Professor, I think you are ignoring or overlooking some things in our culture and economy that don't support the idea of spending six years on a bachelor's degree. There are two costs, the first being the actual cost of attending a university for added years. The second is opportunity cost, that of foregone income due to the delay in starting a career. Many young people are raring to get started on a career and find it frustrating that they spend even four years getting that degree that opens the doors for consideration.

Years ago I had a cousin who possessed one of those terminal degrees you describe, and she expressed mild horror at the notion that getting that first degree took even four years. She advocated cutting it to three (or even fewer) years by taking a heavy load each term and also going at it full-time during the summer. To her that degree was just a hurdle that had to be cleared prior to getting into real, serious graduate or professional study.

So, what's the rush? Many or most students can't benefit from that living "life a bit" or working "in reality." Instead for many it is just a period of extended adolescence that burns up some of the best years of their lives, and delays the progression of life to household formation, marriage, and child bearing and raising.

One of my sons, a law school grad and practicing attorney, calls the bachelor's degree "the new high school diploma" as far as how society values it. If that is all it means career-wise, then it needs to be tackled seriously and completed in the four years allotted.

I agree about the low priority UC assigns to undergraduate courses. But that isn't unique to the UC at all. One prestige university that was severely criticized in recent years in regard to its undergrad program is Stanford. The classes and the housing for such students there were substandard, yet for far too long students endured it because of the value of being able to say "I'm a Stanford graduate." The whole thing is widespread and of varying severity. But for anyone on the outside, it is very hard to judge a university's commitment to its undergraduates. They all proclaim that they treat them wonderfully well.

While much that you mention is true, I do take exception to your claim that "There's no reason to believe it costs more for a student to get the required units to graduate in six rather than four years . . ." At a UC campus, you don't pay by the unit taken. Rather there is a flat rate for everything in full-time status, and a reduced rate for part-time that is still substantial. And then, I must remind, there is the opportunity cost.

I feel for those young people and all the uncertainty of a rapidly changing economy and world. While you aver that the rate at which people learn hasn't increased, I can also point out that the aging of the female reproductive system is also the same as it always was. If a young woman takes her time in a university and graduates with a pile of debt, then establishes a career, then marries, then finally decides to have children, most or all of her biological clock will have run out. That's not healthy for society or the individuals involved. A generation or two ago we fretted about girls getting pregnant too young. Now we worry about them not getting pregnant at all if they go for higher education. Quite a turnabout.