2 year arts degrees

Because people who study arts degree's aren't necessarily interested in how it might lead onto a job, they are studying something they are passionate about and so funnily enough just rushing through their studies so that they can go work for PWC is not on most of their minds. It's very depressing to meet people like you who quite frankly have a very myopic and devalued view of university as some sort of trial to endure before starting a career. It's exactly these sort of views that threaten our tertiary education system. Now piss off you horrible little individual.

This seems like a joke thread. You can't possibly be serious.

If you're going to cut degree content on the basis of 'it's not relevant to future careers', why stop at cutting one year? Why not cut two years off? Why not two and a half years? Why not three years? Why have you arbitrarily decided that two years is the right length for a degree that is non-vocational?

Fact: Degree length is not determined by how relevant the content is to a job. Therefore, arbitrary lengths of time are not going to be cut off degrees on that basis. Therefore, your point is moot.

/end thread

Why not let students decide how long their degrees lasts for. It would be as short as a year or as long as the student wanted.

Why not also let students mark their own assignments and set their own exam questions?

Because for a 'degree' to mean anything, there has be at least some standards that define what a degree is. Why should one person who's studied English literature for a month and another person who's studied English literature for three years both get the same qualification?

If someone wants to study a subject for the equivalent of one third of a degree, they can do so with the Open University (or similar modular programmes) but they won't get a degree because they haven't earned one.

You do not understand my point.

People's attainments should be judged on their output, not the time it takes them to complete courses of work and exams.

If people have completed all the relevant coursework and done all the exams after a year, why should they have to wait another 2 years just hanging around doing nothing?

Also, if people want a break in their course, why can't they suspend their study and come back and pick up where they left off?

Theres no logic in making everyone take 3 years to do a degree, its the output that counts, not the time taken.

Brian May took 36 years to complete his PhD.

Errr... so whatever happened to "This is not about cramming 3 years work into 2 years but cutting the degree content."?

Changing your tune? Because what you're suggesting now IS cramming 3 years' work into fewer years.

You can do both, one does not exclude the other.

What about languages? Languages are arts degrees which provide you with practical skills that may often be used in the work place and certainly aren't something you could cram into 2 years when 4 is required.

I think you are forgetting that for many people universities are about academia, not an expensive ordeal to be endured just for the purposes for getting a job.

But my point was in response to your point about reducing the content of degrees.

Cramming degrees into shorter lengths of time is another topic entirely and not relevant to your original post.