Are the Big 3 substandard?

In yet another Kennedy Western thread, PLCScott wrote:

> Do I think KW is near the quality of an traditional RA degree?
> NO
>
> Do I think taking all clep, and dante test, and getting
> a degree without attending classes from one of the big three is
> of the quality of a traditional RA degree? NO Again!

I note the subtle change in wording from "near the quality" to "of the quality". I think Big 3 degrees are near the quality of brick-and-mortar RA degrees. And if, in some respects, it's too easy to earn a degree from the Big 3, I don't think that's an endemic problem, but specific loopholes that could be closed. And I think that in other respects, it's still too hard to earn a degree from the Big 3.

Anyone care to list some of the loopholes, or to disagree with me?

 

Mark:

I guess you can take it that I think the big 3 are substandard to a traditional B & M school. That was not my intent, but if someone can get a degree from one of them in 4 weeks by taking a test how can you argue with that? My associates degree required more work than the KW BS degree. However, I had to take 6 proctored exams, and complete a final project.

What is more important a BA liberal arts or general studies degree taken by clep and dante, and a portfolio, or a BSEE from a below par non accredited school. I am absolutly not taking up for KW. I have many problems with them, but I can't seem to understand why the cheerleaders on this forum of the big 3 think all the unaccredited schools are so bad, and the big 3 are so good. It seems that it is all about RA for some people.

I submit that many who have the liberal arts degree from the big 3 will beat me on Jeopardy, but in the real world I build, repair, and design things. I do not think I am any better, but I personally like Einstein better than Freud.

 

> if someone can get a degree from one of them in 4 weeks by
> taking a test

No one can. No one has. "BA in 4 Weeks" (yes, I'm familiar with Lawrie Miller's Website) is just a catchy phrase, not to be taken literally.

However, if someone already has knowledge equivalent to a degree, then the time it takes him to get that degree should merely be the time it takes to demonstrate the knowledge, which should be much shorter than the time it takes to acquire the knowledge. Do you disagree?

 

I agree 100%, so does that make the unaccredited schools that offer credit for knowledge, and experience worse than the big 3? Again, is it all about regional accredidation? Most here would say that DETC is substandard to RA. If the big 3 RA schools allow you to obtain a degree based solely on passing exams, and so does CCU or PWU then how can the big 3 be that much more superior? An exam is an exam.

 

But, despite what they say, 99%+ of unaccredited schools do NOT offer credit for knowledge and experience. They offer credit for money. They could not care less what kind of resume you submit to demonstrate your experience. Yes, if you have 20 years experience working in a nuclear power plant, they will grant you a Ph.D. in nuclear engineering. But they will also grant you the same degree if you have 2 months experience working the cash register at McDonald's. Don't believe me? Try it.

No, it's about verifiable standards. Even Kennedy-Western, which is touted by many here as one of the better unaccredited "schools", will not disclose the standards that it uses for evaluating experience for credit. And (surprise, surprise...) nearly everyone, regardless of their level of experience, ends up needing 5-6 classes to complete the degree.

You're kidding, right? If you were about to get on a plane, would you prefer one piloted by someone who had passed an exam designed by some degree mill "chancellor" who has never even seen a cockpit, or one with a pilot who had passed a standardized FAA exam? An exam is an exam, right?

 

I agree with you also Jeff.

I think it is sad that anyone who applies at KW takes anywhere from 5 to 7 courses.

An exam is not an exam, I agree.

I guess I was thinking of the exams I had to take. I did take some clep exams for my RA associates degree, and I can assure you that the KW exams were much harder. As noted before I am not a KW cheerleader, but I do not think a degree totally by examination is that much greater just because of RA.

Like I have stated before, I learned the negative attributes of KW long after I was in the program. Do a search under find a school here on this site. Tech and engineering, Bachelor degree, no res. You get none found. When I started looking KW is the only one I found, and since then I really have not found any other accredited programs that offer a BSEE.

I hope things change in the future. I have been in business for myself since 94. I have worked with guys that have degrees that can't read a meter, and I have worked with guys that have no formal education that are brilliant. I personally try to check out the ones I hire to see what they know, and can do rather than their education. I am in a different situation than a HR person in that, my employee's performance affects my wallet, so I tend to care less about credentials, and more about what a person can do.

 

You have to think about the basis for comparison before you slap the "substandard" label on the Big 3 schools.

In comparison to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc., then you could probably call TESC, COSC, and Regents "substandard" in comparison to the Ivy League schools. Having a Big 3 degree probably won't give you a leg-up on the competition to gain entrance to Harvard Medical or Yale Law, but neither will it automatically disqualify you, as a degree from an unaccredited school most likely would.

For all but the most exclusive purposes, a Big 3 degree is universally accepted, and not what I'd call substandard in any regard.


Bruce

 

Bruce wrote:

> You have to think about the basis for comparison before you
> slap the "substandard" label on the Big 3 schools.

Thank you, Bruce. I agree that we have to think.

Do you (for example) think it's good that Excelsior College will confer a Bachelor of Arts degree on a student who has never written an essay under proctored conditions? (Excelsior's "English requirement" can be fulfilled by just about any first-semester college composition course, including one with no exams.)

> For all but the most exclusive purposes, a Big 3 degree is
> universally accepted, and not what I'd call substandard in any
> regard.

Didn't we say something a moment ago about having to think? Doesn't "universal acceptance" reflect automatic acceptance of RA degrees, rather than thinking?

 

Excelsior is a lower end accredited school. It has several points that are not signs of excellence. There is no way it produces the same results in the job application process as does- U.CAL. Berkeley. What it will do, as an accredited school, is allow you a chance at some positions that require an accredited degree. As for getting credit for past work at a school-RA-DETC- APPROVED. I took accounting courses from the University of Tennessee over a third of a century ago. I couldn't do a balance sheet if I had to. I made good grades in both courses, but the knowledge is now gone. I no longer have it, and would have to relearn it. How can someone, at any school, accredited-approved, give me credit for this past knowledge, when I no longer have it. A degree should be based on what you know at the time the degree is being sought. Excelsior offers a fast, cheap, somewhat easier path to a degree. For these three reasons I believe it is a good method for getting in the college degree game, but it's not a source of excellence. In business a degree is only a part of the skills that must be shown to an employer. An applicant at a college or job should be measured as an individual, and in a manner that shows what he can now do, or what he now knows. I would see a diploma as saying that at this place and time this person has this quality, and quantity of knowledge. If it doesn't then it has little meaning.

 

kf5k wrote:

> Excelsior is a lower end accredited school. [...] There is no
> way it produces the same results in the job application process
> as does- U.CAL. Berkeley.

Excelsior College leaves a lot up to the student. You can transfer in credits from the worst RA school in the country, or you can transfer them in from UCal Berkeley (or Harvard).

I hope a student who did the latter would be smart enough to mention on her résumé where the credits are from, and I hope an employer (or whoever she's trying to impress) would be sensible enough to take that into consideration.

> I took accounting courses from the University of Tennessee
> over a third of a century ago. [...] I made good grades in
> both courses, but the knowledge is now gone. [...] I
> would see a diploma as saying that at this place and time this
> person has this quality, and quantity of knowledge. If it doesn't
> then it has little meaning.

I don't entirely agree. The knowledge required for a particular job may be so job-specific that the employer requires a degree only as proof of the applicant's ability (intelligence, resourcefulness, persistence, etc.) to master a subject. In that case, it doesn't matter if the knowledge is gone.

 

If Excelsior, TESC, and COSC are so substandard, then why have their graduates been admitted to the nation's most elite graduate schools?

Cy

 

The admission criteria of graduate schools are:

(1) Is the undergraduate school RA?
(2) the student's grades
(3) the student's GRE scores
(4) the student's letters of reference
(5) whether the student wants to do research of interest to a professor

Have you ever heard of an elite graduate school's not accepting any applicants with degrees from a particular RA undergrad school because the undergrad school is "bad"?

I submit that the admittances Cy refers to don't say anything about the Big 3 beyond the fact that they're RA and have a fair number of alumni.

 

My first impression of this thread was that it was a general attack against the "Big 3." However, after rereading it, I do tend to agree that there are some aspects of these schools that I don't fully go along with.

For example, I've never fully agreed with Excelsior's decision to grant credit for GRE exams. My Excelsior transcript does not include any GRE credits. As a matter of fact, aside from some community college credits that I transferred in, the remainder of the DL credits I used to graduate were from major state and private universities such as University of North Dakota, University of Wisconsin, Brigham Young University, etc. My graduating transcript doesn't even include any CLEP, DANTES, or ECE exams. In other words, I believe that I worked pretty darned hard to earn this degree. During a time in my life when geographic location and job constraints prohibited my earning a degree via traditional means, Excelsior allowed me the flexibility I needed to overcome this.

Mark, you stated in your original post that you believe there are some aspects of the "Big 3" that make it too hard to earn a degree. I'm interested in hearing an elaboration of your opinion on this.

Cy

 

Cyrus Vanover wrote:

> I've never fully agreed with Excelsior's decision to grant
> credit for GRE exams.

I think a good score in a GRE subject exam does indicate college-equivalent knowledge of the subject, and some credit should be awarded. Exactly how much credit, what specific courses are duplicated, and how to apply it toward a major or concentration, are difficult issues, and disagreement is to be expected.

> Mark, you stated in your original post that you believe there
> are some aspects of the "Big 3" that make it too hard to earn a
> degree. I'm interested in hearing an elaboration of your
> opinion on this.

I would like to see:

(1) more generous acceptance of foreign credits. I have already repeatedly told how my wife's COTE was awarded 11 credits by Western Illinois University, but no credit by Educational Credential Evaluators, Inc. Excelsior College does not allow appeal of ECE's evaluations, although Bears' Buide suggests that it does.

(2) more convenient testing. I really liked the setup at Cornell University, where before the first day of class, two days were set aside, where freshmen could walk from department to department, taking tests for which they would be awarded advcanced placement and credit. I would like to see the Big 3 make arrangements with the testing centers for "testing retreats" where no advance registration is required, and results of multiple-choice tests are available instantly.

Excelsior College used to advertise something called "Flexible Assessment", where if a standard test did not exist for something, they would work to construct a custom test. When we asked about this, they replied "this process is being revamped and not available to students", and removed it from their Website.

At the moment, if a standard test does not exist or has been discontinued, the only way to claim credit for the knowledge is by portfolio (even if it's a skill that lends itself much better to testing, e.g., my wife's ability to do simultaneous interpretation). The current regime encourages students to study subjects of no interest to them, just because a standard test happens to exist. This is not good for anyone.

 

I certainly agree with your basic point. But I think that you omitted an important and relevant criterion, Mark.

That's the question of an applicant's previous academic background. In many cases not only do graduate schools want an accredited bachelors degree, but they want a bachelors degree in a particular major, or in a closely cognate subject. They actually look at your transcripts to see what you have studied. If you lack the prerequisite background, some schools will reject you and others will admit you provisionally and make you take additional coursework.

So the precise details of what an undergraduate major requires and what a student actually took are important. There may or may not be issues when students present transcripts showing large blocks of credit earned non-traditionally.

I guess a lot depends on whether it's major credit or general ed, on how it's documented and on whether those making the judgements find it credible.

 

Bill is right.