Having grown up as the child of struggling immigrant parents, I still cringe at the memory of my father's first encounter with my history teacher at parents' day. After some cautious praise for my progress, she suggested that I might enjoy reading Gibbon's three volume History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire next. "Three books," murmured my father, clearly envisaging the grim effect of their purchase on the household budget. "Could we buy just two, the first and last one perhaps?"
The poor man was half joking, but the government's announcement of new, shorter university courses seems aimed at families like mine. As the higher education minister, Bert Rammell, put it on April 18, "two-year degree courses could offer opportunities for students who can't afford to take three years to study". So, from next year, five universities, Kent, Leeds Metropolitan, Derby, Staffordshire and University College Northampton, will offer such courses in a number of subjects.
But is this the right way forward? Certainly not for all students counting their pennies. Few young people realise that the contents of degree courses is not officially laid down. The Quality Assurance Agency, which monitors education standards, merely seeks to ensure that the quality of degrees awarded by a university is "acceptable" in general terms. So, a shorter, cheaper course may well teach you less, which could make it wrong for a bright student keen to explore a subject in depth.
Students worried about their job prospects may also want to be cautious, as the market value of two-year degrees remains unclear. The private Buckingham University has run them for thirty years and is proud of its students' career record. Only 11%, it says, do not find work after graduation. However, the institution is small, well funded and popular with middle class students. On the other hand, the two-year foundation degrees, vocational courses introduced by some new universities, seem to have fairly limited appeal among employers.
All this suggests that two-year degrees may prove as much of a problem as a solution. Even more of a problem is that those young people who always had to buy the cheapest product on the shelves are the ones who may instinctively gravitate towards them. Looking at higher education in the context of their family's needs, many will feel practically obliged to grab these apparent bargains. A mismatch between a course and its students' economic needs or academic abilities, though, must lead to disappointment.
Nor is the idea of compressing degree courses by making undergraduates study more intensive in term-time and during the summer holidays quite problem-free. Informal discourse (ie prolonged chat) is part of the learning process. Students increase their understanding by arguing over ideas, rather than just noting down words of eternal wisdom from lectures or books. Cut this out and what graduates will take home may just be a rapidly dating body of knowledge.
The head of higher education at lecturers' union NATFHE, Roger Kline, puts this even more strongly: "NATFHE has real concerns about the educational implications of this proposal. We believe it fails to acknowledge the importance of developing critical and analytical skills while studying for a degree."
NATFHE worries, too, that reducing study time may diminish the degree experience by reducing it to mere cramming. Another problem with cramming, of course, is that it reduces the time in which a disadvantaged student can earn money while studying for a degree. Again, this is hardly a recipe for widening participation.
But what about the monetary value of accelerated degree courses? A recent report in the Observer suggested that students completing a two-year degree at current fees can expect to reap the financial benefits of this at the age of 29, while those completing a three year course will only do so at 33. However, the study, which was authored by Peter Brown and presented at a conference held by Gabbitas Education Consultants, also concluded that a student starting work at 18 would do even better.
The worst financial outcome forecast by Brown is for students attending three-year courses, who drop out after two years. They may never regain their financial investment. While it is tempting to think that a two-year degree might prevent this outcome, matters are rarely as straight-forward. Students who drop out have usually not done enough work to pass their final exams, whenever those may be.
Applicants may also want to consider that studying at a more leisurely pace may bring benefits not measurable in cash. How do you calculate the expansion of interests and horizons, of lasting friendships and a greater understanding of the world, often formed in a pleasant location? After all, many people are willing to pay several thousand pounds for a holiday promising similar things.
This is not to say that two-year degrees should be spurned altogether. They may be of tremendous value to people who need a quick overview of an academic subject. Adults unable to take more than two years out of their already profitable, working lives will also like the idea. As reported in EducationGuardian, Kent University, one of the five pioneers is, in fact, explicitly targeting this group.
Young people in search of practical skills that can be acquired fairly rapidly might also benefit. However, as many of them will never earn very much, it might be fairer for the government to fund apprenticeship schemes allowing them to be paid (rather than pay) while they are learning.
Meanwhile, the blessings of the two-year degree look decidedly mixed and honesty requires that politicians do not over-hype this option. Such an approach could further disadvantage the most vulnerable group, poor students without family experience of higher education.