Length of Undergraduate degree courses

Should the number of years it takes to achieve an undergraduate degree by shortened?

A two-year degree is more efficient than the traditional three-year course. By teaching students for 40 weeks a year rather than less than 30, the same amount of teaching time can be provided so that students reach degree standard faster. The University of Buckingham has shown over many years that this can be achieved with no loss of quality. At the same time laboratories and lecture theatres do not stand empty for half the year, while students still have 12 weeks of vacation in which they can read and reflect on their learning.
 
The theory behind BA in 4 weeks goes like this. Assume you have no academic credits. Assume that you nevertheless have knowledge of lots of differet academic subjects. Assume you live near a testing center where you can take your CLEPs and DANTES'es and ECEs and TECEPs and whatever else there is in the alphabet soup of testing out procedures. Assume that you have enough time on your hands to be taking two tests a day (one in the morning and one in the afternoon). Each test is worth the equivalent of three semester hours. You therefore accumulate six semester hours a day. Going into the testing center Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday therefore earns you 30 semester hours, or the equivalent of one full year of college in one week. Keep repeating this process and you earn your BA in four weeks. In reality, that's a lot of assumptions.

I have presented you both the pros and cons of faster Bachelor Degree course. Which side do you support?
 
I think for India, the length of undergraduate degrees is appropriate. The saying 'if ain't broke, don't fix it' should be applied here.
 
Top