A four-year university curriculum is better than a three-year university curriculum: an argumentative essay

A four-year university curriculum is better than a three-year university curriculum: an argumentative essay

 

 

            It is a popular concept that the curriculum is the source of uniqueness of an educational institution particularly among higher educational systems. It has been identified with the diversified areas of study as general education, vocational education, and development education. A college or university curriculum responds to the changing patterns in student aspirations. According to Collins and Clarke (2008), a “curriculum is that which the teacher teaches” (p. 1004). It addresses the public aspiration for a general or core set of experiences, the needs and interests of the students, and identified strengths. For Mao (2008), curriculum is not simply a collection of courses taught in schools but also a site for the struggle of representation in the public sphere particularly among various groups. Curriculum development is largely reliant on the teacher’s talents and competencies. With the challenges and demands of the globalizing world, how does the education industry performs in creating competitive professionals? Universities and colleges consider the adoption of a four-year in contrast to a three-year university curriculum in order to address challenges and demands of today’s contemporary lifestyle. There has been broadening efforts on curriculum development so as to have more dynamic and generative possibilities that facilitate lived engagement with ideas contained in or outside the traditional classroom settings (Collins and Clarke 2008). Developmental efforts paved way to the consideration of having extended curriculum based on years and even scope of coverage. Now, the question on whether a four-year university curriculum is better than a three-year university curriculum is posed.

 

The Pros of Four-Year University Curriculum

            A four-year university curriculum certainly benefits the students by providing an extended university life that will allow adequate time for academic growth and maximum learning. This is tantamount to the enhancement of skills and mastery of fundamental theories and principles of a particular discipline. In addition to the enhancement of skills, a four-year university curriculum attempts to concentrate on the breadth dimension of a certain specialization by introducing students to its major disciplines of knowledge. It allows undergraduates to have the opportunity to acquire both quantitative and qualitative skill, which leads to the focused experiences in their major or specialization. Provided that a four-year university curriculum provides longer stay in the academe, it is supposed that students have the ample opportunity to develop their potentials. There is also an opportunity for them to explore other disciplines in which they can acquire relevant learning. The longer they stay within the bounds of the academe leads to maximum learning. In simpler terms, the opportunity to gain more knowledge is always at hand.

            The previous argument is similar to the beliefs of City University of Hong Kong Professor Leung Kwok and Associate Dean Mok Ka-ho published online. Kwok (2003) argues that it is better to have a four-year university education system because “extended university life will allow students the time to grow and learn better.” While the present system is considerably impractical, he notes that it is a waste of time for students to spend significant efforts in studying limited subjects in two years just to prepare for a university entrance examination. He maintains that the a four-year university education system is time effective because students will enter the university a year earlier and have enough time to enjoy much richer and broader learning environment leading to an absolutely healthier students’ development. On the essay of Ka-ho (2003), a four-year university education system permits students to take up double major and double minor, which is a common practice in leading U.S. universities. Staying at school for four years is better because students will have the comfort of time to get better in a variety of areas. Students with enough time have the best opportunity to get hold of interdisciplinary knowledge, to boost their communication and leadership skills, and to take part in potential exchange and internship programmes prior to their graduation.

Aside from the opportunity for advancement of students’ knowledge and learning, a four-year university curriculum leads to all-encompassing academic programmes. Practically, four years is longer than three years. With this basic consideration, a university or college can have a variety of relevant subjects associated with a definite degree. This will support the previous argument that a four-year university curriculum will result to competent and more knowledgeable products. If there are more course subjects, there is specific orientation for specialization of students. For instance, management students are able to take up specific rather than general subjects, which in turn lead to advanced knowledge and managerial skills development. There are course subjects that will support the basic ones. Similarly, there are other related electives that students can take just in case they will need such information in their future job placements.

 

The Cons of Four-Year University Curriculum

The challenge of a four-year curriculum, however, is the availability of financial resources. Budget constraint is the common problem among students especially those who are self-supporting. If a student takes up a four-year university curriculum, it practically means higher cost of education and school-related expenses. The best solution for this challenge is to seek increased budgetary allocation from the national government especially to the case of public or state universities and colleges. Scholarship programmes are also potent solutions. Also, non-government institutions and academically related organizations may offer financial assistance to deserving students under specific criteria or eligibility.

 Another problem is the potential resistance of some people to the idea of prolonged stay within the academe. Some would argue that they are studying for them to finish earlier, seek for an employment, and support themselves independently. A longer stay in school will delay this perspective. This is also associated with increased financial expenses to sustain educational needs and requirements. While it is true that most students like to finish early, a four-year university curriculum may result to delay or stoppage in their academic schooling. Aside from a longer time to stay at school, the amount of money to be spent may negatively affect their educational motives. These scenarios overshadow the potential benefits of a four-year university curriculum particularly on skills and knowledge development. The remedy lies on the ability of universities and colleges to offer alternative options or terms in which students can conform.

 

Conclusion

A four-year university curriculum is better than a three-year university curriculum. The two general arguments presented above support this fact because of the following compelling reasons: it allows adequate time for academic growth and maximum learning and the presence of all-encompassing academic programmes. On the other hand, there are some challenges on this proposition including budgetary constraints and resistance of people. Considering both points, I still personally believe that a four-year university curriculum is better. Although I am not questioning the validity of a three-year university curriculum, the personal decision of every unique person is the major consideration. The application of all knowledge obtained in a certain degree or several fields of education regardless of curriculum is highly relative to the standards of living and the demands of the society where the person stays. Lastly, education in any form is still education. It is the materialization and application of theories, concepts, and knowledge learned in the academe that gives its total importance and difference.

 

References

Collins, S and Clarke, A (2008) ‘Activity frames and complexity thinking: Honoring both public and personal agendas in an emergent curriculum’, Teaching and Teacher Education, 24: 4 (May), 1003-1014

 

Ka-ho, M (2003) ‘Move slowly on the four-year curriculum’, CityUNewsCenter, June 24, City University of Hong Kong, [online] (cited 20 November 2008) Available from

http://www.cityu.edu.hk/cityutoday/4yearsystem/voices/MokKaHo_20030624.htm

 

Kwok, L (2003) ‘From three- to four-year degrees; from subsidies to self-financing’, CityUNewsCenter, June 26, City University of Hong Kong, [online] (cited 20 November 2008) Available from http://www.cityu.edu.hk/cityutoday/4yearsystem/voices/LeungKwok_20030626.htm

 

Mao, C (2008) ‘Fashioning curriculum reform as identity politics—Taiwan’s dilemma of curriculum reform in new millennium’, International Journal of Educational Development, 28: 5 (September), 585-595

 

Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com