Three-Year Bachelor's Degrees Could Become the Standard—If Accreditors Allow It
Rising tuition costs have made three-year degree programs an enticing option for cost-stressed students.

Last week, Johnson & Wales University (JWU) in Rhode Island announced the launch of the nation's first in-person, three-year bachelor's degree programs. While other institutions already offer three-year bachelor's degrees, these programs are either exclusively online or require 120 credit hours. JWU students will be able to complete a degree in computer science, criminal justice, graphic design, and hospitality management within 90 to 96 credit hours.
The launch of JWU's program follows a recent wave of support for similar initiatives across the country. In March, the Utah Board of Higher Education authorized state colleges to explore creating three-year bachelor's degrees. That same month, Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb signed a law requiring each of the state's public four-year colleges to review their bachelor's degree programs to determine whether they could be completed in three years.
Yet despite the growing momentum, whether or not three-year degrees become more ubiquitous will be up to accreditors.
The New England Commission of Higher Education (NECHE), JWU's accreditor, approved the program in September. Similar programs at Merrimack College and New England College were approved by the NECHE in March, but have yet to be launched, according to The Boston Globe.
College accreditors have historically been wary about approving three-year programs. Before its three-year degree program was approved, New England College had its proposal rejected by the NECHE, which did not consider the college's sub-120-hour degree programs to offer the equivalent value of a four-year degree, according to Inside Higher Ed.
Critics of three-year degrees have raised concerns that these programs will reduce interest in liberal arts courses, which may have personal value for students and faculty but offer little use in the job market. Kenneth Mash, the President of the Association of Pennsylvania State College and University Faculties, told Stateline that he has "visceral disdain for the idea" because of the potential it has in creating a two-tiered system where only wealthy students have the privilege of receiving a well-rounded four-year education.
Robert Zemsky, a University of Pennsylvania professor and co-founder of College-in-3, a group of colleges and universities advocating for three-year degree programs, is one of the leading voices of the three-year degree movement. He argues that these programs could cut the price of attendance by 25 percent while increasing completion and retention rates.
With regard to Mash's criticism, Zemsky tells Reason that much of it originates from faculty unions who fear that "a three-year degree will reduce the number of faculty," thus hurting their livelihoods.
"In a sense, they are right," Zemsky said, "but that we have reached a point now where college is simply too expensive and you have to begin to decide what's really important now. When you really look at most college curricula, the courses that are offered are the courses, not that the students need, but that the faculty want to teach. If we move away from that and produce student-centered curricula, there will be better learning, better retention, and less price to the suit."
Zemsky admits that while he sees three-year degrees potentially helping completion and retention rates, there isn't enough empirical data to support these claims. Thanks to a recently awarded grant, College-in-3 will soon start exploring ways to verify these statements by testing them in more than 50 participating institutions that are in different stages of researching and developing three-year degree plans, he tells Reason.
Education leaders that Zemsky has spoken with have called the three-year degree "liberating." College-in-3 may currently only have about 50 members, but Zemsky is optimistic that this number will likely grow to at least 100 over the next year and 500 in the next three years.
With sky-high tuition costs in many colleges and universities, three-year degrees have only gotten more attractive for price-stressed students. Whether future students have the choice to attend a three-year program is now in the hands of both accreditors and initiatives pushing for more student options.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Rising tuition costs have made three-year degree programs an enticing option for cost-stressed students.
Accepting rising tuition costs simply means more embedding of inflation. Tuition costs should be maybe 1/2 or 2/3 of what they are now. Eliminate federal student loans starting today and those costs will drop by that overnight
We should do something similar re eliminating decades of house inflation - but that won't happen.
The real problem is the size of bureaucracy, administrators and DEI departments and what not.
I mean, sure, they should offer degrees with the crap no one wants to take (basically liberal arts for STEM people) but lets not pretend 6-7 classes on liberal arts is causing the problem in college cost.
The problem is a captive audience, students get brainwashed into thinking they need college for their whole public school life, loans for anything regardless of ability or likelihood of it being paid back and for any amount. College are going to try to take as much money as they can, because students can get loans for huge amounts of money.
The real way to make college cheaper is to make colleges co-signers for student loans. If the programs are that valuable, if the student will profit so much, then they shouldn’t have a problem.
But if they aren't sure of the student or the value of the program, then they won't play along and thus students will either end up taking more practical majors and those that shouldn't be in college can go learn another trade.
Let me add I am going to online college at SNHU, which is a 120 credit degree (or 40 classes.
3 of of the courses are DEI, 2 are English writing, 2 Social Sciences, 2 are History, and 2 are Humanities.
The 2 English classes are pretty necessary, as it's how to write a paper and do research. So that leaves like 9 out of 40 that are basically useless. That's padding the bill, but only by like 25%
When I was taking classes in electronics there were two requirements one was in English and one communications, sorta like writing cohesively and a course in basic business.
If you were to operate your own repair shop some basic knowledge in business is a must.
It would also be helpful to apply laws equally.
Require ALL universities, not just trade schools, to disclose the completion rates, hire rates, and average salaries of all graduates, and the rates of completion for all admissions.
And just end student "loans". There are enough funds available for scholarships.
Require ALL universities, not just trade schools, to disclose the completion rates, hire rates, and average salaries of all graduates, and the rates of completion for all admissions.
They already do.
Fun fact I was denied multiple scholarships because I was white and working full time.
The real way to make college cheaper is to make colleges co-signers for student loans.
Should car dealerships be co-signers on auto loans?
Should real estate agents be co-signers on mortgages? "If that piece of real estate is so valuable, then the agents will have no problem co-signing the mortgage!"
No, that's not the answer. A bachelor's degree isn't, and shouldn't be regarded as, a job training credential. If a person gets a particular bachelor's degree and does not get a job based on that degree, there is nothing inherently wrong with that. The real problem is the corruption of the bachelor's degree as if it were a job training credential.
A bachelor’s degree isn’t, and shouldn’t be regarded as, a job training credential.
Depends on what you major in.
The real problem is the corruption of the bachelor’s degree as if it were a job training credential.
The real problem is treating all majors equally. They're not.
Well, they are all "equal" from the point of view of the degree itself. The ideal (not always realized, of course) is that every bachelor's degree includes a focused program of study in a particular field (major) along with a broad survey of other fields (general education). Some fields are more monetizable than others, that is true. But that doesn't mean that one degree is better or worse than another (ceteris paribus).
That's just dumb dude. You know exactly what I meant.
That’s because intelligence tests were outlawed (mostly by people who didn’t like what IQ tests showed).
That’s easily solvable, but horrendously anti-egalitarian, so you wont support it.
Yeah, I don't support racist dickheads using flawed IQ tests to "show" that some group is inferior to another. Fuck off.
Then degrees will continue to be used as substitutes for intelligence checks.
A black man as president really broke you, didn't it?
Obama is actually a perfect example of lowering the standards of colored people to make white people feel great about their racial guilt.
“colored people”
How old are you, 98?
"lowering the standards"
So Obama didn't deserve to be president? Standards were lowered on his behalf? Why don't you explain this.
Standards were lowered on his behalf?
The Nobel Peace prize was given to him after he did nothing.
Lower standards indeed.
The Nobel Peace prize was given to him after he did nothing.
You're wrong about this statement.
In fact, the Nobel Peace prize was given to him before he did nothing.
I don't recall such unmitigated pandering, well, ever. It was like a global media version of when the music industry gave Adele an award and spent the whole time patting themselves on the back for giving up the Grammy to a fat chick.
well, the Obama administration did in fact help push the Maiden in Ukraine which led to the current situation. So there's that. I guess it was worthy of Nobel.
Victoria Nudelman
Samantha Power.......
Everything you offer as counter examples offer value intrinsically but the college degree does not, at least not modern victim oriented college.
So the value of a degree is not what you learn, it is in how long it took to learn?
Who is providing accreditation for the accreditors?
I'm confused. When I was but a Seaman Apprentice in Norfolk in the early 90's, I met/partied w/ quite a few students from Old Dominion that opted out of summer breaks to complete their degrees in three years. While not the most popular option, it was apparently normal enough at the time.
They're talking about completing the degree with fewer credits, so STEM majors don't have to take Art History and other bullshit classes.
Rising tuition costs have made three-year degree programs an enticing option for cost-stressed students.
Let me guess, they give you 1/4 the education in 3/4s the time for 9/10ths the price?
Hopefully they'll speed up the loan application process and fix the form website. Maybe Reason could do an article or ten on that.
I spent a total of 4.5 years in school to graduate with my ultra STEM degree. I lived at home and started at age 18. I did more partying at the end of my college. I took out $7000 in loans which I used about half for school and half for extra curricular activities. I had a really good time at school, doing things that I knew I wouldn’t be able to do later. It appears to me that things have gotten much worse since 1990. The new graduates I see are pretty clueless. Also, I never regretted taking the liberal arts classes. I liked the extra year and a half. I also spent a year working an internship.
Another thing about my online college, SNHU, is they take "courses" from websites like Study.com and Sophia.com. Up to 90 credits, leaving just 30.
So it's literally possible to get a college degree from SNHU in a year, just do a free trial at either of those websites, get 90 credits worth of classes in a week, then do a year of actual (still super easy) online classes for the rest.
And somehow SNHU is accredited and not considered a degree mill...
Isn't this (3 year degree) already the norm in places like the U.K.? I'd assume that the apparent desire to imitate all things European would validate this approach. But perhaps I'm mistaken concern the virtue of those who oppose this.
Well well well. A Halloween parade display that is sure to meet with the approval of at least half of the commenters here.
https://www.cbsnews.com/pittsburgh/news/kamala-harris-chains-pennsylvania-halloween-parade/
Sounds similar to a gay pride float I saw one time.
Did the chains hurt?
Three years works pretty much everywhere else in the world. Time for the U.S. to give it a shot.
It works very well for India where one can obtain an engineering degree in three years and get a job with Boeing designing flight ware like MCAS.
JWU students will be able to complete a degree in computer science, criminal justice, graphic design, and hospitality management within 90 to 96 credit hours.
But what about all the critical race theory, gender identity indoctrination, anti-semitism, and white-shaming? That takes AT LEAST another 30 credit hours.
Yeah for Utah. And anyone who has their academic Bachelors degree knows the first 2 of those 4 years isn't career 'education' anyways. Actual knowledge (not commie-indoctrination) is all taught in less than a year.
Course Commie-Politicians demanding classes probably has everything to do with that.
We're awarding way too many Bachelors degrees to people who really don't need and aren't prepared for a university education.
Years ago, many Americans obtained 2 year Associates degrees and were able to work as lab technicians, draughtsmen, paralegals, nurses, etc. What's wrong with that?
Useless degrees such as “Hospitality Management” and “Graphic Design” are about as useless as tits on a bull. Those two along with a number of other useless and worthless degrees that have no future.
I spent two years at a local college and had no desire to continue. A short time later I enrolled in a community college and studied what I really wanted which was electronics. Graduated after two years and had lots of work lastly as a tech that serviced and repaired electronics systems for one of the big three.
Young people are much better off with vocational training instead of a useless college degree. There is a great need for service techs of all types: HVAC, Electrical, Plumbing, construction, A&P ( that’s airframe and powerplant.) The local community college near where I live offers full courses to commercial pilot.
Get a job in HVAC or even plumbing and earn a real living.
If three years is good enough for the NFL, then it's good enough for real college students too.