Massachusetts is poised to reshape its higher education landscape, potentially offering students a faster and more affordable path to a bachelor’s degree. The state’s Board of Higher Education , voted to approve a regulation allowing colleges and universities to submit proposals for three-year degree programs, a move mirroring a growing trend across the nation.
Currently, a standard bachelor’s degree in Massachusetts requires 120 credit hours, typically completed over four years. The new regulation removes this fixed requirement, opening the door for institutions to pilot programs that could significantly reduce the time and cost of earning a degree. The Board’s decision comes after a year and a half of deliberation and reflects a broader national conversation about the value proposition of higher education in an era of rising tuition costs and student debt.
The impetus behind the change is clear: affordability and accessibility. As college costs continue to climb – often approaching six figures annually at many institutions – policymakers and students alike are seeking innovative solutions. Three-year programs, often structured around a sub-120 credit hour curriculum, aim to address this challenge by accelerating the time to graduation and reducing overall expenses. Johnson & Wales University in Rhode Island recently became the first university in the U.S. To launch an in-person three-year bachelor’s program, requiring students to complete between 90 and 96 credit hours.
However, the move isn’t without its critics. Concerns have been raised about the potential impact on educational quality. Aruna Krishnamurthy, an English studies professor at Fitchburg State University, voiced apprehension during the board meeting, arguing that reducing credit requirements could diminish the learning experience and limit opportunities for students, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds. “We may think that we have reduced their financial burden by taking out 30 credits, but in reality, we will have diminished their learning experience and narrowed their path to success ” she stated.
Max Page, president of the Massachusetts Teachers Association, echoed these concerns, suggesting that the focus should be on deepening student learning rather than shortening the time to completion. He also argued that if affordability is the primary goal, the board should consider more targeted regulations specifically designed to lower costs.
The potential for a two-tiered system also emerged as a point of contention. Vice Chair Harneen Chernow expressed concern that more selective institutions, like the University of Massachusetts Amherst, might be less inclined to adopt accelerated programs, while community colleges and other state schools could be more likely to offer them. This could create a disparity in educational opportunities based on institutional prestige and student demographics.
Board Chair Chris Gabrieli acknowledged the potential for controversy, stating, “I do expect there to be some controversy under some of these proposals, maybe all of them, because they all represent innovation and sometimes real boundary changing and that could be uncomfortable.” He emphasized the board’s commitment to innovation, but also stressed the importance of ensuring program quality. “I think our general view on innovation should be to neither assume all innovations are good ideas, nor to prevent campus driven ideas – if they’re high quality – from proceeding.”
The approved regulation doesn’t prescribe specific program structures, but requires that any pilot programs be “responsive to significant changes in society, demographics, technology, educational research, or expectations regarding post-secondary education.” This broad mandate allows institutions considerable flexibility in designing their proposals, but also places the onus on them to demonstrate how their programs meet these criteria.
The New England Commission of Higher Education (NECHE) has already signaled a willingness to consider such programs, having given Merrimack College in North Andover the green light to develop a three-year program focused on non-licensure majors in . This precedent suggests that the Board of Higher Education’s decision is likely to be met with a degree of receptiveness from accrediting bodies.
The move by Massachusetts follows similar initiatives in other states. In , Indiana Governor Eric Holcomb signed legislation requiring all state colleges and universities to review their bachelor’s degree programs for potential three-year completion pathways. This nationwide trend underscores a growing recognition that the traditional four-year model may not be the optimal path for all students.
The next step is for colleges and universities to submit their pilot proposals to the Board of Higher Education for approval. The board will then evaluate these proposals based on their responsiveness to the stated criteria and their potential to enhance access and affordability without compromising educational quality. The outcome of this process will determine whether three-year bachelor’s degrees become a widespread reality in Massachusetts, and whether the state can successfully navigate the challenges and opportunities presented by this innovative approach to higher education.
