Search News


Browse Archives

News

From 2+2 to 3+1

June 23, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

A proposal that would fundamentally change the relationship between Arizona’s public universities and its community colleges is piquing the interest of many in the state, but is giving rise to more questions than answers.

On Friday, Ernest Calderón, president-elect of the Arizona Board of Regents, surprised many community college leaders by encouraging the presidents of Arizona’s three four-year universities to allow students in select majors to complete three years’ worth of coursework at a community college before completing a baccalaureate degree on a main university campus in their fourth year.

He estimated that this modified “three-plus-one” model, which he admittedly borrowed from Regis University, a private institution in Colorado, could potentially cut the price of a baccalaureate degree by 60 percent because students would pay university tuition -- which is more expensive -- and any room and board expenses only for one year. Though transfer and articulation models of this nature do exist between universities and community colleges around the country, no such “three-plus-one” model has been adopted statewide; on most campuses, "two plus two" is the norm.

Under Calderón’s plan, Arizona’s universities would develop strict four-year curricula for a handful of “high-demand majors,” such as teacher education. Students interested in pursuing one of these majors, who had also earned at least six college credits in their senior year of high school, would be admitted to Arizona State University, Northern Arizona University or the University of Arizona. However, they would be assigned by their university to attend a community college for their first three years. During this time, they would pay the significantly smaller community college tuition – around $2,200 per year instead of about $6,800 at one of the four-year institutions.

“There, right off the bat, working mothers and fathers and working students see, ‘My gosh, I’m on a track to earn my bachelor’s degree, but I’m attending a community college, and if I take all the courses I’m supposed to take and pass them to a certain satisfaction, I’m on my way,’ ” Calderón said Friday.

Four-year institutions have often fought against allowing community colleges the ability to offer upper-level coursework because it potentially takes students, and thus tuition dollars, away from them. Another roadblock is that these four-year institutions cannot always vet the quality of the upper-level courses being offered. In Arizona, however, the universities are at or nearing capacity.

Students in their third year under Calderón’s plan would still take courses at a community college, but their coursework would be strictly controlled by their respective four-year institutions.

“The community colleges provide instruction as approved by the universities,” Calderón explained. “If the universities don’t believe [community college] faculty is up to the standards of particular course or feel that the faculty is not teaching the course in a particular way, then the community colleges will be required to buy services from the university.”

Finally, students pursuing these “high-demand majors” will complete their baccalaureate degree at a main university campus, paying the full tuition price of a year at a four-year institution. Though Calderón admitted this deferment of paying full university tuition until a student’s fourth year would cut into the system’s “revenue streams,” he argued more Arizona residents would benefit from the increased access to baccalaureate degrees.

Response Around The State

Despite Calderón’s claims that such a proposal would require the full cooperation of the state’s community colleges, some leaders in the two-year sector say they were not even consulted during the president-elect’s vetting of this “three-plus-one” idea.

“What strikes me is that, in all the pronouncements there was talk of collaboration with the community colleges, but we weren’t consulted as to this particular board agenda item or what they had in mind,” said Roy Flores, chancellor of Pima Community College, in Tucson. “If you’re going to advance these ideas, or any ideas, and they’re predicated on developing partnerships, you need to make sure that you talk with all the institutions ahead of time.”

Flores said he would need more information, such at the exact majors being deemed “high-demand,” from Calderón and the Regents to make a judgment about the proposal. He also noted that the idea of a “three-plus-one” or “two-plus-two” transfer model was less important to him than creating stable pathways for his students to gain access to a four-year institution and earn a baccalaureate degree.

“At some point, we have to find ways to improve on student success and not just access,” Flores said. “The endgame needs to be more graduates and not just more enrollment. Some of those discussions just don’t take place.”

Rufus Glasper, chancellor of Maricopa Community College, the largest in the state, said he was also not made aware of the proposal before it was floated by Calderón.

He noted that Maricopa already has the permission to transfer students with greater than 60 credits in certain fields such as nursing or allied health. Still, he acknowledged that the major change required for Calderón’s proposal would be the allowance of community colleges to offer 300-level or major-level courses.

“I think it has its merits as a funding model to move students through the pipeline and then have them transfer to a university,” Glasper said. “At the same time, we need to address the notion of mission creep, especially with our local boards. It’s surely a conversation we need to have.”

Presidents of Arizona's three universities did not offer comment on Calderón’s proposal at Friday's meeting. The day prior, however, they presented their own proposal for revamping the higher education system before the board. Their plan does not call for the significant "three-plus-one" model suggested by Calderón but does hint at streamlining transferability between community colleges and the state universities.

The presidents' proposal pushes to establish a fourth "baccalaureate campus" in the state by 2010 and develop four "new highly-integrated partnership campuses or regional universities established in collaboration with community college partners" by 2012.

Other Perspectives

For some, Calderón’s proposal is far from mission creep.

“Anything that improves access to baccalaureate degrees through community colleges in beneficial to students,” said Beth Hagan, executive director of the Community College Baccalaureates Association, a group that lobbies to offer more bachelor’s degrees at two-year institutions. “It doesn’t sound like a bad idea.”

Hagan suspected that, like the few community colleges that do offer four-year degrees, applied baccalaureates would be offered in the Arizona model. She said she would be surprised if more liberal arts majors, such as English, would be promoted.

George R. Boggs, president of the American Association of Community Colleges, acknowledged some of the benefits of this model, such as the cost savings to students, but questioned whether Arizona’s community colleges had the capacity to house these extra baccalaureate-track students.

“If it results in denying access to students who need to get into community college because you’re serving upper-division students, then I would be quite concerned by it and not in favor of it,” Boggs said. “On the other hand, if the community college is not denying access to traditional students and helping some complete baccalaureate degrees before they go off to a university, that would be an advantage.”

Some education scholars suspect that if a “three-plus-one” model were to have success statewide, Arizona would be one of the few places it could happen.

Stephen G. Katsinas, director of the Education Policy Center at the University of Alabama, said the state’s small number of universities and single major urban area of Phoenix, which also houses the largest community college district, allow for all of the state’s institutions to come to the table to hash out a deal.

“Some of the fastest-growing states didn’t sufficiently add capacity in the post-baby boom era,” Katsinas said. “Across the country, in each recession since the Vietnam War, states have dug deeper and deeper into higher education, still the biggest discretionary item, to meet their budgets. I’m not surprised this would come up in Arizona. They have the same number of universities now as they did 40 years ago, and look what the population was 40 years ago.”

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on From 2+2 to 3+1

  • Bad Idea
  • Posted by B , Philosophy on June 23, 2009 at 7:15am EDT
  • It seems like a loopy idea from a board member is being amplified for the sake of discussion in this article. That said, having taught at both universities and CC's, I think it's a bad idea. Standards are simply too far apart at the level of student expectations, faculty training in a discipline and faculty quality are too disparate, and students at four-year institutions might have a legitimate complaint about the actual or perceived "value" of their degrees. If it is true that standards are higher at U than at CC--and though I am a supporter of CC's and their mission, I do believe this is the case--the student who has spent four arduous years meeting high expectations will sit next to a student who did not at graduation. Can we be egalitarian and just a little meritocratic at the same time?

  • Consider Euro-models as an alternative
  • Posted by Cliff Adelman , Senior Associate at Institute for Higher Education Pol;icy on June 23, 2009 at 8:45am EDT
  • The proposal and its discussion presents a classic opportunity to learn from other countries. Their issues are not so much expense (because, in most cases, there is no tuition) but efficiency in moving students from "short-cycle" degree programs analogous to our Associate's to the 1st cycle degree, i.e. our transfer objective. Both the British Foundation degree and the French DUT, for example, show transfer rates well above 50%. How do they do it and how might we do it within our traditions? First, they regard the short-cycle program as part of the 1st cycle, and not something separate and terminal. Second, the short-cycle (defined as the equivalent of 2 years of full-time study) is offered in specific fields that flow naturally into what we would call bachelor's degree majors, i.e. there is no such creature as a General Education or Liberal Studies A.A. Third, the institutions that offer the short-cycle program are either "married" to proximate universities or are franchised by the receiving universities to deliver the programs (which are jointly designed, and sometimes jointly taught). Okay, so how do we pull off something similar? By "alliance" agreements under which qualifying students (and there is qualification here, i.e. selection) are admitted to both the community college and the 4-year institution simultaneously, agree to start at the community college and earn at least X credits
    (36, 48, full Associate's) before moving over to the 4-year institution, have access to all the facilities of the 4-year school while they are at the community college, and, if they transfer before earning an Associate's, are awarded the Associate's retroactively when they hit the
    X-credit mark (60, 65, etc.) at the 4-year school. The British Foundation degree works very nicely for older beginning students in this regard; the French DUT population is of traditional age, but taking labor-market oriented programs. Try it! You just might like it!

  • Where's the leadership?
  • Posted by Cheaper yet on June 23, 2009 at 9:45am EDT
  • Maybe the Regent will consider the outright closing of the three universities in Arizona. Then, at some point in the future, they might consider closing down the community colleges and then the high schools. Think of how much money that will save.

    More seriously, it's hard to imagine that there can be any cost savings from destroying the university. One wonders where leaders with a clear sense of values and of the future are in Arizona.

  • 2+2 or 3+1
  • Posted by Celia Domser , Department Head Engineering, Computer and Physical Sciences at Mohawk Valley Community College on June 23, 2009 at 10:15am EDT
  • With all due respect......what are we thinking about? Money is one thing, but how about quality? The article addresses moving things up so that the Community Colleges could teach Junior level courses? Why don't we prepare the students before they get to the two year and the four year colleges? The number of remedial courses in writing, reading and math at two and four year colloeges is increasing. Why can't we, in this extremely well versed nation prepare the students coming out of high school, and no i am not ptting the blame below the colleges, but rather on all of us as educators. The education system has major problems from PreK on up and moving Junior level courses into a community college is not the answer. There should be a ground swell...no a major flood of educators at the college level, two or four that meet to address these challenges in each state, my own included. We need to look at how we are preparing our students. It's not the money, it's the quality. Do we want nurses that don't know a microgram from a milligram in our hospitals? Do we want Engineers that are marginal? Do we want accountants that can't do basic math overseeing our economy? We need to stop using buz words and the results from research papers done by in experienced people who do not know what we deal with in our classrooms and never mind that we are all working with different cultural mixes in every community in this country. Let's look at the REAL problems

  • Do CCs have capacity?
  • Posted by Alan Contreras at Eugene, Oregon on June 23, 2009 at 10:30am EDT
  • The idea of a 3+1 is not new, although doing it on a statewide scale raises new issues. The idea that it would save money would not apply in some states; for example in Oregon some community colleges are already operating at their physical capacity and it isn't possible to add more courses owing to lack of classrooms, unless the additions are at night. The fact that community colleges are operating under severe budget constraints means that any new capacity has to be funded from somewhere. My guess is that similar constraints would apply in many states - community colleges don't often have buildings sitting around empty.

    The norm in postsecondary education is that upper-division courses should be taught be people who hold a doctorate. Most community college faculty don't have doctorates. Will the norm be relaxed or will new faculty with doctorates be hired at CCs? In any event, CCs will have the expense of new faculty, which results from adding new courses.

    I don't see significant cost savings here. This looks more like a classic dump-and-run, in which the problems facing one institution are simply offloaded onto another.

  • Posted on June 23, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT
  • Isn't this sort of like putting a Chevy engine and wooden seats in a Cadillac? Quality, thy name is efficiency.

  • Wow!
  • Posted by Bear , Student Retention on June 23, 2009 at 1:30pm EDT
  • What is with the comments (and not just to this article) slamming the quality of community college education, particularly in transfer-oriented programs of study? The article clearly states that the baccalaureate institutions in AZ would have control over the junior-year curriculum taught at the community colleges. Regardless, if community colleges are as bad at educating transfer students as these posts make out, then why would senior institutions enter 2+2 agreements, let alone 3+1, in the first place or award degrees based, in part, on credits earned at community colleges? It's rare that I have to remind faculty at my community college that they need to set high standards and stick to them; they already know that most students will respond positively to academic rigor and come back later to thank us for challenging them more than their baccalaureate institution did.

    As for 3+1 in AZ, it sounds more like a trial balloon than a thought-out plan, especially since the new regent didn't even talk it over with the community colleges first.

  • The Truth About Arizona's McUniversity
  • Posted by Scrawed on June 24, 2009 at 5:00am EDT
  • Ernest Calderon's proposal makes sense given the rather peculiar (and startlingly unproductive) historical circumstances of higher education development in the Phoenix area. ASU, after its elevation from the state teacher's college, was allowed to dominate higher education in Phoenix and continues to do so today, in spite of its rather confused mission, in which it wants to dominate local college-level institutions, yet also provide the model for a "New American University," even as it attracts out-of-state students, at the same time as which it wishes to be a player in international education, while wishing to build a reputation as a research university, concurrent with expanding access to non-citizens while flauting state law on tuition hikes, meantime pursuing "local embeddedness" of decidedly non-local administration and faculty in area development and issues. The resulting institution often seems to serve more than McDonald's, what with class sections of hundreds of students, and heavily contested parking costing hundreds of dollars per semester, and new campuses opening at the rate of one per decade.

    In such an environment - so foreign to what the original intent of the institution was - the students come last - particularly the local students who, in the fifth largest city in the nation, to date have mostly a couple of for-profit alternatives from which to choose if they wish to attend a four-year institution locally. Two of these institutions (Grand Canyon State and Western International University) presently accept higher numbers of credit hours from the Maricopa Community College system (72 and up) than ASU does (a heavily begrudged 60). This is what comes of not having any commitment to building local four-year institutions while allowing non-representative empire building on a public-purse-breaking scale.

    The fact is that the Maricopa Community College system in many respects exceeds in quality what is also provided at ASU. Campus resources are fewer, but what resources exist are far less strained, faculty-student interactions are richer, and the resulting quality of education is actually higher. ASU, on the other hand, has repeatedly demonstrated its lack of interest in actually working with and interacting with local students, many of whom flounder amid a massive and impersonal bureaucracy, a certain amount of socio-political and racial dysfunctionality, and occasionally a level of institutional arrogance that has to be experienced to be believed. It is in this context that Ernest Calderon's proposal should be considered.

  • Restructuring the Arizona University System
  • Posted by Sanjeev Ramchandra , M.Ed student, Higher & Postsecondary Education at Arizona State University on June 24, 2009 at 11:00pm EDT
  • I created a proposal to restructure the Arizona University System within Greater Phoenix by converting ASU Polytechnic campus into a "medium-cost, modest research" university and ASU West campus into a "low-cost, non-research" university. Click on the link below to view the website for details.

    http://PSUandAzTech.blogspot.com