by amassing internships or relevant work experience to round out their resume. The three-year degree would make this more difficult by increasing academic demands on students.
Another aspect that makes the three-year degree less desirable is its inflexibility. Students often get lower grades in first-year than they had hoped, as they adjust from high school to university. A shorter degree would allow less room for improvement. Additionally, a large number of students change their program or major during their undergraduate career. Without the flexibility of the current degrees, students would be forced to complete the first program they choose.
Granted, three-year degrees may solve the problem of time and cost. But if we were to follow this route, wouldn’t the cost in quality of education be higher? We have seen European universities implementing three-year degree models, but their degrees are structured differently than Canadian universities.
Rather than cutting the education budget, we should be increasing spending on post-secondary education in order to reduce fees. We should direct our resources into achieving an education that is both invaluable and accessible for all students.
Ken Kongkatong is a first-year student planning to double-major in English and psychology.
