UPCEA Updates

By Amy Claire Heitzman, Ph.D.,
Deputy CEO and Chief Learning Officer, UPCEA

As questions about the value, cost, and structure of a traditional bachelor’s degree continue to intensify, higher education leaders are confronting a reality that has remained largely unchanged for decades: the 120-credit-hour degree is more a historical artifact than a learner-centered design choice. During a recent conversation with UPCEA Institutional Representatives, panelists and participants explored what it might mean to thoughtfully reimagine undergraduate degrees below 120 credits—without eroding quality, mission, or trust.

The discussion made clear that reduced-credit degrees are not about subtraction for its own sake. Rather, they represent an opportunity to re-center degrees around purpose: clearer outcomes, stronger alignment with employer expectations, and faster, more affordable pathways to economic mobility. Panelists pointed to international models, such as three-year degrees common across Europe, and to post-pandemic learner realities, where time-to-completion and debt burden increasingly shape enrollment decisions.

At the same time, participants raised critical cautions. Innovation must be driven by the right reasons, not simply revenue pressures or superficial course cutting. Institutions must ask hard questions about what is gained and what may be lost: How do we preserve broad learning outcomes? How do faculty define “wins” in new degree models? How do accreditation, financial aid, and enrollment management structures need to evolve in tandem?

Audience questions underscored the operational and ethical complexity of this work. Leaders grappled with state and accreditor approval processes, the role of prior learning assessment, impacts on financial aid eligibility, and the risk of designing degrees for markets that may not require them. Yet there was also a shared recognition that standing still carries its own risk. As skepticism about higher education grows, institutions that fail to adapt may unintentionally exclude learners who need more flexible, focused pathways.

What emerged was not a single model to replicate, but a call for disciplined experimentation: pilots grounded in data, labor market insight, and institutional mission. Reduced-credit degrees, panelists emphasized, should be additive, not replacements; tools for expanding who higher education serves and how responsibly it does so.

Key Considerations for Institutions Exploring Reduced-Credit Degrees

Drawing on panel insights and audience dialogue, the following considerations may help guide institutional decision-making:

Who
How will we validate learner demand and define the target audience for this degree? What personas are we designing for (recent high school graduates, adults with some college and no credential, career switchers, veterans, or working professionals) and how do modality, maturity, and prior experience shape program design?

Why
What learner and societal outcomes does this degree enable? How will we measure success in terms of employment outcomes, persistence, time-to-completion, and economic mobility, and for whom?

What
What competencies distinguish this reduced-credit degree from existing credentials? How might AI-assisted curriculum mapping help clarify expectations, integrate core learning outcomes, and communicate value to learners, faculty, and employers?

How
What role will credit for prior learning, veterans’ pathways, experiential learning, or long-running internships play in ensuring rigor while reducing time and cost? How do these pathways uphold institutional responsibility to learners’ trust and investment?

Cost
What enrollment thresholds are required for sustainability, and how do they align with documented labor market demand? How will financial, enrollment management, and faculty incentive structures support (not undermine) this model?

Reduced-credit degrees are not a shortcut; they are a design challenge. For institutions willing to engage that challenge thoughtfully, they may also be a powerful expression of stewardship of learners’ time, money, and aspirations at a moment when higher education’s relevance is under intense scrutiny.

Amy Heitzman is Chief Learning Officer and Deputy CEO of UPCEA, leading work at the intersection of research, policy, and innovation in professional, continuing, and online education.

Content for this resource was refined with the assistance of ChatGPT, an AI language model. All text has been thoroughly reviewed, edited, and approved by UPCEA staff with subject matter expertise. References and links have been verified for accuracy and reliability.