I was reading a past post in which you said you could pass the CLEP general exams with no study and no prior knowledge of the material. I bought "Cracking the CLEP" and looked through the mock exams and didn't really know any of the material. How can I pass these without knowing the material? Please e-mail me to disscuss this matter. Chris Elliott [email protected]
I did it by honing my test-taking skills. Lawrie Miller and I discussed this at great length on a previous thread, and I refer you to it to get both our points of view (along with some fine contributions from other folks). While I certainly value his advice regarding test preparation, he does not share my much more cynical view that these tests are there to be beaten, and one can do so in large part with good skills. No guarantees, of course. The best chance is to have solid test-taking skills, a keen awareness of the ETS mentality and the environment it sets up, and a good command of the information to be tested. I just happened to have passed numerous ETS exams (CLEP, DANTES, and GRE) without the third. (At the time, I was 19 years old and my last complete year of formal education was the 8th grade.) Rich Douglas
I read that thread and that's where I saw your post so I understand both of your views. What are some tips you can give to pass without studying?
I think that this newsgroup is making me paranoid. Why do I smell another attempt to keep alive the flame battles of the last few days? What the hell... I think this needs to be said: Isn't part of getting an education... uh... getting an education? Learning the material really isn't optional, unless one wants to turn a degree into a joke. If it is really true that it is possible to accumulate large amounts of university credit simply by "beating tests", then doesn't this alleged fact pretty much discredit the entire idea of earning university credit by examination?
Welllll.... not really. I actually just had this discussion tonight with a group of people interested in DL. When one is taking CLEPs, or preparing portfolios, or whatever else associated with documentation of prior experience, then one is simply demonstrating one's knowledge. If, by whatever means, you manage to have gained knowledge on something that CLEP offers an exam in, and you can pass the exam, then CLEP says that you know enough about it to get credit. So who are we to argue? Also, remember that the CLEPs are really aimed at 18 year olds entering college, and are probably set, difficulty-wise, at the low-to-middle of the spectrum in academic rigor within the age cohort they're targeting. So it makes sense that someone older, with more life experiences or someone who has had more than a "low-average" high school education may be able to do much better on a test, even if the nominal subject of the test is not an area of particularl knowledge for the test taker. Philosophically, there are two approaches to getting a degree. One is to simply get a legitimate piece of paper that documents what one already knows. The other is to genuinely seek out new knowledge and understanding. CLEPs, portfolio preparations, GREs, and the like are all about documenting what you already know. But someone seeking new learning at the same time might CLEP/portfolio out of all the boring stuff and use remaining electives to take coursework that is interesting and exciting. And I really see no problem, ethical or moral, with that approach at all, as long as one is clear with oneself what the intention is.
I don't think anyone would dispute what you say as it relates to credit for what you know, but the issue was getting credit for what you don't know. Bill questioned beating the test - using test technique instead of knowledge to "earn" a degree. Rich Douglas, as you know, for you participated in the thread, had held that a full degree could be earned with no knowledge required of the subjects tested, but on exam technique alone. A reader, presumably liking this idea (who can blame him), bought the Princeton Review "Cracking the CLEP" and found he could not pass the tests contained therein. He had no knowledge, or insufficient knowledge of the subjects tested. The reader then asked Rich to detail the exam techniques that would allow him, a candidate tester with no knowledge of the subjects, to sit and pass these CLEP general exams, using exam technique alone. To date, Rich has provided no usable detail. In your comments you talk of new learning versus old learning. That is not an issue in this debate. The issue is : 1) Whether it is possible to have no knowledge of 120 semester hours of exam subjects tested, yet pass all those tests? 2) If it is possible, doesn't that discredit at least these exams and this testing methodology? Obviously it does. 3) If one gains a degree by this means - i.e. with no knowledge of the subjects comprising the degree but through exam technique alone, is it ethical? Isn't a degree a mark or measure of competence in some series of subjects and an indicator of learning? If gained in the way described, where test technique alone is responsible for success, and knowledge plays no part (which is what Rich holds is possible), isn't the degree holder perpetrating a fraud by offering such a degree in pursuit of some gain? Recap: The issue is not whether knowledge is new or old, or how it was gained, or where it was gained. If one believes that outcomes are the only arbiter of competence, then none of that matters. The issue is gaining a degree without any knowledge. By using some alleged exam technique that requires no subject knowledge, but rather relies on some recurring patterns or other cues . . . or, well, we really don't know, for Rich has never detailed the technique.
Respecting Chip's comments, I think there is one fatal flaw: these tests can be beaten using skills beyond a command of the subject matter. I feel that the ETS is so bad at developing and administering them that they amount to academic fraud. To me, the concept of measuring one's already-acculumlated knowledge and giving him/her college credit for it is fine. I, for one, am not fascinated with the magic of the classroom environment. (Teaching full time at a state university with more than 40,000 students does that to you.) But ETS examinations don't do that. They are fatally flawed. The vast majority of colleges and universities who accept these tests do so in limited numbers. That number is typically 30 s.h. applied towards a degree. Ever wonder why? Because they'll tolerate some, but not a lot, of credit earned in this manner. CLEP tests and the like are a form of scholarship, lowering your cost to earn a degree. They're a sales technique. But what makes the 30th credit good and the 31st bad? These schools aren't accepting these credits, they're tolerating them. Because these tests are not tied to a particular curriculum, they must be made vague enough to be accessible to all who have knowledge in the subject matter, rather than to those who read a certain set of textbooks. Also, because they are administered to tens of thousands of people (more, actually), they must be simple to grade. Thus, multiple choice, a highly coachable method. Finally, because developing real test questions using subject matter experts would make the tests extremely expensive (especially revising the test every year or so), they use people with no particular expertise. Lawyers do not write LSAT quesitions, physicians don't write for the MCAT, and biologists don't write for the CLEP. High school and community college students and teachers do. Is this really an effective basis for measuring college-level knowledge? Look, I speak from experience, as a customer, counselor and as an administrator. I don't have an axe to grind; I was very successful at these tests and gained a lot for them. Heck, they allowed me to graduate from college before I was 21 with a formal education that barely went beyond the 8th grade. I fast-forwarded right into grad school. But that doesn't mean it's right. Rich Douglas
I will not suppose to write a primer on how to beat CLEP tests without the benefit of knowlededge or preparation. But I did it over and over again. Because multiple choice tests must present the correct selection, I found it excessively easy to locate it. The test designer must fool the student, drawing him/her away from the correct (and logical) answer. This mild form of deception is painfully easy to see through. (In fact, the incorrect options are called "distractors" just for this purpose.) I feel it is academic dishonesty to conduct a test where the objective is not to determine what one knows, but to prevent one from demonstrating it. But that same little bit of chicanery also makes these tests beatable. I also found that information contained in one part of the test could be useful in determining the correct answers on other questions. I will repeat my admonishment of those who say "go with your first feeling; don't change answers." David Owen cites studies that have belied this; questions with erasures more frequently resulted in correct answers. Students often changed answers to correct ones after pondering the question further. Another technique is to always have an answer marked for each question. This is critical. The penalty for guessing is break-even for a random guess, but eliminating even one "distractor" moves the odds in your favor. But ETS's guidance tends to sway people away from guessing, which hurts their scores. But since the scores are normed, the person who guesses does better than those in the norming group who did not. Guessing is a winner. Getting used to the ETS mentality is another benefit. The dullards who write these things do so in a simplistic fashion. If the answer seems obvious, it probably is. Unless the question occurs later in the section, where the questions get harder. Then you have to be on the lookout for one of ETS's little traps, designed to pull in the below-average test-taker. It is with these hard questions that you must look past the obvious to the more complex. But generally speaking, ETS questions are straight-forward. They have to be when delivered in a multiple-choice format. Being prepared for the environment is also helpful. Having sufficient pencils, a calculator (if allowed), snacks, good sleep, and a knowledge of what you can and cannot do regarding the test all help. In the norming group, not every person will have done these things, putting you at a further advantage. Finally, let me emphasize, my comments in this area have been wildly exaggerated. I do not recommend unpreparedness in the subject matter over preparedness. Nor do I recommend substituting test-taking skills for subject matter knowledge. I'd prefer having both. But I'd rather have the test-taking skills going into most exams, especially the CLEP Generals. Lawrie has made his final comments (over and over again, it seems). I don't think there is anything else I can add to the matter, either. Rich Douglas
I thought that the original post might be a baiter, but I appreciate Rich's subsequent comments. I think Rich summarized (much more diplomatically) my displeasure on the "earn a BA by tests" model in an earlier thread. Standarized tests can be coached and beat, from the SAT to CLEP to the Multistate Bar Exam. Someone who passes as such is not only cheapening the system for those who passed "based on prior knowledge" but cheating themselves in the long-run of a real education. For example, a 4 week wonder BA in Psych goes for a job interview where the interviewer is trying to engage the interviewee... INTERVIEWER: I see you have a BA from Excelsior, in Psych. 4 WEEK WONDER: Ah, yes... INTERVIEWER: Psych was one of my favorite subjects... I was especially intrigued by Kohlberg's theory of moral development... what did you think of that? 4 WEEK WONDER: Ah... "A"? INTERVIEWER: I see our time is up...
Chip, you need to reread the first post in this thread. Let me reproduce it for you: I was reading a past post in which you said you could pass the CLEP general exams with no study and no prior knowledge of the material. I bought "Cracking the CLEP" and looked through the mock exams and didn't really know any of the material. How can I pass these without knowing the material? Please e-mail me to disscuss this matter. You were defending the concept of assessment of material that the student already knows. I think that we all accept that concept and it isn't the issue here. The problem arises if it is possible for students to receive credit for material that they don't know. That is explicitly what this thread is about. We can accept that and still question the third philosophical approach that consists of getting a "legitimate piece of paper" that falsely documents what one doesn't know. That's the philosophy of the degree mills. But this whole thread is about "beating" them without the annoying need to learn the material first. I don't really know if that is possible or not. Some here say that it is, but I see a pretty strong anti-ETS agenda in one case and remain skeptical. I don't know what the facts are here and I don't believe everything I read. Nevertheless, if it IS possible to accumulate great blocks of university credit in subjects in which one has little knowledge by "beating the tests", I think that pretty well discredits those forms of credit-by-examination where it occurs. That doesn't mean that I would reject the whole idea of credit by examination. But it does mean that I would be critical of it until credible examinations are constructed. I can see doing that using already existing technology. You could replace multiple choice questions (which turn guessing into an exercise in probability) with fill-in-the-blank or short essay questions. You could even put lab exams on the web, with identify-this type questions in courses like anatomy. But you would have to do it on a course by course basis, and it would drive up costs since you would need to hire graduate student graders or something.
I think Bill Dayson summarizes the issue well:"The problem arises if it is possible for students to receive credit for material that they don't know. That is explicitly what this thread is about." To this, I would add the distinction between short term, long term, and 'permanent' learning, or knowing. Classic example is the phone number you look up, dial, and immediately forget; the one you remember for a while until no longer needed; and the ones you will always know. (Home phone when I was eight: Schuyler 4-7958). A comment I've heard more than once (but have no personal experience with these companies) is that the Princeton Review teaches you how to pass exams, while the Kaplan Review teaches you the subject. At the time I did my Ph.D., Michigan State (along with most schools) required passing two foreign language exams, which consisted of translating a 1000-word passage into English, chosen by the examiner from a book that was announced 3 months in advance. I'd had 3 months of summer school German six years earlier. So I read the prescribed book (Remarque's "Drei Kameraden") several times, pony (English version) in hand, did half a dozen randomly-chosen 1000-word translations, then passed the exam. And the German probably drained away as quickly as the toll-free number from that last infomercial. Not proud of that. But it was realistic to satisfy a silly (my opinion) rule, since I had zero need for German in my graduate program. Do some/many/most doctoral programs still require two languages? I don't know. If I were in charge, I'd say, "Only if relevant. If three important books by Shlabotnik have never been translated from the Portuguese and your research is on Shlabotnik's theory of hip articulation as it applies to NFL field goal success, then you should be properly tested in Portuguese."
Thanks for all the input. Now, seeing as how I not the best test taker, it looks like I am going to have to do some studying to take these exams. So how can I study quickly to pass the CLEP General Exams? I would like to know the material but don't want to spend months studying it. I know the CLEP General Exams cover a wide range of subjects so how can I study to pass with a decent percentile without spending months studying? Chris Elliott
Read the article from the guide BA in 4 Weeks entitled "BA in 4 Weeks - FIRST YEAR". Also the article "BA in 4 Weeks - Exam Tips And Books", from the very same guide. If fact, come to think of it, the whole guide is concerned with answering the question you ask. Read it all. The latest version is available in AED, but when I post the long URL here, the whole thread goes CinemaScope. See AED current listings or do a search of Google Groups with the search phrase "Lawrie Miller's BA in 4 Weeks". Note that you might still have to spend months or even years studying, depending on your current knowledge base. These exams offer credit for what you know, not for what you don't know. If you are indeed building on a very shallow base of existing knowledge, it may be better for you to enter a more traditional series of courses. Not everyone is a suitable candidate for testing out. However, certainly do some study research as outlined in BA in 4 Weeks FIRST YEAR, and try the general mock exams again. Good luck.
Then you should have no problem delineating the technique, should you. Unless I knew the subject well, I can't say I have ever found it painfully easy to pick out the correct answer. You STILL do not detail how this can be accomplished. Evidence, Rich, evidence. You had previously claim studies supported your assertion that a 120 semester hour degree could be earned with no knowledge of the subject tested, but solely on the basis of exam technique alone. What studies show that, Rich? Where's the evidence that supports your claim, that degree can be earned by this means? And I have inadvertently mark the wrong bubble or question and end up with a series of misplaced answers that I later corrected. I have done that many times. Yet at no time did I change my intended answer, I simply corrected a series of mistakes in positioning. How exactly were the intentions of the student divined, Rich? From the information you have presented, this is a classic example of drawing unsuppotable conclusions from ambiguous data. A fundamental error. This information is available in most texts on the subject, including BA in 4 Weeks but it will only be of use on the margin. It will not significantly contribute to passing a degree if you have no knowledge of the subjects being examined. So, in summary, here are the details of Rich's "no knowledge required" exam passing strategy: ********** 1) See through the simple deception [Great, but how, Rich?] 2) Change your answer if you feel your first choice was wrong. 3) Guess if you do not know the correct answer 4) Get to know the ETS way of thinking ("way of thinking" never defined) 5) If it's a hard question, look beyond the obvious to the more complex. ********* This strategy will get you no where without knowledge of the subject being examined. It may be useful on the margin, but it does nothing to substantiate the claim that a single exam, let alone a degree, can be earned by exam technique alone. Yet in a prior thread on the subject Rich Douglas wrote: ...................................... "I would add that I took my exams at the ages of 19 and 20, over the course of about 21 months, with absolutely no study preparation at all! Personally, I think getting 39 s.h. (the amount awarded at the time) for a multiple-choice test in a subject I'd had no prior study in, experience in, courses in, or any other sort of preparation for, is silly. But I have the B.A. hanging on the wall to show for it. Go figure. So sure, take exams you have knowledge in. And you might not want to take exams in which you have no background. But you can. And you can pass. If given a choice between being skilled at beating ETS examinations or being well-grounded in the subject matter, I'd take the test-taking skills any day. And I did. Rich Douglas, Academic Thief" .................................
