Student debt and degree length

Isn’t it weird that most degrees have the same duration regardless of the complexity of the underlying field? (share on Twitter)

This is problematic, as degrees longer than necessary are more expensive than necessary – both a barrier to entry and a cause of debt later on.

Moreover, degree length itself is a barrier to entry. Many students cannot afford to delay their first salary too long, and some of those living far from colleges cannot afford to leave their homes for years (for example, if their parents need care). [1]

Shortening degrees would lower costs [2] and barriers to entry, leading to a fairer and more inclusive education.

Of course, additional structural changes are required, including making student loans dischargeable in bankruptcy [3], capping places available at degrees that generate too many students saddled with debt they cannot repay, and decreasing the ratio of administrators per teacher. [4]

Moreover, parents and teachers should talk about degrees as investments rather than must-haves. How much value is provided and at what cost matters. Of course, there is more to education than employability. But, if thousands of graduates are smothered by student debt, the cost-benefit of degrees is clearly under-discussed.

And finally, colleges should be transparent about employment opportunities. It’s not enough to say how many graduates find employment; they should also mention how many aren’t on track to repay their debt.

Degrees shouldn’t saddle students with debt nor should they be barriers to high-paying jobs for those who cannot afford the time or money to attend them. Shortening unnecessarily-long degrees is one of the most straightforward ways to achieve this.

(Note: this essay is also available as a webpage and as a Twitter thread.)

Notes:

[1]: Students living far away from college could commute or work part-time jobs, but these activities come with a high toll and make studies more difficult. So, the less we require them, the better and the fairer.

[2]: Shorter degrees might not lower costs for the most sought-after colleges such as Harvard, whose supply is inherently limited and thus price is determined by demand rather than costs, but it would decrease the price of most other degrees.

[3]: Making colleges foot the bill in case of student bankruptcy would also be an idea. However, it might lead to discrimination in admission (i.e., colleges would only admit those rich enough not to be at risk of bankruptcy). A law banning the financial examination of applicants would not be enough, for there are many indirect ways to guess a student’s socio-financial class.

[4]: The administrators-to-teachers ratio is 1:1 at Yale, compared to 1:20 at my Italian alma mater, one reason it can keep operational costs as low as $8.5k per student despite being a top-5 university in my country.