The four-year guarantee

A CRITICAL GLANCE
By Adam Bushen

Portland State recently held four open-feedback sessions for faculty, staff and students to determine the viability of implementing a four-year degree guarantee program.

Miles Sanguinetti/VANGUARD STAFf

The idea is that the program would ensure that problems with signing up for courses or finding courses required for graduation would be avoided.

If a student participates in the four-year degree guarantee program and can’t graduate because a course required for graduation is unavailable, PSU would either remove the requirement or substitute the course with another.

By having students finish in four years rather than stretching out their educations, student loan debt would decrease.

There are merits to such a program, but it infringes on the concept of what services a university provides. College represents a space for sharing knowledge, discussing progressive ideas and obtaining a broad and informed worldview. College produces community leaders, intellectuals and well-rounded citizens.

For a student to enter a program that lowers the cost of attendance by eliminating University Studies, the benefit of going is also lowered.

Getting a degree as quickly as possible while only learning what’s directly relevant to your major becomes the goal, rather than the experience of shaping a world view or intellect, of becoming a community leader and intellectual.

A four-year degree guarantee program may eliminate University Studies requirements in order to fulfill its guarantee, and students may only need to complete their major’s requirements—which can be very attractive, but this type of program resembles a vocational education rather than a full college experience.

Yes, it should certainly be an option for high school students to consider when determining their choice for a higher education. More vocational schools should be available. But to place this type of program into a university setting contradicts the reasons we attend university over vocational or trade schools in the first place.

For many, the strongest lure of this program is its financial implications. National student loan debt has surpassed $1 trillion. This trend of increased tuition and student debt makes the idea of attending university undesirable. Additionally, the discouraging job market makes higher education appear impractical.

The higher earning potential achieved through a degree no longer results in high-paying jobs after graduation. Now, more than ever, the question of attending university has become a cost-benefit analysis.

In addition to contradicting the reasons for attending a university by devaluing a liberal education, the financial benefit the four-year guarantee provides creates the wrong perspective on rising costs of attendance.

By placing the focus on finishing school as soon as possible, we lose focus on solving the problem of rising costs of attendance and decreased state and federal funding.

While this program could work within our currently broken system, the focus should be on creating solutions that lower costs without diminishing the benefits of going to a university.