UCLA says "NO" to prior learning

From the UCLA graduate admissions page:

"Degrees which are not considered comparable include those granted on the basis of work completed at institutions which are not fully accredited and those granted on the basis of nonacademic prior learning, test scores, or other than organized supervised coursework in academic subjects."

Seems rather arrogant to me. I guess reputation may have a lot to do with that.

 

By "test scores," does that mean CLEP, DANTES, GRE, ECE, etc.?

 

By the way, here's the link for the aforementioned paragraph: http://www.gdnet.ucla.edu/gasaa/admissions/CRITERIA.HTM

And, DesElms we can rule out the GRE. Apparently, those test scores still matter.

http://www.gdnet.ucla.edu/gasaa/admissions/MTERIALS.HTM

 

UCLA allows its own students, both undergraduate and graduate, to challenge classes and to receive credit by examination (scroll down to the bottom):

http://www.registrar.ucla.edu/catalog/catalog05-07acadpol-1.htm

"Students with high scholastic standing may earn credit for regular UCLA courses by taking examinations rather than enrolling in the courses. This is accomplished by establishing, with a UCLA faculty member, an individual plan of study that may include oral and written work in addition to other requirements."

Apparently UCLA isn't using CLEP exams and the like, but rather written or oral exams devised by UCLA professors, along with papers perhaps. They also only allow superior students to attempt it.

I'm just guessing, but maybe UCLA doesn't think that all the exams in use out there are credible, and they may be concerned that the process is being abused by students who don't know their subjects.

I would be interested to know if this restrictive admissions policy applies to applicants with any amount of exam credit (even one class), or whether it's aimed at people who test out of all or most of their degree programs.

 

This is simply shocking.

 

Agreed.

If this is a new policy, is it possible, do you think, that it could be some kind of preemptive measure wherein UCLA is trying to do whatever it takes to retain control of what kind of credits it must accept in transfer in the event that current legislative attempts to force regionally-accredited institutions to accept, in transfer, nationally-accredited coursework are successful?

 

I don't think it's shocking. But perhaps nosborne was joking?

I don't believe that UCLA has a problem with people who have some credits through PLA or exams. I think they want to rule out degrees awarded largely on the basis of such credit. So it's primarily the types of degrees awarded by TESC, COSC, Excelsior that are in the cross hairs. And who could quibble with that?

 

No, I am not joking.

The "joking" form is "shocked, shocked"

No, I am shocked because

1) UCLA is a public institution that has more applicants than seats, and

2) This is the first time I've EVER heard of a university issuing a blanket refusal to recognize degrees awarded by another regionally accredited institution.

What is accreditation for, except to avoid this sort of thing?

 

Hear, hear...!

 

In my best Rich Douglas voice: Accreditation is to establish a minimum standard.

Not that I claim to trill for Rich, mind you.

 

UCLA is no less demanding on international applicants:

"Applicants with the following degrees are not eligible to apply for graduate admission: a three-year ordinary pass degree, a professional diploma in accounting, business, librarianship, social work, physical education, health education and so on, or a four-year degree, diploma or higher certificate from a technical, vocational or postsecondary specialized school. Applicants holding membership in professional associations such as Institutes of Chartered Accountants or Institutes of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators are not qualified for graduate standing unless they also hold recognized university-level degrees or titles."

The folks at UCLA graduate admissions are free to impose any standard that they wish (or that the market will bear). If they want to exclude holders of TESC, COSC or Excelsior degrees, the Board of Governors/Board of Trustees BA programs offered by five State Universities in Illinois or the various bachelors completion programs offered by numerous regionally accredited universities, they are free to do so--that is until someone with one of the aforementioned degrees sues them.

This, of course, begs the question whether someone with a BA from, say, Penn State or the University of Virginia who took CLEP exams for a few freshman level courses would be ineligible for a UCLA masters. A ludicrous policy? Certainly. Perhaps one of the 2,000+ higher ed institutions, whose lack of snobbery and over-inflated self-importance allows them to realize that learning can occur outside of the classroom, would be a better choice for those with non-traditional undergraduate degrees who wish to pursue graduate education.

 

It may be snobbery, etc. but a variety of standards, beyond the minimal RA, is what creates and maintains a 'standard', no?

The alternative to our melangiste(sic) academia is some agency of anointed wizards as arbiter of some uniform, inflexible standard.

 

Most of Degreeinfo, where 'testing-out' is kind of a religion.

But I agree that the process is being abused. BAs in four weeks? People bragging about how many units (years worth) that they were able to knock off by taking tests in subjects that they had never studied?

So I'm not surprised to see UCLA showing some skepticism. It was only a matter of time. While I hate to see the PLA concept rejected entirely, it could probably use some reform.

That's my (inflammatory) opinion, at least.

 

But...but...but...

UCLA is taking upon itself the task of looking behind the simple fact of regional accreditation.

Now I realize that every graduate school examines an applicant's undergraduate transcripts and I ALSO understand that an applicant with a long track record of academic success might be demonstrating a dedication to his education that the "tester-outer" might not be able to show (though I question this) but c'mon, folks! If a chemistry major uses CLEP to test out of freshman composition, it's bogus as hell to say UCLA's grad school will automatically reject his application!

In fact, it's bogus to object to someone testing out of ALL lower division college work. For graduate work, the upper division coursework is what counts!

 

Mr. Osbourne,

I'd say you are correct to a certain extent, but I think Bill has a point when he says that to the extent it is currently being done in some cases is a bit extreme. I might agree that 15 credits in a non-major subject,maybe even 30 at tops but at some point you need to see what the student can do under a normal course situation and yes that may mean taking some Gen ED courses. Isn't the whole point of Gen Ed's to make the student more well-rounded?

 

An interesting point, but how could you define "well-rounded"? Is this well-rounded academically or socially?

Would a 22 year-old with a B&M 4-year degree full of Gen Ed be more well-rounded than a 44 year-old well-read student with a fistful of CLEPs in his/her transcript? Perhaps, perhaps not.

Also, I'm not sure I agree with your comment about "see what the student can do under a normal course situation". How would attendance in Basketweaving 101 as a Gen Ed course apply to grad school, where the focus is completely different?

My opinion is simple - if you can demonstrate proficiency via some standardized test to enter into the program (GMAT, GRE, etc), then this should be sufficient. Whether you pass or fail will determine if the student should be there.

Now, if UCLA did some analysis and found that prior learning credit students did significantly worse in grad school I could see the reasoning behind their policy.

Cheers,
Mark

 

Well, I guess UCLA can do what it wants. But unless this restriction is UC wide, the result might be to exclude graduates of sister UC schools (not to mention Cal State grads) in an arbitrary manner.

And UCLA is a PUBLIC SCHOOL, damn it! Aren't they supposed to make an effort to serve communities that are otherwise underserved??

Grrr...