On 3-year vs. 4-year college timeframe...

There will always be things that continue to baffle me, one of which is the resistance of American colleges, general public, and most certainly faculty members, in adopting 3-year college as the norm, rather than the existing 4-year system. Numerous opinions and theories are floated, including the note that students are not ready; or that it's just a cost-saving measure in disguise; or that it would not have helped the students, pushing them to graduate and get out to the depressing job market in this down economy right now (this one being the weakest supposition).

For those who put forth the arguments against 3-year college time frame, I wonder how many of them have really been exposed to such a realty. To those, I'd say, I have. I started my college in England, a much stricter term system, with a much more focused syllabus on the major that I've selected. Due to family reasons, I transferred and finished my undergrad study to Australia which follows the US semester system that lasts 4 years. And then, after I move to US, I took my masters degree as well. As such, I have a few opinions of my own.

True, the English system is much stricter, and much more elite-based. When you flunk a subject and couldn't get through the second take (last chance) of the exam, you would get kicked out. In a semester-based system like US or Australia or Canada, you can retake the subjects again and again, if you flunk it. Sure, you have to pay for it (tuition), but at least you get to stay in the school to keep trying. And in the English system, you have to know what you want, and then start the classes in your major rightaway. In US, you get to have one whole freshman year when you take general classes for everybody, and then you pick your major. Sure, you get an extra year to enjoy the idyllic college life and load up on alcohol and partying (pardon for the extreme generalization here); but to me, it's a waste of money and time, if the student (like myself) already know exactly what s/he wants.

For those who oppose to it, on the basis of costs saving alone, I'd say, sure if it can save students money/time, and save money for the school too, good for them! What's so evil about costs saving, if the costs are not really necessary?

As to those weakest argument, that we should not push those poor kids to graduate quicker, in order to face the grim prospect in this poor labor market, I'd say, there's no way to time the market. The same goes with advising students on what to major on, given what's hot in the job market right now, because by the time they graduate, everything could have changed. So, we should not have argued against 4-year college simply because job prospect is terrible right now.

I'd say, for the cost savings realized by the college, more scholarships should be granted to students, in order to benefit more to come; rather than extending college life span of those who have set foot on the campus already. The net effect of that should even be positive for faculty, admin, and alumni network (since you'll have more, rather than less alumni, since you're graduating more folks in a shorter time span).

So, the question goes back to this: Why not (for 3-year college)? What is it that is so bad about it? For those who're never exposed to the 3-year college life, they should try it before opening their mouth.