Letter: Short and shallow
Your support helps us to tell the story
This election is still a dead heat, according to most polls. In a fight with such wafer-thin margins, we need reporters on the ground talking to the people Trump and Harris are courting. Your support allows us to keep sending journalists to the story.
The Independent is trusted by 27 million Americans from across the entire political spectrum every month. Unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock you out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. But quality journalism must still be paid for.
Help us keep bring these critical stories to light. Your support makes all the difference.
Sir: It may just be that those who favour the shortening of the time spent reading for a degree from three years to two genuinely believe that this can be done without a significant reduction in student academic achievement - but, if so, their view rests on a deeply impoverished notion of what is involved in reading for a degree (report, 24 September).
Of course, if all that were needed were to attend a certain number of lectures or tutorials, then undergraduate education would not be compromised if this number were to be squashed into two years rather than stretched over three. What is missing from this picture is the recognition that much of the work for a degree needs to be done in addition to formal tuition - and, in particular, during the vacations. University vacations are not holidays, either for students or their tutors.
The effect of shortening courses would be that students would have only two years rather than three to think about their subject. It would be fatuous to imagine that this would not result in graduates whose understanding of their subject was shallower than it now is and whose intellectual development was much less extended.
At a time when undergraduates are coming up from school less well trained than they used to be (a problem that is by no means restricted to those from state schools), the shortening of degree courses could only result in a withering of academic standards. Given that it would also interfere with the ability of academics to conduct research, the universities have a duty to fight any such proposals tooth and nail.
Yours faithfully,
STEPHEN EVERSON
Tutor in Philosophy
Balliol College
Oxford
28 September
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments