Should university degrees be shortened? The debate continues

The duration of university courses varies around the world, depending on how the higher education system operates in different countries. This depends on whether institutions only award academic degrees – bachelor, masters and doctoral degrees – or whether they also provide professional certification, which qualifies graduates for the world of work.

In the case of Chile and several other Latin American countries, universities are responsible for both education and professional certification and accreditation. This situation is linked to a tradition of vocational university education, which has only given way in recent years to a broader, more liberal arts-based education in some universities.

It is for this reason that the issue of the duration and content of university degree programmes has been a subject of great interest, requiring more in-depth analysis that takes full account of the entire education system – encompassing both school and higher education.

Furthermore, it seems highly relevant and timely to take this discussion to an international level, using academic forums that allow for wide reach and dissemination, with the aim of learning from the comparative experiences of other countries with higher education systems at different stages of maturity and development.

In recent weeks, an intense debate that has been ongoing in Chile for years has reignited, centring on the length of university degree programmes.

This has been triggered by various factors, including comparative assessments with other countries; the high costs of higher education; curriculum updates; Artificial Intelligence and its impact on teaching and the workplace; and the coordination between undergraduate and postgraduate programmes, amongst other factors.

Furthermore, the implementation of the policy of free higher education – aimed at 60% of students from lower-income families – has undoubtedly caused the economic cost of higher education to rise to levels that are higher than previously anticipated. This is a highly relevant debate, in which various stakeholders from the fields of education, employment, politics, business and society must all play a part.

A comparative study

The first point made in any argument is that degree programmes in Chile are longer than in OECD countries. This is only true when comparing initial entry into the labour market as undergraduate programmes in several countries last three to four years and lead to an academic degree, not a professional qualification.

In these countries, it is common for a student to begin their career on graduation and to pursue further specialisation or professional training at a later stage. In fact, only academic degrees (undergraduate, masters and doctoral) are awarded by universities. Professional qualifications are awarded by other bodies, which is a major differentiator from what happens in Chile.

A culture of lifelong learning and continuous professional development throughout one’s career is very common in developed countries. A graduate works for a few years and then goes on to complete a masters degree, and sometimes a PhD, without needing a professional qualification.

In these countries, the public sector does not require five years of study to be hired as a professional. In degree programmes such as Law, Medicine and others where a degree is mandatory, studies continue beyond the undergraduate years, resulting in a total of more years of study compared to what happens in Chile.

A whole system approach

Given the differences described, it is important to evaluate and analyse what is currently taught in Chile’s undergraduate programmes and identify ways to improve the process, both in terms of content and the optimisation of time. This analysis has implications and requires an evaluation of the entire education system, as prior knowledge is crucial for programme planning.

Today, in many degree programmes, the first semesters are spent on remedial study due to significant gaps in school education. It is important to plan for genuine integration between secondary and higher education, with assessments of knowledge and skills.

Secondly, curriculum content requires constant updating and a forward-looking approach. AI, the rapid pace of change in knowledge, what is taught, the content of holistic education and the reality that at least 50% of what is taught will change, compel us to think about content and the future of teaching.

Thirdly, and very importantly, we must consider the true meaning of education: the in-depth reflection on the most fundamental aspects of the human condition, in relation to the humanities, the sciences and the arts. Education is something that requires time and reflection.

Universities do not merely provide information – for this, there are now widely accessible open channels – our role is in-depth reflection on knowledge. This requires time, the contemplation of ideas and the cross-checking of information, all of which will be of great importance in enabling individuals to shape their own ideas, have freedom of thought and develop the initiative and creativity to create and innovate.

Refocusing not shortening degrees

For this reason, our approach should be more about refocusing rather than shortening degree programmes. General studies provide a crucial foundation. This runs counter to the trend for highly specialised and vocational undergraduate programmes. This is the direction in which my university is heading, as well as adopting interdisciplinary approaches across degree programmes in various faculties.

Other potential changes include the removal of dissertations from undergraduate programmes; the integration of undergraduate and masters degree programmes; an assessment of the impact of curricular changes on national accreditation systems; and a consideration of the contribution of the arts and humanities to students’ holistic development.

When it comes to all the above, it is essential to secure the support of the academic staff at each institution if one wishes to achieve profound and lasting changes.

In short, assessing the duration of university programmes requires an analysis of the entire educational pathway, that is, from school education through to postgraduate studies, as it constitutes a continuous educational process.

This is not always taken into account, as the focus is generally solely on curricular changes during the final stage of K-12 education and the early years of higher education, which fails to provide a comprehensive view of the educational system.

In this process, it is necessary to consider students’ psycho-emotional maturation, their journey towards autonomy, freedom and depth of thought as the goal of university education as well as to focus on what competencies they are expected to attain to face the future.

It is also important to assess students’ cultural characteristics, which may vary according to the traditions and customs of different countries. For this reason, many factors must be considered when evaluating the duration of degree programmes and when comparing different educational contexts.

So, when considering reforming the time taken to get a degree, we should focus on what is essential as well as other factors that influence curricula. In other words, we must return to the origins and the original purpose of the university, which is to educate young people to think critically and independently in the service of society.

Professor Ignacio Sánchez is the former rector of Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, in Santiago, Chile.

This article is a commentary. Commentary articles are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of University World News.