Episode 3- The Q1 Journal Fetish

Episode 4- The Administrator Problem

Episode 5- The University Rankings Game

With no public debate or academic consensus, Türkiye’s Higher Education Council (YÖK) decided to reduce undergraduate education to 3 years. YÖK is so powerful that no university administration can challenge its decisions. YÖK can easily stop a university’s existence. I have asked ChatGPT to compile the pros and cons of this decision, which will be presented below. I have a few thoughts:

1- This decision seems to ignore the campus as a socialization place. Students do not take university education for learning and getting a job, but for acquiring a status and a network. I believe three years may not be enough for this level of socialization.

2- Many universities in small towns serve as a major source of income for small-scale businesses. This decision seems to serve them and thus their votes. However, there will be a higher number of unemployed citizens with university degrees. There is a trade-off here.

3- There will be higher pressure on academicians. Only a few elite universities may allocate time for research for their scholars, and in most universities, the teaching load will increase. This may be the aim from the outset, creating a more distinct separation between research universities and others.

Here is my compilation:

YÖK’s Plan to Reduce Undergraduate Education from 4 to 3 Years: Comprehensive Review

1. Rationale and Objectives of YÖK’s Amendments

Official Statements and Strategic Goals: The President of the Council of Higher Education (YÖK) Prof. Dr. Erol Özvar emphasized that the new model, which will reduce undergraduate education in universities from 4 to 3 years, is part of a radical transformation in higher education[1]. According to Özvar, the aim is to make the education system more efficient, flexible and compatible with international standards[2]. In this context, the curricula of programs will be updated and simplified, new departments focused on artificial intelligence and digital transformation will be opened, and programs that are now “obsolete” will be closed[3]. YÖK is planning these reforms as part of a roadmap for higher education towards 2030 and states that they aim to enable students to graduate in a shorter period of time “without compromising higher education quality standards”[4].

Justifications for Shortening the Duration of Education: In YÖK’s statements, several justifications for shortening the duration of undergraduate education stand out:

• International Harmonization: Referring to the Bologna process in Europe, it is pointed out that in many countries the bachelor’s degree is 3 years. It is stated that this step will harmonize the Turkish higher education system with international standards and facilitate the global mobility of graduates[5][6]. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has similarly stated that this structural reform will both make the system more efficient and increase international harmonization by stating that “as in many European countries, our students should be offered the opportunity to graduate in 3 years”[6].
• Fast Labor Force and Economic Benefit: It is argued that four-year university education delays young people in entering the workforce and that successful and willing students should be able to graduate earlier and enter the workforce[7]. It has been emphasized that this would provide an economic advantage for young people and their families, and that students would save a year and start their careers faster[7][8]. According to official statements, many students and parents are pleased that the shortening of education gives them the opportunity to “get an early start in life”[7]. As a matter of fact, in the press reports of YÖK, some students expressed that they found this change logical and useful, saying “Graduating in three years gives me the opportunity to start professional life earlier… I can improve myself more by doing an internship in the fourth year”[9]. Similarly, parents also stated that “Young people want to start life as soon as possible. If they are successful, why shouldn’t they finish in 3 years? This arrangement will be economically positive for families” and they are in favor of the shortening of the duration[10].
• Simplification of the Curriculum and Quality: YÖK President Özvar stated that in the new model, lesson plans will be simplified and the number of unnecessary courses will be reduced[11]. Thus, it is argued that students will not be overwhelmed by excessive course load and will be directed more towards projects, applications and research[11]. The aim is to offer education with a more intensive schedule without compromising the same program outcomes and 240 ECTS undergraduate credits[12]. Özvar emphasized that the quality of the content will not be compromised, saying “what we are doing is paving the way for students who can finish the same or updated curriculum in a shorter period of time”[13]. President Erdoğan has also stated that lesson plans will be simplified and that students will be provided with practice and research-based learning models where they can develop projects[6]. In other words, the reform aims to change not only the duration but also the teaching methods, and to strengthen practical education in addition to theoretical knowledge.
• Practical Education and Internships: YÖK’s plan to shorten the duration of education is accompanied by steps to strengthen internships and workplace education. Özvar stated that they aim to expand the “applied education model in the workplace” at the associate and undergraduate level in the coming period[14]. Noting that the current short internships are inefficient, models that include long internships lasting at least one semester are planned[15]. For example, in some programs, it is envisaged that one or two semesters will be spent as full-time internships in the form of “7+1” or “6+2” throughout the undergraduate program[16]. In this way, it is aimed for students to gain skills in the real work environment before graduation and to make a rapid transition to employment after graduation[17]. YÖK has planned to start this model in 7 pilot provinces first, and if successful, to spread it to the whole country[18]. Therefore, the plan to shorten the program to 3 years is also related to the strategy of increasing university-education and sector integration.

Details of the Plan (License in 3 Years Model): The new model is based on a three semester academic calendar at universities. The academic year, which currently lasts approximately 9 months over two semesters (fall and spring), will be extended to three semesters with this plan, partially including the summer months[19]. According to Özvar’s explanations:

• Number of Semesters per Year: 3 semesters instead of 2. The calendar will be extended so that education will start in September and end in July, and August will be a holiday[20][21].
• Duration of Semester: While a semester is currently ~14 weeks of lectures + exams, in the new model each semester will be approximately 11-12 weeks[20]. This means that courses will be more intensive and compact, but the total number of hours/year will be largely maintained.
• Total Duration and Credits: The undergraduate program will remain 8 semesters (240 ECTS) in total, but these 8 semesters can be completed in 3 calendar years[12]. Students will graduate with the same total credits, so program outcomes will not be shortened on paper.
• Summer Semester: The third semester will be a systematized version of the “summer school”. It is stated that summer courses will be completed before August, leaving at least a few weeks of vacation for students and faculty[21].
• Teaching Method: Active learning, project-based studies and application-oriented curriculum will be emphasized in course content[22]. Instead of classical classroom lectures, pedagogical methods that prepare students for industry and research are emphasized.

YÖK has announced that it wishes to implement this model in the 2026-2027 academic year, and if not, it will implement it the following year[23]. Özvar also stated that some foundation (private) universities have been experimenting with a similar 3-semester calendar for several years and that these experiences are being evaluated[24].

To summarize, the Higher Education Council (YÖK) is touting the change as a reform in line with the needs of the age, a flexibility that “offers choice” to students, and a step that will make Turkey competitive with the world. In the official discourse, it is claimed that even if the programs are shortened, the quality of learning will not decrease and may even increase with new methods; it is argued that students will gain financially and in terms of time, and the country’s economy will gain a qualified workforce faster[25][8].

2. Criticisms of Academic Circles and Universities

The YÖK’s plan to reduce the duration of the academic year to 3 years has sparked intense debate and criticism among academics and university circles. Serious concerns have been voiced especially in terms of teaching load, research activities and academic quality. Eğitim-Sen (Education and Science Workers’ Union) and faculty members from various universities agree that the plan is hasty and objectionable.

2.1 Impact of the “Three Semester” Model on Teaching Load and Research

Burden on Faculty Members: According to academics, the three-semester calendar will significantly increase the teaching load of faculty members. Currently, in many universities, faculty members teach for two semesters from the end of September to the end of June, and spend the summer months teaching in summer school for those who want to, and for those who do not want to, for their research, projects and academic development [26]. In a three-semester continuing education program, lecturers would have to teach for almost 12 months continuously. According to Prof. Dr. Cem Say from Boğaziçi University, this plan is a step that will “end research in universities by requiring faculty members to teach for 12 months”[27]. Dr. Lülüfer Körükmez, Chairperson of the Izmir Universities Branch of Eğitim-Sen (Education and Science Workers’ Union), issued a similar warning, stating that “this practice will not allow faculty and administrative staff, especially students, to rest”[28]. It is clear that academics who teach continuously throughout the year will not have time for research, self-improvement and publication[29]. Referring to the phenomenon of “silent resignation” (loss of work motivation), which has been frequently discussed in academia in recent years, it has been stated that this kind of concentration, which makes research difficult and increases burnout, will weaken the scientific production capacity of universities[30].

Damage to Research Activities: Many academics in Turkey can only spare time for research and scientific production during the summer months due to their heavy teaching load[31]. Körükmez stated that “we can only use the summer months for research and publishing, so this time will be taken away from us” and that the three-semester model will further undermine academic productivity[31]. Especially in departments with a small number of faculty members (in many universities in Anatolia, undergraduate programs are maintained with only 4-5 professors), it would be virtually impossible or extremely tiring to provide year-round education[32]. It was emphasized that even in the 3-semester systems in Europe, the number of students and resources per faculty member is much higher than in Turkey, whereas in our country, with the current staff shortage, 3-semester education is not realistic in terms of human resources[32].

Academics’ Health and Workload: Unions in the higher education sector have described the planned system as “one of the biggest blows to education”[33][34]. Prof. Dr. Doğan Göçmen from Dokuz Eylül University stated that many faculty members are already working under an excessive teaching load of up to 30 hours a week due to lack of staff, which leads to stress-related health problems in many academics[35]. Göçmen warned that the extension of the lecture period with the planned three semester implementation “may mean dying before retirement for many academics”[36]. It is also stated that the excessive workload is reflected negatively on the course content, that the quality of education has decreased with the shortening of the preparation period, and now, when the third semester is added to this, the work intensity and ‘surplus-value exploitation’ will increase even more[37]. In other words, according to critics, this reform will result in the intensification of academic labor and will bring faculty members closer to the position of “education workers”[38].

Physical and Regional Conditions: The practical difficulties of teaching in the summer, especially in some regions where the summer months are very hot (e.g. in provinces such as Izmir and Antalya), were also mentioned. “It is physically impossible to hold classes in July-August in classrooms where the temperature reaches 50 degrees Celsius and where there is no insulation or air conditioning,” said representatives of Eğitim-Sen, adding that this fact was ignored in planning[39][40]. In other words, geographical conditions and infrastructure deficiencies may render the three-semester model inapplicable in some universities.

For Students – Time and Internship Opportunities: Academic circles emphasize that the condensed calendar will leave students with no breathing space. According to calculations, in the three-semester model, when three consecutive 11-12 week semesters are conducted with almost no break between semesters, there is a total gap of only 4 weeks in a year[41]. In this case, students will spend almost the entire year in lectures and exams. Assoc. Prof. Banu Ş. Önder from Hacettepe University stated that students will have to work throughout the year without taking a breath, and in such a system, it will be difficult for them to do national or international internships, participate in exchange programs such as Erasmus, or even visit their families and rest[42]. Eğitim-Sen also stated that many students work in the summers to cover their school expenses, but if summer classes are compulsory, students will be deprived of this income[43]. In this respect, it is stated that the plan will further burden low-income students and may deepen inequality of opportunity.

2.2 Concerns about Academic Quality and Curriculum

Reduced Quality of Education: Academics agree that the shortening of the undergraduate period may negatively affect academic quality. Union representative Körükmez stated that the idea of graduating in 3 years with summer school would “weaken the learning process of students” and emphasized that there would not be enough time for students to digest and consolidate the lessons they have learned, read from different sources and assimilate the information[44]. “There is not enough time for students to filter what they have learned, so we can expect a decrease in the quality of education” reflects the concern that curriculum intensification will reduce learning efficiency[45]. Indeed, trying to fit a 4-year course load into 3 years is inevitably risky in terms of the depth and permanence of the knowledge learned[46]. Especially in some disciplines (engineering, medicine, law, etc.), it is thought that there is a minimum time required to complete a certain curriculum, and that shortening it will be a minus for the student.

For example, engineering education usually includes basic science and mathematics courses in the first year, specialized courses in the following years and a final project in the last year. An academic from Boğaziçi University warned that “students cannot move on to advanced courses without taking basic courses; they do internships during summer vacations, go on exchange programs, do a project in their senior year – it is difficult to compress these into 3 years”, warning that the pedagogical flow would be disrupted[47]. It was criticized that if these elements (internship, project, exchange) were removed or shortened, the quality of university education would be reduced to the level of vocational high school: “If you remove culture, art and literature from university education and leave only vocational courses, you will be left with a vocational school,” an academic wrote, adding that the higher education characteristic of the university would be damaged[48].

Over-compression of the curriculum: Moving to the new model will require universities to reorganize their existing curricula from scratch. At this point, there are risks in terms of accreditation and academic integrity. Prof. Hasan Aydın from the Department of Philosophy at OMU says that in the restructuring of the programs, it is planned to simplify the course content and emphasize skill-oriented credits, but it will be almost impossible to redesign the curriculum in a balanced and consistent manner[49]. Reducing the number of compulsory courses or intensifying their content may threaten academic integrity and lead to inconsistencies in the knowledge and skills of graduates[49]. Especially in departments with international accreditation, there are certain minimum content and duration requirements. The potential for curriculum change to contradict these standards is another concern[49].

University Autonomy and Decision Processes: Another aspect that has been criticized is the top-down planning of such a major change without consulting the academic boards of universities. According to the Constitution and the Law on Higher Education, it is the duty of university senates to determine curricula, and senates carry out this process through the decisions of faculties and departments[50]. Academic circles have criticized YÖK’s approach that “the university will be reduced to three years, universities will switch to this system in six months”, emphasizing that this approach undermines university autonomy and democratic functioning[50][51]. Assoc. Prof. Dr. Önder from Hacettepe stated that it is unclear to what extent the opinions of students and academics were taken into consideration when this decision was taken, and that the structural problem to be solved with this transformation was not made public[51]. The lack of participation and transparency in the decision-making process has been criticized as raising “serious concerns in terms of democratic functioning”[51].

Argument that it is already possible if desired: Some educators remind that successful students can still graduate early under the current system. In many universities, students can skip semesters and graduate in 3.5 years or even in 3 years by taking upper-division courses and summer school. “Anyway, students who want to can finish school in three years by taking upper-division courses. However, imposing this on all students will create a big problem.” The Eğitim-Sen representative pointed out that there is a difference between voluntary individual acceleration and a total system change[28]. In other words, it is argued that compressing the calendar for everyone would reduce the overall quality and leave many students in a difficult situation, whereas there are flexible pathways in the current situation.

Possible Outcome: Graduation Rates and Labor Market: Critics argue that the consequences of this step will not be positive for youth and society. In an analysis published in YetkinReport, it is stated that Turkey already has the highest unemployment rate of university graduates in the OECD (university graduate unemployment is even higher than general unemployment)[52]. It is argued that increasing the supply of graduates by reducing education from 4 to 3 years will reduce young people to the level of “intermediate staff” in terms of qualifications and wages, further increasing the number of unemployed[53]. It has been said that this is a step that may lead young graduates to seek a future abroad instead of Turkey[53]. Similarly, Prof. Göçmen predicted that graduating young people one year early would increase the number of open unemployed and increase competition in the labor market, which would have a negative impact on social relations[54]. Another claim is that the government actually aims to manipulate unemployment figures with this plan: Taking young people out of school a year earlier means that they are statistically defined as “unemployed” earlier. Even if this does not reduce the number of unemployed on paper, it may allow different indicators to be manipulated (for example, participation in the labor pool will change in unemployment rate calculations). Göçmen drew attention to this point by stating that “in the current planning, the aim of manipulating the number of unemployed is also considered”[55].

To summarize, the academic world has a largely negative view of YÖK’s 3-year undergraduate proposal and believes that the plan will harm education. Criticisms focus on the fact that it would impose an unworkable and unsustainable burden on all stakeholders, from faculty members to students, undermine the research and development climate in universities, and eventually lead to a decline in the quality of education[42][29]. For this reason, Eğitim-Sen demanded that YÖK re-evaluate the regulation in question and take a step back[56].

3. Reactions of Students and the Public

This radical change was met with mixed reactions from students and parents. Official sources and some media reports claim that the majority of students and parents welcomed the change[7]. On the other hand, concerns and criticisms have also been expressed on social media and in some student groups. In this section, supportive and critical reactions from the public are analyzed under separate headings.

3.1 Positive Reactions and Expectations

When the news of the reform was first announced, many students welcomed the shortened duration of education. Media outlets such as Habertürk featured the views of students from different universities and these views were generally supportive[7]. The positive points emphasized by students are as follows:

• Early Graduation and Career: Students say that graduating in 3 years will allow them to “stand on their own feet as soon as possible” and adapt quickly to business life[9]. Especially the time spent in the final year is seen as a waste of time for some, instead of graduating early and taking the opportunity to start an internship or job. In the words of one student: “I can improve myself by doing an internship in the fourth year. I think it is a very correct approach to graduate in three years and gain professional experience in the fourth year”[9]. According to this perspective, saving time will provide an advantage in career development.
• Reduced Financial Burden: Students and their parents, especially those who study with the financial support of their families, expressed that shortening the school year would be a significant economic relief[10]. One parent’s statement was reflected in the press as follows: “Four years of schooling is very difficult for us economically. Reducing it to three years is a great advantage for successful students”[57]. Students also state that the early graduation means saving time and money for them and their families[7]. Especially considering the rising cost of living and the opportunity cost of a longer education period, this regulation was seen by many as an “already expected” step.
• Voluntary and Optional: As emphasized by the president of the Council of Higher Education (YÖK) in his statements, it was stated that this system would not be compulsory, and that only students who meet certain success criteria and who wish to do so can complete the program in 3 years[58]. This reassured some students and made them think that “if it is optional, it is a good practice”[59]. A young person preparing for the university entrance exam said, “Reducing the duration of the undergraduate degree to three years made sense. It would be a good practice if it is optional”, emphasizing the importance of flexibility[59]. In other words, it was seen as an opportunity for really successful and fast progressing students, and it was supported considering that it would not affect others.
• Contribution to the Workforce: Some students argued that the regulation would also contribute to the labor market of the country. “The proposed system will contribute to the labor market. Who wouldn’t want to graduate in a short time?” reflects the idea that the rapid participation of the young population in production will also be beneficial from a macro perspective[60]. It has been argued that four years is a long four years, especially in non-technical fields (such as social and administrative sciences), and that in practice students spend the last year mostly preparing for exams such as KPSS and YDS, so shortening the education calendar will increase productivity[61].

While these positive views have received widespread media coverage, critical voices are also loud. Although the public opinion tendency shared by YÖK depicts a picture of “general satisfaction”[7], warnings, especially from academic circles, have resonated with a part of the public.

3.2 Critical Reactions and Concerns

Some students and some communities with a voice in education are skeptical of the 3-year model. On social media, following YÖK’s announcements, discussions were held with hashtags such as #3YıllıkÜniversite, and there were humorous posts as well as comments expressing concern. Critical reactions focused on the following points:

• “Diploma Factory” Concern: Some students are worried that universities will quickly turn into institutions that only issue diplomas. Comments such as “Universities should not be like high schools, we will study and leave in 3 years, what will be left?” reflect the concern that the quality of education will decrease. In particular, it is expressed that extracurricular development opportunities such as club activities, social events and campus experience may be lost in the intense pace of the university (discussed in detail in section 4 below). For this reason, some students were concerned about the weakening of the learning experience, stating that “4 years pass in the blink of an eye, we will understand nothing in 3 years” (such views were expressed in various forums and dictionaries).
• Academic Load and Achievement Differences: There are views that the new system based on success criteria may increase competition and inequality among students. “Not everyone will be able to finish in 3 years, some will be left behind,” students say, adding that the new system will benefit an elite group, while the average student will face the risk of failure at a more stressful pace. As a matter of fact, as stated by academics, the fact that only those who meet certain criteria can be included in the program may widen socio-economic and academic differences[46]. Some students argue that this situation may create unfair competition and demotivation and harm equal opportunity in education.
• Quality and Recognition Issues: Graduating students question the value of a 3-year diploma in the eyes of employers or foreign institutions. The question “Will employers look at a 3-year graduate the same way they look at a 4-year graduate?” was discussed on social media. Although some know that 3 years is normal in Europe, others think that it will take time for this perception to settle in Turkey. In addition, students who say “If the quality of education decreases, our diploma will be meaningless anyway” fear that in the long run, this effort to graduate quickly may lead to diploma inflation and discrediting. Students, especially those considering an academic career, state that the transition to a master’s degree after a 3-year bachelor’s degree will be rushed, and that graduating without a solid background will cause difficulties in the future.
• Stress and Burnout: For many students, the university years are also a time to live a certain period of youth socially. The idea of being in a constant cycle of classes and exams in the new model has led to high stress and burnout concerns. Some students expressed reactions such as “We are already overwhelmed with midterms and finals, if we study for three semesters without a break, we will go crazy”. This psychological dimension is an issue that academics also draw attention to: Being under time pressure throughout the year is likely to lead to serious psychological wear and tear, and this may decrease rather than increase the quality of education[42].
• Opinions of Student Representatives: Organizations such as student councils or unions have also reacted to the plan. The Student Union platform, for example, made statements on its social media accounts such as “University will improve by increasing the quality of education, not by reducing it to 3 years” and characterized the reform as a wrong priority (such statements have been reported in the press). In general, student organizations argued that YÖK was pursuing a statistical improvement rather than seeking solutions to the real problems of young people (e.g. housing, scholarships, employment). In this context, sloganic reactions such as “We want quality education in 4 years, not a diploma in 3 years” were also seen.

There is a significant segment of the general public that is cautious about the issue. Humorous criticisms were also made on social media; for example, some users have humorously approached the situation with comments such as “Let’s reduce high school to 2 years” or “If only unemployment would be solved by reducing university education to 3 years”. This shows that there is no consensus among the society. While some young people see this as an opportunity, others think that their university experience will be negatively affected.

4. Social, Cultural and Personal Dimensions of University Education

Critics emphasize that university education is not only about lectures and the transfer of knowledge. In addition to the academic development of young individuals, university is a period of life in which they socialize, mature and learn to stand on their own feet. When discussing the plan to shorten the duration of undergraduate education, many academics and educators stated that this dimension should not be ignored.

University is not just a course: Assoc. Prof. Banu Ş. Önder from Hacettepe University draws attention to an important point in the context of these debates by raising the question “Are universities only about lectures?”[62]. According to Önder, universities are multi-layered living spaces where young people develop not only academically but also socially, culturally and personally, make friends, and join student organizations according to their interests[63]. These social and cultural experiences take place through extracurricular activities and are critical for students to get to know themselves, communicate and gain different perspectives. Therefore, Önder states that “there is a need for time outside of classes for all these experiences other than vocational education” and that students cannot find this time in a condensed calendar[63].

Personal Development and Maturation: The university years usually cover the age range of 18-22, and this period is one of the most important phases in the transition from childhood to adulthood. Experts state that the university environment functions like a laboratory for young people to learn to think freely, take responsibility and develop decision-making skills. In the words of an academic from Boğaziçi University, university education is not only for acquiring a profession, but also “to understand the world, to adapt to change, to learn how to learn, to produce new knowledge. It gives young people time to enjoy culture, art and literature and to become well-rounded people”[64]. During the four-year period, students not only acquire knowledge in their own fields, but also mature in life through the elective courses, clubs, social responsibility projects and campus life provided by the university. There are concerns that shortening the duration of education will weaken this dimension and that students may leave university “raw”.

Free Thought and Critical Education: The university should be an ecosystem that raises questioning, criticizing, innovative individuals and nurtures free thinking[65]. This mission is not only related to the delivery of the courses in the curriculum, but also to the experiences students have on campus. Scientific debates, conferences, student congresses, club activities, even canteen conversations are part of university culture. As Prof. Göçmen strikingly puts it: “Are universities just factories that produce diplomas, or are they an ecosystem of knowledge and free thought that raises individuals who question, produce, criticize, innovate, and contribute to society?”[65]. If we reduce the university to the former and focus only on increasing the number of graduates, we run the risk of losing its social function in the latter definition.

Duration vs. Quality Dilemma: A frequently expressed view at this point is that we should focus on the quality of education rather than its duration. While students and academics criticize that even in four years of university education, the curriculum is not in-depth enough or that some important skills cannot be acquired, they are of the opinion that the solution is not to shorten the years. Some educators have even stated that “changing established practices under the name of ‘innovation’ will only magnify the problems that have been fixed by experience” and that the real need is to improve existing programs, balance the course load pedagogically and focus on reforms that will maintain academic quality[66]. In other words, it is argued that structural changes such as shortening the duration of courses do not serve this goal, while what is really needed are improvements in content and methodology.

In conclusion, the view that “university is not just lectures” is one of the key arguments in this debate. Proponents of this view argue that university is a period in which young individuals gain life experience and accumulate intellectual and social capital, and that rushing it will lead to a loss of personal development. Indeed, in the words of one academic: “If you remove these from the university and leave only vocational courses, you are left with a vocational school”[48]. For this reason, it is often emphasized that qualitative as well as quantitative goals should be considered in education planning.

5. International Examples: 3-Year Undergraduate Education Practices

Looking at higher education systems around the world, the duration of undergraduate education varies from country to country. The Bologna Process in Europe has encouraged the reduction of undergraduate programs to 3 years (180 ECTS credits) in many countries, but this model has various advantages and disadvantages. The 3-year model on Turkey’s agenda is also often compared with international examples, especially the argument of “3-year practice in Europe”[5]. Below, the undergraduate duration practices in different countries and their pros and cons are summarized.

5.1 Europe and Bologna Process Countries

Bologna Model (3+2): The Bologna Process, which started in 1999, aimed for a common structure in higher education in Europe. In this context, traditional long undergraduate programs were abandoned in many European countries and a dual-tier system of three-year bachelor’s degree + two-year master’s degree was adopted[67]. For example, in most countries such as Germany, France, Italy and the Netherlands, the bachelor’s degree is now awarded in 3 years (usually 180 ECTS credits)[68]. In this way, students can enter the labor market with a Bachelor’s degree in 3 years or continue their education at the second level. The advantages are highlighted as follows:

• Standardization and Recognition: Harmonizing the diploma duration of different countries has increased international recognition. Students can more easily apply for a master’s degree in another country and diplomas are mutually recognized. From the perspective of Turkish students, having a 3-year bachelor’s degree can facilitate admission to master’s programs, especially in Europe[5]. According to YÖK’s claim, global harmonization will increase and Turkish students will be more competitive abroad.
• Time Savings: A 3-year bachelor’s degree saves time and costs as it saves one year. Students can graduate earlier and start their professional life or complete their master’s degree in the same period. As a matter of fact, in countries such as the UK, the bachelor’s degree takes 3 years and the master’s degree takes 1 year; thus, a master’s degree can be obtained in 4 years in total. This attractive model is praised in some sources as “graduation in a short time (3 years bachelor’s + 1 year master’s) and a globally recognized diploma”[69].
• Mobility: One of Bologna’s goals was student mobility. The three-year bachelor’s degree made it easier for European students to spend semesters in each other’s countries through programs such as Erasmus. Diploma equivalencies and credit transfer systems (ECTS) allow students to study more flexibly. This is seen as a positive aspect that encourages international experience in education.

Criticisms and differences in alignment: However, the 3-year system in Europe is not immune from criticism. First of all, some countries have not fully transitioned to 3 years in all fields: For example, in countries such as Germany, programs such as medicine and law still retain the old long-term structure; and in the UK, the master’s degree is 1 year instead of 2 years, so there are still differences between countries[67]. So Bologna has not achieved complete standardization everywhere. Beyond this

• Qualification of the Bachelor’s Degree: In the European experience, there have been cases where a three-year bachelor’s degree is not considered sufficient in the job market. Especially in fields such as engineering and architecture, many employers consider three years of education as “incomplete” and usually look for five years of education complemented by a master’s degree. According to an analysis by the SETA Foundation, since the education period for students who were engineers in the past in Germany was reduced from 5 years to 3 years, the flexibility of the curriculum has decreased and it is unclear to what extent the labor market will embrace new graduates[70]. Some German engineers even consider this to be a “disaster”[70]. This example shows that the 3-year model creates quality concerns in some areas. Indeed, in many European countries, students prefer to pursue a master’s degree instead of going straight into the working world after their bachelor’s degree; in effect, the total duration of university education increases again to ~5 years.
• Student Protests: During the Bologna reforms, students in countries such as Germany and Austria organized protests, criticizing the overly condensed curriculum and increased pressure[71]. Despite the promise of student-centered education, in practice, it has been argued that in some places a bureaucratic and market-oriented approach has taken precedence, tuition fees have increased, and it has become difficult for poor students to access university[72]. In other words, the 3-year bachelor’s degree is not seen as an undisputed success even in Europe; it is stated that there are problems in the dimensions of quality assurance, teaching method and financing[70].
• Academic Load and Depth: Some European universities have had to trim their curricula when moving to 3 years. This leads to criticism of a loss of depth in education. For example, while classical university education in Italy lasts 4-5 years, there have been criticisms that the transition to 3 years has reduced some culture courses, pushed students to specialize earlier and weakened their general formation. Therefore, the judgment that “3 years is implemented smoothly in Europe” is not entirely correct; in many countries, adaptation to this system has been painful over the years.

Turkey’s Situation: Turkey is actually included in the Bologna process and is implementing the ECTS credit system; however, it has not reduced its undergraduate programs to 3 years, but has kept the 4-year model with 240 ECTS[67]. One reason for this was that Turkey had a 4-year tradition in line with the US system and it was not deemed necessary to move to 3 years in a hurry. Now that YÖK wants to take this step, it will bring Turkey on paper to the same time standard as European countries. As an advantage, this would provide international harmonization and time savings, as mentioned above, but in terms of the aspects criticized, it is thought that Turkey may be even more vulnerable (fewer faculty members, lack of infrastructure, etc.). Körükmez, a representative of Eğitim-Sen, stated that “the 3-year undergraduate program in European universities cannot serve as an example for Turkey” because we do not have the conditions there[73][74]. In particular, it is argued that the ratio of students per faculty member is better in Europe and that more resources and time are allocated to research, whereas in our country, the system would not be able to carry the transition to 3 years[32].

5.2 Examples from Other Countries (UK, USA, Asia, etc.)

United Kingdom: In the UK and most countries following the British model, the undergraduate period is 3 years. This has been the case for many years and is the result of its own tradition, independent of the Bologna process. In the UK, students take specialized A-level courses after high school, so they have a shorter period of intensive study at university. With the exception of Scotland (which has a 4-year Bachelor’s degree), British universities offer a 3-year Bachelor’s (Honours) degree. The UK example is generally considered successful because the quality standards of the universities are high and students can specialize after graduation with a one-year master’s degree if necessary. The advantage is that students can graduate at 21 and enter the world of work or fast-track academically. Critics, however, say that the British model specializes students in a narrow field at an early age and does not provide a broader general education. Nevertheless, the UK’s 3-year model retains its prestige because of its globally competitive universities.

United States and Japan: In countries such as the USA, Canada and Japan, the standard undergraduate education lasts 4 years. In these countries, university education includes more broad-based general education courses, and students typically take courses in different fields in the first year and specialize in the following years. Accelerated Programs: Some universities in the US offer the possibility of graduating in 3 years for high-achieving and over-credited students; for example, students can graduate earlier than usual by attending summer school continuously or by counting advanced course credits such as AP/IB during high school [75]. However, this is not common practice and is usually an exceptional case. Similarly in Japan, although the undergraduate degree is 4 years, there are rare examples of early graduation. The advantage of the US model is that it allows students to change fields and have a flexible curriculum, while the disadvantage is its long duration and high cost. Therefore, in recent years, 3-year “fast-track” undergraduate programs have been piloted at a few institutions in the US (to save a year of tuition fees). However, this is not yet widespread.

Australia and Singapore: According to information compiled by Muğla Yenigün newspaper, in Australia and some Far Eastern countries (e.g. Singapore), 3-year intensive programs in fields such as social sciences are accepted as the basic model[76]. In Australia, most undergraduate programs are 3 years; students who wish to do so can complete the program in 4 years with 1 year of “Honours” education. In Singapore, the bachelor’s degree is 3 years, especially in social sciences, while some technical fields such as engineering can be 4 years. These countries have a heritage of the British education system. The advantages are presented as providing a skilled workforce in a short time and efficiency. As disadvantages, there may be criticism that students have a short academic maturation period and that they are more practice-oriented rather than research-oriented. However, in general, Australia’s 3-year system, similar to the UK, is globally recognized and preferred by many international students.

The table below summarizes the duration of undergraduate education in some selected countries and regions:

(Source: International compilations of higher education duration[68][75])

Advantages from an International Perspective: Proponents of the three-year undergraduate model cite the following advantages, especially based on the European experience: Students can graduate at a younger age and join the workforce, thus taking an earlier role as productive members of society[8]. Shorter duration of education means reduced costs, which can be savings for both the individual and the state. Moreover, as it becomes an international standard, academic mobility increases and confidence is built in the global validity of the diploma. In Turkey, the Council of Higher Education (YÖK) states that this step will make it easier for Turkish students to apply for master’s degrees abroad and establish an equivalent structure with Europe[5].

Criticized Aspects: However, some criticisms come to the fore when both the problems seen in Europe and the conditions in Turkey are taken into consideration: First of all, if the duration is shortened while the content remains the same, education becomes significantly more intensive, which can reduce quality (for example, it has been reported that the reduction of 5 years of education to 3 years in Germany “reduces curriculum flexibility and lowers the level of education”[70]). Secondly, since in many countries a 3-year bachelor’s degree is not considered sufficient on its own, students are compelled to pursue a master’s degree, which again increases the total duration of education to 5 years. Therefore, the real gains of the 3-year model can be questionable. Thirdly, the transition to 3 years should be evaluated according to each country’s own conditions. In other words, copying exactly what Europe has done may not yield the right results, since factors such as the number of academic staff, infrastructure, the quality of high school education, and the financing of universities differ from country to country. Since the number of academics/student ratio is low and research opportunities are limited in Turkey, the transition to the 3-year model may be more painful[32]. Finally, criticisms of marketization and bureaucratization in education are also found in the international literature[77][72]. It has also been argued that accelerating education carries the risk of shaping it according to market demands to some extent, and that higher education may increase social inequalities[72].

In sum, international examples show that the 3-year undergraduate model is neither a complete success nor a complete failure. Success depends to a large extent on the way it is implemented and the supporting measures. While this model works under certain conditions in Europe, it is obvious that this transition should be planned very carefully in a country like Turkey, which offers 4-year education and has shaped its curriculum in this way. The Bologna countries, to which YÖK refers, continue to make adjustments even within themselves and try to improve the model. Similarly, if this plan is to be adopted in Turkey, it is important to take into account the issues raised by the academic community such as quality, burden and social dimension.

Sources:

• YÖK Official Statements and News: YÖK President Prof. Dr. Erol Özvar’s CNN Türk broadcast and YÖK press releases[78][12]; President Erdoğan’s statements (AA)[6]; news in Habertürk and T24[11][20].
• Academician Opinions and Criticisms: YetkinReport column (Prof. Cem Say)[79][80]; Eğitim-Sen Izmir statements (ANKA, T24 news)[45][81]; GazeteBilim compilation (statements of academics)[63][42]; Ege’de Son Söz interview[28][31].
• Student and Public Reactions: Student/parent opinions in Habertürk news article[9][10]; reactions on social media (opinions reflected on various platforms) and student union statements.
• International Examples: Muğla Yenigün newspaper compilation[68][75]; SETA report (2010)[67][70]; evaluations on the Bologna Process[71] and general higher education information sources.

[1] [3] [19] [20] [23] [78] YÖK President Özvar signals “radical change”: 4 years of education reduced to 3 years!

https://t24.com.tr/haber/yok-baskani-ozvar-dan-koklu-degisiklik-sinyali-4-yillik-egitim-3-yila-dusuyor,1285086

[2] [7] [9] [10] [11] [25] [57] [59] [60] [61] Undergraduate education is going down to 3 years! HIGHER EDUCATION COUNCIL: Parents and students are satisfied – News

https://www.haberturk.com/lisans-egitimi-3-yila-iniyor-yok-veliler-ve-ogrenciler-memnun-haberler-3831565

[4] YÖK President announced: University education will be reduced to 3 years – Sözcü

https://www.sozcu.com.tr/yok-baskani-acikladi-uc-yillik-universiteler-geliyor-p232947

[5] [8] [21] [22] [68] [75] [76] Is university education going down to 3 years? – Mugla Yenigün Newspaper

https://www.muglayenigun.com/universite-egitimi-3-yila-mi-iniyor/

[6] [13] [14] [16] [17] [18] University students can graduate in 3 years! YÖK President gave the date – Son Dakika

https://www.sondakika.com/haber/haber-yok-ten-3-yilda-universite-tamamlama-modeli-19262699/

[12] [15] [24] YÖK wants to reduce 4-year undergraduate education to 3 years

https://bianet.org/haber/yok-4-yillik-lisans-egitimini-3-yila-dusurmek-istiyor-314757

[26] [27] [47] [48] [50] [52] [53] [64] [79] [80] YÖK’s Project to Reduce University Undergraduate Education to Three Years – Yetkin Report

https://yetkinreport.com/2025/12/26/yokun-universite-lisans-egitimini-uc-yila-indirme-projesi/

[28] [31] [32] [33] [34] [39] [43] [73] [74] Reaction from the union to the 3-year university plan: The biggest blow to education! – Izmir News – Izmir Breaking News

https://www.egedesonsoz.com/sendikadan-3-yillik-universite-planina-tepki-egitime-yapilabilecek-en-buyuk-darbe

[29] [30] [35] [36] [37] [38] [41] [42] [46] [49] [51] [54] [55] [58] [62] [63] [65] [66] Academics spoke about “3 semesters” | GazeteBilim

https://gazetebilim.com.tr/akademisyenler-3-somestr-hakkinda-konustu/

[40] [44] [45] [45] [56] [81] Eğitim-Sen reacts to the reduction of undergraduate education to three years: Step back!

https://t24.com.tr/haber/egitim-sen-den-lisans-egitiminin-uc-yila-indirilmesi-calismalarina-tepki-geri-adim-atilmali,1266055

[67] [70] [71] [72] [77] How Successful is the Bologna Process? Beyond Higher Education Bureaucracy

https://www.setav.org/bologna-sureci-ne-derece-basarili-yok-otesi-burokrasi

[69] Most Suitable Countries for Turkish Students – EğitimAl

https://egitimal.com/turk-ogrencileri-icin-en-uygun-ulkeler/