Knock 32 hours of gen ed off the total, and you'd spend ~100 hours divided by 8 semesters = 12.5 hours per semester.

Most colleges count 12+ hours in a semester as full-time.  If you take 12 hours or 15 or 18, it costs the same.

So, cost-wise, you can go for 4 years without gen ed classes and you pay the same amount -- just 1-2 fewer classes each semester.

If you continue at 15-18 hours per semester, then you potentially could save money by graduating about 2 semesters earlier.  You'd get your degree in 3 years, not 4.

BUT, if everybody drops to 3 year programs, you know the schools are going to raise tuition rates to make up the difference.  Whether you're paying tuition that 4th year or not, they still have to pay professors, building maintenance, admin staff, etc, etc, etc.

In the long term, the school will dictate what your degree costs.  You might save a year of your life, but the school will force you to pay the same -- they just won't have to expend that money on your 4th year of instruction.  Win-win for the school.

Why do you say colleges would raise tuition? Fewer students would mean less need for services. I see no reason that the cost of operating a college wouldn't scale down to match people graduating in 3 years instead of 4. It wouldn't make sense to maintain the same level of services when there is reduced need/demand.

You are right that some people can study extra hard and graduate early but not everyone can afford to go above 12 credits due to other obligations they might have.

On top of all of this is housing costs. Even if colleges did charge more per credit on a 3 year degree as you suggest, a college student in a dorm is still going to save a years worth of dorm costs with a shorter program.

You made the claim the courses are not necessary.  Where are your supporting Google links?

You made the claim, it's on you to back them up. That's according to your rules.   

It isn't my job to prove a negative.

Otherwise my wife would be happy to sell you some Noni juice until you can prove you don't need it.

My point is, EEF wants to pretend if a college wants to create "well rounded" students, they need to teach students everything which should have been learned somewhere/sometime else in life.  Otherwise, the definition of "well rounded" doesn't meet his personal meaning.

It's a fallacy: Strawman.  He's full of those.

The point, that you missed, is that the argument that we need well rounded college graduates is inherently subjective and arbitrary.

Why do you say colleges would raise tuition? Fewer students would mean less need for services. I see no reason that the cost of operating a college wouldn't scale down to match people graduating in 3 years instead of 4. It wouldn't make sense to maintain the same level of services when there is reduced need/demand.

You are right that some people can study extra hard and graduate early but not everyone can afford to go above 12 credits due to other obligations they might have.

On top of all of this is housing costs. Even if colleges did charge more per credit on a 3 year degree as you suggest, a college student in a dorm is still going to save a years worth of dorm costs with a shorter program.

Students have housing costs no matter where they live, just like eating.  You can't say you're saving housing that 4th year by not being in school if you're paying rent elsewhere,

It isn't my job to prove a negative.

Otherwise my wife would be happy to sell you some Noni juice until you can prove you don't need it.

You don't understand what you're saying.  "Proving a negative" implies existence of something or behavior.  "Prove the Devil doesn't exist."   "Prove you didn't take the last cookie."  Those are negatives.

Asking you to support your claim that the classes are not needed is not the same.  Can you prove you've never served jail time?  Of course you can, because we know there would be a record.  No record = no jail time.  Can you prove you have never had a traffic ticket?  Of course you can.  Just request a driving abstract.

So, if you can't prove something that's provable, saying it's "a negative" when it's not is a dodge.

The point, that you missed, is that the argument that we need well rounded college graduates is inherently subjective and arbitrary.

You really should read more, and not just comic books.

Students have housing costs no matter where they live, just like eating.  You can't say you're saving housing that 4th year by not being in school if you're paying rent elsewhere,

Except that after they graduate they could go get a job and that year of housing costs would be paid for by a job instead of increasing someone's debt.

You don't understand what you're saying.  "Proving a negative" implies existence of something or behavior.  "Prove the Devil doesn't exist."   "Prove you didn't take the last cookie."  Those are negatives.

Asking you to support your claim that the classes are not needed is not the same.  Can you prove you've never served jail time?  Of course you can, because we know there would be a record.  No record = no jail time.  Can you prove you have never had a traffic ticket?  Of course you can.  Just request a driving abstract.

So, if you can't prove something that's provable, saying it's "a negative" when it's not is a dodge.

You want me to prove it isn't necessary. The burden is to prove it is necessary.

You really should read more, and not just comic books.

Ad hom. Holy fallacy batman!

Except that after they graduate they could go get a job and that year of housing costs would be paid for by a job instead of increasing someone's debt.

I guarantee if you're living on campus, your housing cost is lower than the rental market for the area. That offsets any interest on the debt you may incur, assuming you're relying on loans to pay for school instead of working to save the money during the Summer months.

You want me to prove it isn't necessary. The burden is to prove it is necessary.

BS

Ad hom. Holy fallacy batman!

You can't even spell the entire name.

Holy stupidity, everybody!

BS

Wow, great rebuttal 

You can't even spell the entire name.

Holy stupidity, everybody!

People say ad hom for short. Get with the times grandpa.

People say ad hom for short. Get with the times grandpa.

People?  You don't know people.  You just congregate under your bridge with the other trolls.



 

People?  You don't know people.  You just congregate under your bridge with the other trolls.
 

^^^
Troll pretending he isn't a troll.