We have put forward a great opportunity with providing a path forward for 90+ hour baccalaureate degrees. This innovation offers a more focused pathway for students, allowing for faster entry into the workforce. I am very excited about the future of this policy, but we already have lore rearing its head.

“If it’s the same degree name and less than a 50 percent change, it’s not really a new program, so no Substantive Change approval is needed.”

I wouldn’t say it’s a common refrain as institutions explore reduced-credit-hour bachelor’s degrees. However, it is worth nipping this one in the bud.

Where This Lore Comes From

Institutions are working to address workforce needs, shorten time-to-degree, and rethink program structures. Some believe that a new degree within the same discipline and with less than 50 percent content change does not require Substantive Change Approval.

But credit hour reductions fundamentally alter program structure and increasingly must align with workforce expectations. As a practical matter, we do have Standard 9.2, which states that undergraduate degrees must be at least 120 credits.

What the Law Actually Says

SACSCOC policy, guidelines, and FAQs make clear that a Reduced Credit Hour Bachelor’s Degree is considered a new program even when it shares a name with an existing degree.

These degrees should not be seen as a diminished requirement. For this to meet expectations, institutions must demonstrate that the degrees are rigorous, intentionally redesigned, and workforce aligned.

Law vs. Lore

❌ Lore: Same name means same program.
✅ Law: It is a new program.

❌ Lore: Less than 50% new content means no approval.
✅ Law: The nature of the change determines approval.

Why This Matters

These programs can accelerate time to degree, reduce costs, and strengthen workforce alignment, but only if they are intentionally designed and reviewed. However, this is not about time; it’s about what is in the degree.

What’s In a Name?

As of the March Executive Council Meeting, two names were approved by the Council. So far, we are finding the naming of these degrees to be the most contentious part of the discussion. So, let me be clear about how we got to where we are and where we will go from here.

A committee, representative of our membership, across all levels and types, has met for more than two years. It began as guidance but has obviously evolved into a policy. As this is a New Program SubChange Approval by the President, the Council and I felt strongly we needed guardrails around the early days of this new initiative. The name(s) of a reduced credit hour degree was literally hours of those meetings. We brought several names to the Council, and yet another long discussion ensued. At the end of that conversation, two names were selected: Abridged Bachelor and Reduced Credit Hour. The overall thinking was to avoid names that dealt with “time variables” and to focus on the “quantity variables” related to the number of hours.

The biggest issue with this is not SACSCOC being difficult. The committee and the Council strongly feel that a modifier should be added to the overall name to make it clear this is a new effort. As we know, current and historical practice in higher education has been clear that 120 hours are needed for a baccalaureate. As this is new, and as a matter of consumer protection, the committee and Council felt it was important to be up front with students, institutions, and industry. As this grows in implementation and acceptance, we may see a change in this concept, but for now, it is part of the policy.

While I am excited about this and believe it’s a needed innovation, we do not yet know whether graduate schools or employers will accept a transcript with fewer hours. Frankly, I also worry that students will be accepted into master’s degree programs but then be forced to “make up” those 30 hours. This would be a shock to students if they thought they had the same credit hours as everyone else. So, at the end of the day, it’s important to have a modifier to make clear this is a different, but rigorous, degree.

Finally, the Council identified names to give guardrails to the staff and me on our approvals, rather than everyone debating their own names and making it feel more subjective.

The Council and Board of Trustees are not limited to these two names forever. In fact, the policy was intentionally written to allow new names in the future.

Going forward, if an institution has a name they want to consider, they should submit their SubChange in their prospectus and notify me so we can begin the policy discussion. I would avoid terms that are currently in common use in higher education.

The Pruitt Perspective

We support innovation. But innovation without rigor is not worth it for our students or our workforce. It is incumbent on all of us to ensure these degrees prepare students for their future careers and the changing world we live in. Reduced-credit-hour degrees must preserve rigor while strengthening workforce relevance. At the end of the day, this is about students and their futures.

We have an opportunity here to change how society even sees the approach of higher education. It shows a commitment to completion, to lower student debt, and to meeting workforce needs. However, there is a risk as well. It cannot be simply reducing hours.

The degrees should reflect what we know to be excellent in higher education, including critical thinking across multiple disciplines and deep expertise in the major. We will encounter some growing pains, but I ask for your patience and your dedication to maintaining rigor.

It is an exciting time to be in higher education.