One Week MA---Two Week Ph.D. ???

Much discussion has taken place regarding the possibility of earning a RA BA in as little as four weeks. The average BA requires 120-130 semester hours, divided by four weeks, would average approximately 32.5 semester hours per week---i.e., utilizing this method.

Many master's degree programs can be completed in 32-36 hours, which is the equivalent of about one week using the above method. Then, since the average Ph.D. requires some 65 hours, this would take about two weeks to complete.

Theoretically, then, one could graduate from high school on June 1, and by the last week of August be using the title "Dr."

The US educational system is great ain't it?

 

Why should a student waste so much time, Russell? There have to be faster ways to get an education than at your snail's pace.

Why bother to graduate from high school at all? Take the GED instead. How long does that take?

If you pass the GED, then elementary school becomes moot, right? So why not have your preschooler take the GED, then the 7-week Ph.D?

Your kid can be "Dr. Mikey" while all the neighbors' kids are still having naptime.

 

Russell - I haven't done the math but it seems then that the dissertation would only have to be about 100 words and the dissertation defense would only last 2-3 minutes. Another great selling point!
Jack

 

Re: Re: One Week MA---Two Week Ph.D. ???

LOL. But in actuality, why should a student waste even that much time? There have to be even faster ways to get a Ph.D.

Why wait for birth in order to start one's education? Start working on your GED once your brain cell are formed. Why twiddle your thumbs during 9 months of pre-natal?

Have your GED passing date coincide with you birth date? .... "while all the neighbors' kids are still having naptime."

http://www.winwenger.com/part45.htm

Now THAT's DL!!!

 

Methinks Russell has too much time on his hands!

 

And your point, Russell, as it relates you distance learning is what, exactly?

Do you mean to ridicule those choosing accelerated degrees, or are you just having a bit of harmless fun at the expense of others? Or . . . well, what exactly is it that you mean to say? You have made several one-liner demeaning references to accelerated degrees, and specifically to BA in 4 Weeks, which I author and by which many seem to benefit, yet you refuse to be open and engaged about your opinion.

So, instead of throwing stones from the sidelines and offering sneering quips, why don't you have the courage of your convictions and debate the issue openly in your own name?

No? I thought not.

 

It seems that under all this rather funny stuff lurks a very real , and very dark, question. If you--anyone--can get an RA degree, of any kind, I am assuming here without transfer credits, but "from scratch," based entirely on exams and assessment, in anything like four months, much less four weeks, then regional accreditation is meaningless. A four year degree might authentically be "accelerated" to three, possibly even two years, perhaps in some extraordinary case, one year. But for any institution to award a degree without at least thirty units of coherent coursework (rather DL or residential) conducted at that intitution, is to my way of thinking, reprehensible. I don't care if the candidate has a doctorate in another field; an academic degree, unless there is no honesty at all behind it, explicitly represents the idea that the student has conducted coursework under the authority of the granting institution. Period. If an RA school, and I see that there are some, grants a degree, other than an honorary one, without a period of matriculation and study, including tests and papers, then the school is a diploma mill. I don't care who accredits them. If this is going on, and apparently it is, to call a non RA school that does require some reasonable degree of new work, and some demonstration of academic effort, as part of a coherent program of study, even where that work may be "substandard," is absolutely hypocritical. Having taught in three four year RA schools and having seen some of the graduates, I have wondered if one could not charge that half the universities in America are not in fact "mills." But regardless, a college degree should not be awarded on the basis, entirely, of experience, and intelligence. To work with a student who has a mixed bag of courses and educational experience, to consolidate credits, and graduate very expeditiously, is one thing, to through a few standardized tests his way , along with a diploma, is another. I am a fan of DL and non-traditional education, but I cannot see a degree that is not based on a coherent major, with coursework and research. I think it is great to accelerate a degree, but not to give it away--I mean sell it. A good preacher won't marry a couple the day he meets them, just because they are in love. Even Lasalle required a "year" of "coursework."

As always this is just my opinion

Late,

Craig

 

4 week ba

Hello, The forum has taken some strange twists today. I look forward to Lawries' new masters information. When I got my degree from TESC in 1985 people were quite snide about it. Now its a known respected college. I believe whatever masters situation she is presenting will be great. I hope I can pass the tests. I imagine she is currently trying these academic situations out herself so first hand knowledge can be included in the web site. Great work Lawrie.**A peaceful Monday to all. - Life can be simple. Hille

 

No, no, not you. My comments were to the other Russell, Russell.

 

Hi Craig

This is a discussion that has been going on for at least a year and more likely 3-4 years. We are talking about Charter Oak State College, Thomas Edison State College, Excelsior College and Heriot Watt University. Two are State Colleges. One is private but formerly a State College. The last is a well known public university in Scotland. None are anything close to a fraud or a mill. All have specific degree and general education requirements. The first three accept RA transfer credit, Clep/Dantes credits and dl courses. The last one supplies study material and then gives the exact same tests to dl students as to brick and mortar students. If a person has learned the same things an enrolled student has they deserve and should receive credit for it. If a person can demonstrate that within 4 weeks then they deserve the credit and the degree. While I think most intelligent working adults can gain a 4 year degree within a year from COSC, TESC and EC, I think it is the exception that can do it in 4 weeks. Heriot Watt's MBA is challenging and I doubt anyone could do it on a very accellerated schedule even with extensive experience and knowledge. You may want to read some of the past threads to better understand the process.

 

Re: 4 week ba

I believe that Lawrie is a man and you were using "she" and "her" to refer to him. His name is probably Lawrence or just Lawrie.

 

One man's educational innovation is another man's degree mill... now that I think about it, wasn't Enron voted the most innovative company in America... maybe the 4 week BA should be voted the most "innovative" degree in America.

 

Lawrie - I read the post with some amusement. There is a point to be made. One of the major thrusts of this forum seems to be - "How can I get some additional letters after my name with the least amount of hassle?" At times it gets pretty ridiculous. People are acquiring letters - but what do they mean?

I'm reminded of one of my favorite characters from Hogan's Heroes. He was a British Commando, or so he said. When Hogan asked him about his training he said "It was the roughest weekend in my life!". I wonder if we're begining to get to this point in DL - titles with no substance.

Acceleration in degree programs seems to run in exact opposition to the fact that there is so much more knowledge and skills to be learned today. While I grudingly accept the notion of competency based education at the undergraduate level, at the graduate level I think there is no place for it. Graduate degrees should represent new learning.

Some of the online graduate programs really push creditability. High quality full-time resident MBA programs typically take two full academic years. Look how many part-time MBA programs try to produce grads in 13-15 months? At the doctoral level the average duration of traditional doctorates are increasing. In many fields people spend 6-10 years earning a doctorate. When I see new 3 year (or less) doctorate programs, especially from for-profit schools, I have to wonder. This is not to say that a 2-3 year DL PhD isn't creditabile or that the student did no work to earn it. But how can a part-time student in 2-3 years match the learning of a traditional full-time student working 6-10 years?

Frankly, I don't believe they can. As a result many DL programs are looked down on as inferior by traditional academics. They may just have a point. The label may be the same, but the substance is different.

One answer that is starting to appear is that of a non-PhD doctoral program. Case Western has a traditional PhD in business that takes resident students many years to complete. They have a 3 year non-traditional Doctor of Management for mid career professionals. The focus of their DM program is the educating of "practitioner scholars". I see this as a healthy approach that eliminates the confusion about degree titles and established a step above the MA or MBA and below the PhD. Even University of Phoenix - my least favorite RA school - choose to offer a DM rather try to battle North Central for a PhD.


Regards - Andy

 

Just a bit of harmless fun, Lawrie, at no one's expense. But since the issue has surfaced, I do have several observations:

1. I am most definitely an advocate of distance learning. Although I have taken a few DL courses in each of my degree programs (all RA), they are not DL degrees. I have absolutely no problem with master's and doctoral level degrees earned via DL, with no residency, as long as there is a substantive component which takes the place of the residency. Some disciplines, of course, would indeed require a residency, e.g., medicine, health professions, etc.

2. If the degree is RA, I have no problem with the methodology by which it was earned. It one has the intelligence to pass the exams, complete all requirements--then great. I doubt if over .01% of the people one meets in life will ever ask the question how long did it take you to earn your BA? So if one can obtain the BA in 4 weeks, by all means do so--no complaints here. For the vast majority of the populace, at least IMHO, a 4-week BA is not realistic or attainable.

3. I do, however, wish someone would develop a substantive program for a 2 Week Ph.D.

And BTW, my name is Russell.

 

Somewhat off topic, but...Hogan's Heroes still cracks me up after all these years. SGT. Schultz is my favorite character.

Apparently Werner K. who played Klink agreed to play the character only if he was portrayed in a baffoonish manner. Werner K. being Jewish.

Actually, this does have a DL component. SGT. Schultz' philosophical outlook reminds me of that espoused by those who obtain degree mill credentials and then act as if taken completely by surprise that they were phony (I know nothing.....I see nothing....I hear NUUUTHING!).

North

 

Do you think I might be able to get a Chancellorate Degree
in three weeks?

 

Incidentally, it is also up to the student to demonstrate how his or her credits fit into a comprehensive degree program. So it is not a matter of gaining credit willy-nilly and calling it a degree.

Tracy<><
B.S. Individualized Studies, Charter Oak State College, Nov 2001

 

I can't speak for everyone, but to me my Charter Oak B.S. means that I have earned a bachelor's degree from a regionally accredited program. I found that there was a suffient amount of "hassle," not that that should be the deciding assessment factor. Your take on this issue seems a bit too cynical from the get go.


Acceleration in degree programs seems to run in exact opposition to the fact that there is so much more knowledge and skills to be learned today. While I grudingly accept the notion of competency based education at the undergraduate level, at the graduate level I think there is no place for it. Graduate degrees should represent new learning.

Some of the online graduate programs really push creditability. High quality full-time resident MBA programs typically take two full academic years. Look how many part-time MBA programs try to produce grads in 13-15 months? At the doctoral level the average duration of traditional doctorates are increasing. In many fields people spend 6-10 years earning a doctorate. When I see new 3 year (or less) doctorate programs, especially from for-profit schools, I have to wonder. This is not to say that a 2-3 year DL PhD isn't creditabile or that the student did no work to earn it. But how can a part-time student in 2-3 years match the learning of a traditional full-time student working 6-10 years?

Frankly, I don't believe they can. As a result many DL programs are looked down on as inferior by traditional academics. They may just have a point. The label may be the same, but the substance is different.[/QUOTE]

This is the "train to time and not to standard" argument that really has little merit. If the new learning can take place in a shorter time than that's a good thing.



One answer that is starting to appear is that of a non-PhD doctoral program. Case Western has a traditional PhD in business that takes resident students many years to complete. They have a 3 year non-traditional Doctor of Management for mid career professionals. The focus of their DM program is the educating of "practitioner scholars". I see this as a healthy approach that eliminates the confusion about degree titles and established a step above the MA or MBA and below the PhD. Even University of Phoenix - my least favorite RA school - choose to offer a DM rather try to battle North Central for a PhD.


Regards - Andy

[/QUOTE]


There are different programs to meet different needs, and it is healthy in my opinion, as well.

Tracy<><

 

Hello All: Actually the "train to time" argument does have some merit. I teach at the college level, and I can say with certainty that a five week summer program, for example, though having the same number of classroom hours as the 16 week semester, never really covers the same amount of material, and only rarely demands the same quantity of work as does a "regular" class. If administrators where honest, and they almost never are, about this they would admit that it is impossible to do 16 weeks of college level work in five weeks. There is a certain time frame in which learning takes place. Let's say a class requires 70 hrs of classroom activity; Well, seventy hours could be executed in six days, meeting 12hrs/day, or in three days meeting 24 hrs/day. But what's the point really? I could eat a fine meal in maybe three minuets, but I would not enjoy it. I would rather take 45 minuets. Now, in some sense here the material is the same, the meal itself, but the experience, the actual eating, is entirely different. I really do not mean to deny the validity of "established competency", of credit consolidation, and credit by examination, or even life experience credit. It is just my opinion that ANY degree should require some element of new coursework. At the very least, there should be a major "capstone" project under direction of at least two faculty members of the degree granting institution. I know that the accrediting agencies allow the kind of program you guys describe. I know they are real, accredited and widely accepted Fine. If they allow it and one can get an RA degree in four weeks, then fine; let them get it. But that does not make it right. My point is that the student is cheated of something essential to that process called learning, something that since the founding of the academy has been explicit in the very concept of "education," that is the experience, over some reasonable span of time, of study under a competent, recognized mentor. Otherwise the degree is, at some level, disingenuous. The accrediting agency that authorizes such a degree has, again at some level, undermined the very concept of accreditation. A degree is not a measure of intelligence, or even a measure of competence, nor still yet a measure of learning outcomes. It is a statement in which a university affirms that a student has completed a formal course of study, that the institution has verified the academic integrity of the student, and that some reasonable amount of work has been completed under the aegis of the university granting the degree. Perhaps this could be as few as 21 units and some kind of capstone paper or project. In my mind, there simply has to be new work for a degree of any kind to be granted. Otherwise, I don't see a a really qualitative difference between these programs here under discussion, and a non-RA "assesment" university of the kind that are so frequently disparaged in this forum. These are just my opinions, and I have established over the years an impressive track-record of being wrong; but they are opinions based on nearly twenty years of college teaching.

Craig