The New Three-Year Bachelor’s Degree in the U.S.: Part 2

Editor’s Note: This is the second installment, titled “The European Experience Under Bologna,” as part of a multi-part series on “The New Three-Year Bachelor’s Degree in the U.S.: Redefining Graduate Admissions and International Credential Recognition.” See Part 1, and stay tuned for more installments by a selection of authors with expertise on the subject.

By Emily Tse, Senior Director of Knowledge Management at CGFNS International, Member of the AACRAO International Education Standards Council

In 1999, 29 countries across Europe signed the Bologna Declaration, agreeing to reform and harmonize their higher education systems into a three-cycle structure, namely the bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degrees. Today, there are 49 signatories, and the transformation has been no small feat. It is helpful to reflect on the evolution of its recognition in the U.S., particularly among university admissions offices and credentials evaluation agencies.

Prior to the Bologna Process, first-level university degrees in Europe were frequently five years in length. Because university education was heavily subsidized by the government in many European countries, tuition in those places was minimal or non-existent. So, it was not uncommon for students to take longer to complete their degrees, which also often led to perceptions that their durations were longer by definition. Against this backdrop, the introduction of a clearly defined three-year bachelor’s degree in most of the Bologna signatory countries was novel and seismic. Note: while it may be four years in some countries, three years remains the standard.

When the Bologna Process began, there was unevenness in its adoption and confusion among the public due to the sheer scope in effort, particularly with employers in how to regard these degrees. Adoption and implementation were not occurring at the same rate or in the same way. ECTS credits and grades were inconsistently used, and incorrect usage could also be found in the beginning. As an example, a three-year bachelor’s degree should have at minimum 180 ECTS credits; however, this was not always reflected in the transcripts issued for bachelor’s degrees that were awarded there.

With the passage of time, however, Bologna-compliant degrees became more understood and accepted by all, both by the educational institutions that received the mandate to adopt the new system and by the public at large. Currently, ECTS credits and grades are consistently used, and the Bologna-compliant Diploma Supplement is consistently available. Moreover, these tools have been influential in facilitating recognition, particularly in having standardized information about the credential clearly indicated on an official record of study, otherwise known as the Diploma Supplement. Details include the minimum entrance requirement(s) to the program and what the resulting qualification gives access to, in terms of academic and professional rights and privileges. In fact, students from all educational institutions and all countries can benefit from such an aid, not just those relevant to the Bologna Process.

Despite the existence of three-year bachelor’s degrees in other parts of the world, the introduction of the three-year version of the first-cycle Bologna-compliant degree caused much disruption among U.S. admissions officers and credentials evaluators, forcing them to reassess their recognition practices. Through the years, many professional associations tackled these issues through symposia, conference presentations, roundtables, and articles in their newsletters. They include the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO); NAFSA: Association of International Educators (NAFSA); NAGAP, The Association for Graduate Enrollment Management (NAGAP); The Association of International Credential Evaluation Professionals (TAICEP); and the Association of International Credential Evaluators (AICE). Several takeaways can be teased out regarding the principles that underpin the approach taken by many admissions offices vs. evaluation agencies and the evolution and variation of admissions policies.

Many grappling with this issue first queried what guidance can be taken from the requirements of the U.S. accrediting bodies. However, it became clear that no accreditation standards prescribe specific admissions practices. Rather, the focus is on clear and fair practices, a stance particularly articulated by such bodies as the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), the New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC), and the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS).

With this hurdle cleared, international education professionals took stock in their approach to credentials evaluation, which can be described in two main camps: benchmarking and year-counting. Benchmarking is more outcomes-based, focusing on a comparative analysis of the learning outcomes and what the credential gives access to. Year-counting, on the other hand, gives more emphasis and weight to the duration of the program of study.

However, these categorizations are oversimplified. In truth, credentials evaluation in the U.S is more nuanced and is arguably a hybrid of the two. Most international education professionals in Europe follow the Lisbon Recognition Convention, which calls for the recognition of a credential unless substantial differences have been identified. Evaluators in Europe look at similar features as U.S.-based evaluators, such as the entry requirements, content of a program, and academic and professional rights and privileges. They also look at the overall workload.

In the U.S., the added specific focus on the years of study stems from the frequent need to convert the education completed abroad into U.S. credits, which is based on seat time. In Europe, a general comparability statement is more common versus a course-by-course evaluation report that is found in the U.S., which includes converted credits, grades and grade point average (GPA). Credits are the academic currency in the U.S., facilitating many aspects of education and professional licensure, such as:

• Tracking a student’s progress toward degree completion

• Facilitating transfer credit

• Charging tuition and fees

• Determining an instructor’s workload

• Distributing financial aid

• Budgeting and planning resources

• Monitoring accreditation and licensure

By way of example, in order to be a certified public accountant (CPA) in the state of California, a candidate must prove completion of:

• A minimum total of 150 semester credits, which would include at least

• 24 credits in accounting

• 24 credits in business

• 20 credits in related studies, and

• 10 credits in ethics.

However, the number of credits embedded in licensure criteria is not restricted to accounting alone. This can be found across many professions.

One must recognize that credits are a quantitative measure of one’s studies and not a qualitative one. Nonetheless, when a U.S. bachelor’s degree equivalency is given, one must normally be able to show a minimum of 120 semester credits, which is based on four years of study. For this reason, through the years of debates that have followed, most credentials evaluation agencies will maintain the need for completion of a four-year program of study for consideration for a U.S. bachelor’s degree equivalency. If the three-year degree is predicated on studies for which university credit is given, such as Advanced Level examinations (A Levels), it would lead to a cumulative total of four years of study and 120 credits. In such instances, a U.S. bachelor’s equivalency is also granted.

For university admissions, however, a different story unfolds. In the beginning, the stance was more conservative in the acceptance of three-year degree holders for admission. However, with the passage of time, institutions became more comfortable and flexible in their approach. Admittedly, however, the change in reception was also partly economics-driven, with the need to create or widen the eligibility pool of international students. The reality is that, unlike evaluation agencies, universities have more leeway and do not need to establish a U.S. degree equivalency that would serve all sectors, including immigration, education, and employment/professional licensure. Rather, university admissions offices only need to determine the student’s level of preparedness for graduate study. This view was presented and argued at AACRAO’s 2006 Symposium on the Bologna Declaration.

When speaking with and listening to graduate schools, whether at conferences or through informal interviews over the years, it is clear that the range of admissions policies has been vast across institutions and across programs within the same institution. The variations even within an institution signal the decentralized nature of most graduate admissions offices, as each graduate program will have its own entry requirements. At the start, there were more conditional admissions, case-by-case decisions, or requirements for a bridge program to be completed. However, their numbers declined over time with admissions decisions more in favor of three-year holders or a subset thereof. For example, realizations set in that bridge programs were not meaningful, as the coursework never represented content of a fourth or final year of study in a bachelor’s degree. Rather, the bridge program was often “random” general education coursework. These days, bridge programs are rarely found as a requirement for three-year bachelor’s degree holders.

Admissions policies are often shaped by what is seen and received in the office. As an example, some universities may have clearly delineated policies with the favorable acceptance of three-year degree holders from India but the contrary regarding those from Europe and the Bologna Process, simply due to the sheer gap in volume of applications between the two regions. For the acceptance of three-year degrees from India, there is also often the accompanying caveat that the applicants graduate from a university with a particular degree classification and National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) rating. Conversely, there are institutions that may only have established favorable admissions policies for students from the Bologna signatory countries due to the quality assurance mechanisms built in from the reforms to the exclusion of other countries with three-year degrees. It has become clear that while consistency is needed in policymaking, differences can be found among three-year bachelor’s qualifications by country in turn leading to different admissions policies. As it has often been argued, not all three-year degrees are created equally.

Variations in Graduate Admissions Policies Regarding Three-Year Degree Holders

The recent introduction of three-year bachelor’s degrees in the U.S. and their reception will be of equal interest. At present, these U.S. degrees are in applied areas, focusing on workforce readiness rather than preparation for graduate school. However, it is anticipated that in time, these degrees in the U.S. may evolve and expand. Initial reactions were shared at an annual TAICEP conference, with one representative from an ENIC-NARIC office viewing these degrees as potentially more vocational in nature. That said, it is also anticipated that these new U.S. three-year bachelor’s degrees, along with their recognition, will develop over time, both in the U.S. and abroad.

References

AACRAO. “The U.S. Perspective on the Three-Year Bologna-Compliant Bachelor’s Degree: Fall Symposium Report”. AACRAO, September 2017. https://www.aacrao.org/docs/default-source/international_docs/aacrao-fall-symposium_bologna-compliant_3-year_degrees.pdf.

AACRAO (2006). The Impact of Bologna and Three-Year Degrees on US Admissions.

AICE. “Symposium: Setting the Standards for Graduate Admissions: Three-Year Degree and Other Admissions Dilemmas”. AICE, April 2017. https://aice-eval.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/AICE-2017-Symposium-Report.pdf

IIE. “Three -Year Bologna Compliant Degrees: Responses from US Graduate Schools”. IIE, 2009. https://www.iie.org/publications/three-year-bologna-compliant-degrees/

NAFSA (2017). IEM Spotlight Newsletter Summer Issue on Three-Year Degrees.

Tse, Emily, and Ujjaini Sahasrabudhe. “The Three-Year Degree Debate: What Is Your International Admissions Policy?”. Session presented at 2016 NAGAP Conference, Nashville, Tennessee, April 2016. https://ierf.org/for-institutions/ierf-vault/ierf-vault-presentations/