Three-Year Degrees Expose the Truth

By shortening the bachelor’s degree, Ohio and Virginia expose the credentialing system born in the wake of a half-century-old Supreme Court decision.

Editor’s Note: This article is part of a Minding the Campus discussion on the growing movement toward three-year bachelor’s degrees. Read the introduction to the discussion, “Three Years or Four?“, along with companion essays by Suzannah Alexander and Richard Vedder.


Virginia and Ohio have announced plans to establish a three-year bachelor’s degree program for their public colleges and universities. This is a good idea. The three-year bachelor’s degree will not be a travesty of a college education. It will reveal that college education has become one long process. And this revelation is a necessary first step for true reform of higher education.

Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971) dealt a fatal blow to the traditional model of college more than half a century ago. Griggs forbade any job test with “disparate impact,” which meant that it forbade any effective job test at all. Employers resorted to requiring degrees as horrifically expensive, time-wasting proxies for an IQ test that would keep them lawsuit-free. College, since then, has become an ill-designed machine to produce a job credential. Each year, it keeps millions of uninterested students chained to their seats, enduring tedium in hopes of securing a job and a decent life. Colleges have used some of the new tuition money to employ professors and adjuncts to fill the new students’ course schedules. They have used it more to hire vast numbers of bureaucrats to engage in make-work and to transform the universities so vast and rigid that they are virtually unreformable.

Too many students have also welcomed the chance for a four-year vacation from the workforce, although the more economically minded simply work full-time and give what little remains of their attention to classes in the evenings and on weekends. Too many politicians have welcomed the artificial reduction in the reported unemployment rate that results from removing several million young Americans from the official pool of job seekers. But the central obstacles to higher education reform are Griggs and the higher education establishment.

Griggs may at long last be falling. At any rate, many states are moving to remove the college degree as a job requirement, and the federal government has begun to attack the “disparate impact” doctrine. But the sclerotic college machine still stands and will proceed by inertia unless it is forcibly disassembled.

It would be wonderful if we could reform the university by normal means. Set aside the need to eliminate the illiberal discrimination of higher education’s “diversity, equity, and inclusion” machine. We should restore rigor to admissions and grading, re-establish core curricula, and make college a full-time pursuit in which you can complete what is now a four-year education in at most three years. But the higher education establishment is too hidebound to reform itself. Certainly, it will not make the proper reforms on educational grounds.

Ohio and Virginia’s approach is correct and necessary. They treat the B.A. as nothing more than a job credential and seek to make it more efficient by chopping off a year. Of course, this will make college more efficient for that purpose; the closer college becomes to an IQ test written on sheepskin, the better it will serve the job market. More importantly, what Ohio and Virginia do is a revelation: an unveiling, an apocalypse in the true sense of the word. They dispel the illusions by which the higher education establishment justifies its endless subsidy. That is the indispensable prerequisite for effective reform of our colleges and universities.

Which, ideally, will culminate in the explicit overturning of Griggs, the re-establishment of effective job tests, and the return of millions of 18-year-olds from the tedium of mandatory college to the financial and spiritual rewards of work. When they have gone, and all the bureaucrats and professors unnecessarily employed by their tuition money have gone, then we can at last begin on the campaign to refashion our colleges and universities into actual institutions of higher education.

Ohio and Virginia have begun the needful demolition work with their plans to introduce three-year degrees. These will make apparent the truth that makes all other change possible: that the Emperor has no clothes.

Follow David Randall on X.

  1. One result of such a scheme intentionally or unintentionally will be the homogenization of the admitted student pool. This is because universities at present are willing to “take a risk” on a student who looks promising for whatever reason–and those reasons can be appropriately debated–but whose metrics (GPA, SAT, high school profile, etc.) are sub-optimal. The 4 years at present bakes in a number of classes (mostly composition, analytical writing, critical reading) in the first year/freshman year to bring students like this up to speed with peers who come better prepared. Granted, those students who are qualified might be spinning their wheels the first year since they are also required to take these rudimentary classes instead of diving into a potential major. If schools were to move universally to a 3-year graduation calendar, then likely this would mean that some students who a school would have “taken a risk” on will not be admitted since those rudimentary classes the first year will have to be eliminated. Not sure if this uniformization of a school’s student body is a good or a bad thing but it will definitely be “a thing.”

    The second consequence will be that American universities will more closely resemble their European counterparts. In France, for example, a student who intends to major in history will take mostly classes in history during their degree and perhaps ancillary courses in the social sciences and humanities. They won’t be taking calculus, biology, etc. unlike their American counterpart who is also a history major. Is this loss of breadth a good or a bad thing? Not sure but it will definitely be “a thing.” In Europe, high schools have gotten much worse but they are nowhere yet as nearly spectacularly bad as our high schools. College in the US basically helps fill in the severe lacunae wrought by our high schools. If we go to a 3-year degree, many of the distribution requirements will simply go away due to lack of time.

  2. When the online degrees arrive 30 years ago, the perception was they would be considerably cheaper because there wasn’t all of the cost of having a physical campus, a physical library, or any student affairs programs.

    What wound up happening was that they were almost as expensive as the traditional degrees, that there really was no relationship between what it cost to provide the degree and what the institution charged for it.

    In theory, a three year degree should cost 25% less as it constitutes three years of education rather than four. Do any of us honestly expect the price to drop by that much?

    Much like the half gallon (2 quart) container of ice cream that has shrunk to 1.5 quarts, and with one brand to only 1.44 quarts, I suspect the three-year degree will cost as much as the four year degree — and instead of a low price, will be told how much more they would be charging if were still a four year degree.

    1. This is a very good point. They might even call it an “accelerated program” and raise the price. Much like you have to pay TSA more money to get precheck.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Donate Today

Will you help us continue our work to reform American higher education?