Summer Break Down

Recently much has been said about tuition and schedule alternatives to the traditional four-year college degree. Many institutions, including Ball State and Purdue, have recently announced initiatives to make it easier (and in some cases cheaper) for kids to pursue a diploma without spending as many years on campus. Advocates for the plans point to savings, sometimes significant, to young people and their families if the matriculation comes earlier and full-time employment starts quicker. While the math holds up, many claim that intangibles like the maturity and perspective gained during the fourth (or more) year on campus can’t be offset by a year of saved expenses and earning capacity. Still others defend the existing system citing the expectations of teachers, students and parents to have summer, fall, winter and spring breaks.



But there are other considerations as well. If this paper, for example, were to add 25% to its page count, wouldn’t that necessarily allow for more content and more advertising? If a university can graduate kids in three years instead of four, doesn’t that mean that 25% more young people can access the opportunity to attend that college? Some would rightly argue that a surplus of seats in a class would lead to lower admission standards. In other words, some kid would get into the class that wouldn’t have had there been fewer seats. But if education is the key to a solid future, how can we tell Jane that she has no hope because we arbitrarily decided that the academic calendar should not exceed 30 weeks in any given year?

Big money, adolescent maturity, access to education and the conviction to established patterns are all at play in what is coming together as a colossal power struggle. But in a globally competitive world, isn’t it good to challenge the status quo?

This column was published on Tuesday, January 24, 2012 in the Current in Carmel, Current in Westfield, Current in Fishers and Current in Noblesville - http://youarecurrent.com/