Experinced based learning degrees

Hey morleyl,

You state that "St. Regis is good..."

On what do you base this statement?

 

I did not mean your supervisor would verify the degree or subject. What I mean is thats part of the process to ensure the person actually performed the duties claimed on their portfolio etc. This probably will be from multiple source.

I a not saying that exams should not be used but that experience can play a major role in the process. the other option is doing research papers on certain subjects.

Its very interesting what I get from this forum. It seem people are so much against the concept that they cannot propose any solution or approach to this subject.

 

I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone here. There are currently two acceptable ways to demostrate prior learning: exams and portfolios.

I have said, and I'm sure that most here would agree, that if you can propose another assesment that would be equitable, comprehensive, and independently verifiable, I would be all for it.

It's not that we are not open to other legitimate solutions or approaches, it's just that you have not proposed any.

I think this may be related to my other question, which you failed to answer: Why do you think St. Regis is good?

 

You have a very calm approach to this discussion which is very admirable. So, what I do not want, is for this to come across as an attack or something personal but:

You ask to discuss an idea. You don't find anyone who thinks your idea will work in practice...

Here's a thought, that does not seemed to have occured to you. You admit that you are the only one advocating this form of degree in a forum where people are, for the most part, very open to discussion on non-traditional methods of education. Everyone else seem to be convinced that what you propose is not such a great idea. Is it possible that you might have a bad idea?

I am not opposed to your idea, but it's logical conclusions pose too many problems to make it a viable option.

 

I, for one, don't necessarily think that what has been proposed is a bad idea. I'm just not sure how it would work, and, more importantly, how it would differ from the models currently in place.

But I suspect that this is going to culminate in some shil... uh... advocacy of St. Regis.

 

I'm reading into his statements that what is already in place is not enough. We say "what else is there?" He offers nothing except that what is offered is too much. He offers nothing except that portfolios and exams are too much. We keep going around in these circles until I read into what he wants is a degree with all its utility but none of it requirements. Enter my assumption of degree mill advocate.

I said that I don't think he has a bad idea, but that it won't work.

If I started a thread on "Why do we need to use a rockets to get to the moon?" Then said that I don't like any of the reasons given for using rockets, but offered none myself. How long would the thread last?

 

Oh, don't get me started there. Tethers, rail guns....

 

I think Morleyl is confusing higher education with job training centers.

So everyone who has worked for more than 12yrs should be given a degree according to him.
Thus, we really don't need universities if we can get all the enlightment from work alone now do we?

I'm just going to go spend the next 12 years working at Home Depot and hopefully I will be awarded a degree without ever putting a foot in college!

 

well, here we go again. I have made some points which does not mean its the rule of getting a degree. All I am trying to say is that if someone learns something that fits the equivalent level of school they could get college credit. This would be verified by a third party. Somehow you people seem to go to extremes in your thinking. what does 12 years have to do with a degree? nothing. All I have said is that there can be some guidelines that allow these people to be considered qualified at the degree level.

Other developed countries have this scheme so I am not just dreaming up something here.

A lot of persons get degree in one area and then become a total expert in an area thats unrelated. Should they not get recognition for this achievement?

The process I am talking about does not make universities useless, in fact it makes them more useful because someone could go a school at 50 and work with a mentor to get a degree. It does not mean they have to sit in class to start all over.

It seems there is a lot of ignorance on learning here. Its limited to a class room in a specific place. What I was asking for is solutions not treat the subject as if its impossible to achieve anything this way.

 

Just to put the cat among the pigeons I'll throw in my 10 pence worth (yes I'm from the UK).

I have a professional qualification equivalent to a good honours degree in chemistry. I studied at a university that awards degrees but I do not have a degree. The only difference as far as my education goes is the title of the course I was on. Thats all.

Based on qualifications and experience I am a Member of the Royal Society of Chemistry. This status cannot be earned just from a degree you need the assessed experience. My education and experience place me above bachelors degree level as a professional chemist in the UK. However, the general consensus seems to say that in the US there is no way of being awarded a degree based on this experience that is not from a degree mill. Note that the academic requirement for my job in the UK is a "degree or equivalent" plus experience. In the states it is a PhD plus experience. I would reckon that 75% minimum of our degree is in the core subject or closely related areas (at leat for the chemistry syllabus that I am familiar with) which probably explains the difference. There appears to be a fundamental difference in view of what constitutes a degree in various countries and also what it is for. Note also that my background qualifies me for the US jobs which would be amusing as my colleagues would all have doctorates but I wouldnt even have a degree as recognised in the US.

Surely from my details above there is a valid case for the type of qualification discussed in this thread to be available. Maybe not in that exact form, but it is possible for experience to be amassed to equal the education level of a degree. (although in my case with specific knowledge rather than broad education perhaps an award at Masters would be more suitable? )

 

MorleyL wrote:

> I agree with those two methods, but how much can
> someone get from portfolio assessment only. Can they
> get a degree totally from this method?

Yes!

Out of the 120 credits required for a Bachelor's degree, Steve Levicoff got 98 by portfolio. I'm sure he could have got all 120 by portfolio if he'd really wanted to. This was at Thomas Edison State College.

Read all about it: the Levicoff portfolio

> We need to look away from course contents to overall
> competence in a profession.

You can challenge any Regionally Accredited course by portfolio, including internship-type courses, which may correspond somewhat to "overall competence". Also, the credit awarded awarded for GRE subject exams (up to 36 credits at Empire State College, which is equivalent to 12 courses), and foreign language proficiency exams, do seem to be in the direction of "overall competence".

 

My main concern is objectivity in the process. Obviously everyone with experience cannot just be granted a degree without meeting certain criterias. I honestly do not see how taking some exams would make someone more qualified than having experience and training.

If you tell me that a degree should bring behavioural changes then maybe we would get somewhere but if its just experience versus exam then as far as I am concern they both have the end result a piece of paper. Anyone can cram and pass a bunch of exams in six months. The issue is to make an objective analysis base on a body of knowledge for the specific area.

I think a well developed project could be used to validate someone with good experience for a terminal degree. The progress of developing the thesis/project will be monitored to ensure original work and effort.

My idea is that 25% could be for exams to cover the basic maths, composition, history etc., 60-70% based on experience with an efficient evaluation process and the other 5-10% based on project or piece developed.

Again this is not for everyone as a lot of online schools project, its for someone who is doing well in their profession and needs validation and recognition.

 

Portfolio assessment seem to be part of the solution in respect to converting experience to credit. Just to capture the right areas, I have a few points.

1. There are foundation areas that need to be aquired and verified, this maybe the area mostly lacking for people with experience. I do believe exams can be used to assess such areas. Companies such as brainbench are also entering this area to increase the options available. but there is GRE, CLEP etc.

2. Portfolio assessment can be used to verify the majority of the other credit requirements. based on what I have seen online this process can be very difficult and maybe easier to take classes. My view is that research papers/assignments can be used to assess the person. If needed an oral interview could be used to verify that the person did have good understanding of the subject.

3. Why does it seem that people are against certifying occupational knowledge with a degree? Since this paper is how a person is seen to be successful then award the person if they prove qualified. Most jobs I see, seem to focus on the person having experience in a specific area. The degree is just there to say they are intelligent.

4. To make it clear, I do not support any school including St. Regis, I think they (St. Regis) have a lot to be desired and does not represent what I consider a reputable degree. I believe in qualifying someone on the basis of verifiable knowledge of a subject or body of knowledge. If someone can perform a specific task then obviously they had to learn how to do it. So thats the position I am coming from.

5. Mostly schools seem to accept the use of experience for some credit but set limits on the amount that can be used towards the total credit requirements. This could be seen as a revenue issue. If the person can prove there abilities then allow them to do this.

In summary I would say that verification of knowledge can be challenging but we should be able to award a person a credential based on their overall achievement and demonstrated competence.

To answer the question about purposed solution, I would say use the concept of research degree. Student submit papers to fulfil requirements for a subject or body of knowledge.

 

People miss the point!

People miss the point when they are looking to get a degree based solely on professional experience. Of course, during the process of doing a day-to-day job people (hopefully) learn things which, when documented can (and should where appropriate) count towards the credits needed to earn a degree. Likewise, some in-house and other training programmes are often of degree level standard but few, if any, focus on those activities that are special to academia. Even in the business management field just because someone has been a very successful business person does not make them an academic nor does their success say anything about their ability to critically assess, analyse and evaluate data from an ACADEMIC point of view. Most business people, however good, are usually bad at, for example, writing in an 'academic' way. Work is often presented in bullet points and as executive summaries. There is a method of writing that is arcane to the academic world and, if a person has not experienced such activities, then they fall short of o learning and experiencing that which is 'special' to academic life, even if they are doing a 'professional' degree. It is still a degree and this requires the individual to demonstrate that she/he has learned skills relevant to academic work. There's no way round this and neither should there be!

AJJ

 

Hi:

Maybe we missed the point by trying to compare academic with vocational etc. What I am getting at is to certify someone for their knowledge in such a way that is recognized to a certain level.

The reference was made to writing but a lot of degree holders will write like that too. There is a difference with whats done in school and whats done in real life. The exam based option does not make you a better writter either.

I definitely believe in the research paper approach which would address the writing and also quantitative issues.

The professional bodies in the UK does use both the submission of a paper and a formal interview to certify that the person is qualified for the credential. They mostly call it 'Graduate Diploma' and is considered equivalent to a degree there.

 

Morleyl,

You might want to check out Skidmore College. They have an Independant study method for learning (I really don't know the details but I would imagine you base the work on what you know and do for work/career what every).

That and, as Mark said, TESC DOES allow portfolio assessment for 100% of the degree. So, in theory if you already KNOW something, just goto to their database and look up a course that matches it (I think underwater basket weaving in there even.. JK).

Hope this helps,
Bill

 

Hi:

Thats a good suggestion. Its not for me really, I am doing my Masters with a UK university using independent study and it has been really good. I got the name from John Bears book so they are royal charter too.

I guess I was coming from the point of total approach instead of the credit by credit approach. In other words you look at the field and decide what the person needs to know and assess them in those areas. You would then have the lower level or foundation areas that can be filled with exams or local courses. But what I am getting at is that if someone already is competent allow them to show the competence and get a degree.

If someone can perform a task then it validates learning for that task. So I am, looking at outcome based assessment type of stuff.

Okay

 

Morleyl,

That would be a neat idea. Assess your whole life's knowledge and apply it towards a degree.

A Bachelor of Life Studies (or maybe occupational studies) in (whatever occupation you are in).

It would be just about all occupational credits with little or no general ed (like an applied science except even less general education). How would you assess whatever occupational knowledge you already knew though? Interview? One big test?

How about one big test (sort of like a GRE but specialized in a professional/technical/vocational/whatever subject). Once you passed this, you would take some state/regional/whatever mandated general ed classes (eng101, lit101, art/hum101, history/socialscience 101, etc.)

Hmm sounds like Excelsior College's BSLS program (w/ different majors) except the major are more industry orientated.

I still think some type of independant study or learning contract with the school and your place of work is what you may be interested in, Morleyl.

What industry do you work in?

Best Regards,
Bill

 

Here you go, Morleyl.



http://forums.degreeinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10573

Sounds like what you are talking about..

 

Hi Bill:

As I say, its not for me personally. I am in the computer industry and when I did masters, we came up with a learning contract at the outset. So it proved fairly useful and productive because it looks at how to achieve a fairly balance academic outcome.

The programs you present seem fine for RA accredited schools, I guess my goal was fine a scheme that helps experience people without been tedious and dragged out. I think the learning contract is really useful and good for experience people.

Western Governors seem to have some courses like that too and they are fully accredited.

The issue I have with the diploma mills so-called is that they do not perform enough work to verify and validate a persons experience and learning. They just hand out a degree like that.

Okay