The Three-year Bachelor’s Degree and Building the Evidence While Flying the Plane.
TLDR: Calls for evidence-based practice across the preK-20 education system commonly confront a thorny problem: implementation often outpaces evidence. This challenge is especially salient right now in the sphere of postsecondary training and education, where calls for innovative models, such as the three-year bachelor’s degree, abound. Innovation often means building the plane while it’s in flight. The good news is that there is still lots of room for collecting and using evidence along the way, and now is the time to act.
Three-year bachelor’s degree programs are rapidly moving from pilot into policy. Instead of the traditional 120 credits completed over four years, these programs typically require 90 to 96 credits. The primary stated benefit is that students will save money (and opportunity costs) by avoiding a fourth year of tuition, housing, food, and living expenses. Amid growing public skepticism about the value of a four-year degree and widespread agreement that this option has become unaffordable for many, the three-year degree has garnered enthusiasm across the political spectrum. The number of reduced-credit programs in the U.S. surpassed 100 this year, in policy contexts as diverse as Texas, California, and Massachusetts.
Promising early signals but the overall evidence is thin
Given the nascence of three-year degree programs in the U.S., the available evidence on them is promising but thin, consisting primarily of course grades and year-to-year program retention. There have, as yet, been no independent or causal studies assessing whether students in three-year programs fare just as well or better than those in traditional four-year programs across a range of outcomes, including degree completion, job placement, and long term earnings.
There are numerous other outstanding questions. Initial cohorts in three-year programs are generally self-selected and thus may be more prepared, more motivated, and more certain of their degree major. Will these programs work similarly for first-generation students, academically underprepared students or working adults? How does the reduction in time-to-degree intersect with federal financial aid rules? Does a three-year degree program provide the same degree quality and, if not, what are the implications if quality differences go undetected for some period? For instance, what if a three-year bachelor's degree reduces college costs and accelerates workforce entry for low-income students, but simultaneously creates a two-tiered system that limits graduate school and career options for vulnerable groups?
Using evidence while we’re building (and flying) the plane
Innovation often means building the plane while it’s in flight. The good news is that there is still lots of room for collecting and using evidence along the way – a far better alternative than just winging it (ahem). The following suggestions for different key stakeholder groups offer evidence pathways that begin building long-term data infrastructure while providing ongoing insights for continuous improvement.
For institutions launching or considering programs:
Treat the first two or three cohorts as a pilot with a pre-specified evaluation plan that examines both outcomes and implementation.
In conjunction, or as a next step, collect comparison-group data from a matched four-year cohort in the same major(s).
Establish the data collection and sharing agreements necessary to follow student outcomes (e.g., employment, wages, licensure pass rates where relevant, graduate admission) over time, not just for the first year.
For state agencies and systems:
Determine an outcomes-reporting framework across pilot institutions now, while the number of programs is still small enough that they are easy to compare.
Establish a working group to establish independent evaluation requirements or third-party research partnerships and make independent evaluation a condition of three-year degree program approval.
For accreditors and the Department of Education:
Determine criteria for outcomes-based renewal reviews rather than one-time approval, which is warranted given how thin the current evidence base is.
For philanthropy:
Pair programmatic funding for pilot demonstrations by well-prepared providers with rigorous implementation and efficacy evaluation that track a range of both short and long-term outcomes.
For employers:
Maintain hiring and retention data on three-year graduates once cohorts are large enough, as this information can inform unresolved questions about labor-market prospects and outcomes.
For students and families:
Treat current claims about three-year degree programs (retention, employer reception) as promising but preliminary, and consider program accreditation status and financial-aid mechanics (Pell exhaustion timing, lifetime limits) heavily in enrollment decisions.
The design choices institutions make right now about what to measure and against what comparison group will determine how well we can answer the open questions above with real evidence. That matters for prospective postsecondary learners from a range of backgrounds.