Ford Foundation experiments with early admission at Chicago and Columbia were not a rousing success. High school students encouraged to advance to college met the idea for the most part with apathy. Counselors advised that many would prove emotionally unequipped for college years.
As for the second alternative, the University, unfortunately, cannot determine higher standards in secondary schools. The colleges have no direct influence over high schools and prep schools, no way to change curricula and institute more meaningful courses of study. Whether raising entrance requirements would force better preparedness on the part of secondary schools is doubtful; on a nation-wide basis it seems highly unlikely that standards would improve because a few colleges heightened admittance requirements.
Thus the burden of change rests with the College and the graduate schools. Could the number of years in graduate schools be reduced?
During World War II, the Business School awarded "Industrial Administrator" degrees after one year of study. The experiment proved unsatisfactory; many students returned after the war to get their regular M.B.A. In 1951, 81% of the Business School felt two years an absolute necessity.
Medical School provides the longest haul for the post-graduate. Yet, as new discoveries occur in biology, physiology, and the related sciences, the vast subject matter increases, rather than affording opportunity for cutting.
In the past some graduate schools have admitted students without a degree, after only three years in college. If such a practice were to become commonplace, educators envision a general deterioration in both college and graduate school. In addition, increasing competition for admittance to any of these schools will mean the necessity of higher qualifications.
Ultimately, the question returns to the College itself. Acceleration lowers the caliber of undergraduate education. Advanced placement affects relatively few students, and, again, is likely to lead to an acceleration program undermining the value of the college education. The only solution President Conant could see was a complete redesigning of the College curriculum on a three-year basis.
There are obvious advantages in such a move. Housing problems would be reduced. Or, with the same facilities, more students could come to Harvard by increasing the size of each of the three remaining classes.
Young men could get their education more quickly. Education would be cheaper, eliminating a year's expense; and it would be faster.
Critics of the three-year program are numerous and vociferous. What will happen to the maturing process, they ask, if students are shuffled through college at such a rate? The nation has enough specialists and experts. Many feel it Harvard's function to produce leaders and inspire sound judment.
Vassar, Amherst, and Williams tried a similar program, and dropped it as an unsuccessful experiment. What reasons are there to think it would be successful at Harvard?
Further counter-arguments claim that extracurricular activities would suffer and die as a result of study intensification. ROTC, for practical purposes, might have to be eliminated; a three-year student might be unable to carry the extra course.
There is a deep concern that the undergraduate years may become a transitory stop-gap, a short breather between secondary school and graduate education. Within such a concept, College education would wither; the contribution would deteriorate, and the meaning of an A.B. degree would diminish.
Finally, there is the Harvard ideal of "The Whole Man," the well-rounded individual. If college education is cut and tailored for the prospective professional, what happens to this ideal. Will Harvard produce nothing but "specialists" and "experts?" Such questions lead to more basic ones, on the nature and responsibility of education, and the role of the university in society.
In light of the current debate on the function of the Ivy League colleges in the nation's educational panorama, this problem becomes all the more pressing. Solutions to time, money, and curriculum question-marks are needed now. Debate over the fundamental bases of education take on a real and urgent nature. The three-year college program is a controversial plan. But perhaps these proposals, by very virtue of their controversial nature, will at least air the questions, and revitalize our search for answers.