Bachelor Degree Plan 100% through Testing out?

Hello,

I've recently read through BAin4weeks Bachelors in Business plan, utilizing nothing but examinations (CLEP, DSST, etc). As it's last update was years ago, I'm not so sure they're still valid. I've searched elsewhere, but haven't been able to find any current Bachelor Degree plans for any of the "Big 3".

I'm not asking someone to write out a plan for me (way too much to ask), but was wondering if anyone has any relevant sources that will provide me with a plan to follow?

Thanks!

 

Degreeforum.net has current plans. Someone there will have the link to the Degree Forum Wiki where there are many plans. BAin4weeks no longer works.

 

Thanks, I did find one for psychology but the rest on that seemed to be outdated as well. Hoping to find a business one (This fella's seems promising https://www.degreeinfo.com/index.php?threads/excelsior-degree-plan.50068/), but will ultimately settle for what I can get through examination.

 

The TESU plans are more up to date because it's currently the most popular school among the Big 3 enthusiasts. COSC is gaining in popularity, though. There aren't many Excelsior students around who are willing to share their degree plans.

COSC has the cheapest business degree, but a lot of people like that TESU is ACBSP-accredited and has more concentrations. Excelsior doesn't really have an advantage when it comes to business degrees.

 

Like Sanantone said, you need to hop over to the sister forum to get bachelor's degree test out planning help- that is all they do over there.

 

I think it would be a very poor education to get a degree by just testing out. No writing, no labs, no reports, no papers, no creative activity, no independent research, no critical thinking--just measuring skills and/or rote memorization through testing? I would hope you would aim higher and include some courses that allow you to develop further as a student and person. Not every college course provides all of those, but some of the good ones should allow you to do some of that. And I certainly think there is value in those tests, particularly in mathematics courses, but there is danger in over-reliance on all of that.

If you are just after a piece of paper, ok.

 

In the meantime, when you play by the rules and win, it's called winning.

 

You get out of your education what you put into it.

 

This is a core argument on this site and we see it manifest in several ways. "Testing out" is one of them. Another is the question of college as a place of general learning v. college as job prep/training. The whole "Fries with that?" issue of the value (if any) of studying obscure subjects that don't have an obvious or immediate career track. Why pay 80K for an MBA if you can get one for 15K? There are a number of examples that come up for discussion periodically and in the end it comes down to a question of individual values. "What is most important to me? Is it saving money? Prestige? Viability of career options? Clearly, different people will have different answers. We recognize, in a pluralistic way, that there is not any single "correct" answer to these questions, there is no "one-size-fits-all" solution. Personally I think it's good that there are numerous answers to these questions because, in the end, it allows more people to pursue their goals. Once upon a time I elected to go to a traditional B&M school, park my little self in a classroom and complete courses that would lead to a good job/paycheck, a clear career path and more certainty/security. Now, years later, I am most interested in studies that fall squarely into the "personal enrichment" category. These studies are 100% online and mostly involve obscure schools in non-US countries. I see no conflict between these two decision sets. I think there's room for it all and as Jennifer indicated, it's all accepted inside the rules (except those pesky degree mills). So it's more important just to figure out what works best for you and not be upset if someone else makes a different decision.

 

Education and the verification of learning comes in many formats. I was able to pass many CLEPs without studying, or minimal studying, not because they are easy but because I had already learned the information from self study interests, reading subject matter books, and on the job training before I ever even considered passing a test to get credit for the knowledge. It would have been a waste of my time and money to go sit for a class that works off of rote memorization with plenty of other people that didn’t want to be there instead of taking a test.

 

To my mind, the key argument is this: Person A tests out of virtually every course and earns a BA. Person B goes to a B&M school, sits in class and graduates with a 2.0 GPA. Who is going to say that the learning experience of Person A is inferior to that of Person B? I personally might prefer the method of Person B but I can not say that they learned more or are somehow better off for having slept through their 8am classes and drank a lot of beer at frat parties. Person A may have crammed for some exams and then immediately forgotten a lot of the material but I guarantee that
Person B will not remember how to do those quadratic equations either. In both cases, mastery of the material is determined through some form of testing and so, in a sense, it's all the same.

 

I refer you to my original post:

If you just study to pass a test, how can you expect to develop some of the above skills? A college course should not be about verification of knowledge, which for many of these tests--I imagine is the case. Some, such as those that involve mathematics, may involve verification of skills. A student should select courses and a college to develop all that I referenced above and more. I have read about some students who write about testing in things like IT with only minimal background and others not needing to study. Why bother? How does that enrich you as a person or prepare you for a career? Kizmet brings up the idea of career preparation versus enrichment; either is applicable here. Whatever your purpose for going to school, it should help you grow and transform.

I don't want to discourage people from taking tests, but be smart about it. Take the tests when appropriate, but don't overdo it. Save some content for challenging, rigorous college courses to push you further and help you grow as a person. Some of these tests I think just lend themselves to verification of knowledge. If it is something that is more skill-based and the test is rigorous, such as a mathematics course, then go toil away and learn those skills that can be more easily reflected in a test. If it is a more simple test that just verifies knowledge, you need to consider everything else you are missing out on, particularly if your want your entire degree to be comprised of simple knowledge-based exams. In a history course, for instance, I would expect to do significant research and write papers, which would have an effect hopefully of improving research skills, writing skills, and critical thinking skills. If I just memorize content, I am missing out on what I described. Over the course of a college degree, an individual should encounter many projects, essays, reports, labs, etc., depending on the nature of the degree. Testing out of everything or nearly everything eliminates those, leaving little room for growth in those areas.

Some people may just need a piece of paper for a promotion or know they would fail out of a normal program, whether online or b&m. Each person needs to decide what is best, but I think there is a real danger of over reliance on these tests cheating a person out of their education.

 

I think math is one where testing would not rob a person of any growth, as they would need to teach themselves everything and in so doing acquire the necessary math skills. It's not a course where they would be writing reports, writing essays, doing labs, doing projects, etc., s you would not lose out on any of that.

 

This is a personal choice, and many of the people who test out of almost 100% of their degrees already have significant work experience. Nothing can better prepare you for a career than actually having a job. Since you brought up the IT field, many people graduate with computer science degrees unprepared to start a career. That's why internships are recommended; but, if you're an experienced adult, you've likely done way more than any intern has done.

The types of assignments one will do in college varies by college. Some colleges require a lot of writing while others do a lot of testing. Many school projects don't work like the real world works. I think writing skills are important, but writing long research papers is not necessary for most fields. The OP simply wants a business degree. I've had jobs that required daily report writing, and I had to break myself out of the habit of doing academic-style writing.

I watched more lectures and other videos studying for CLEP, DSST, etc. than I have in any online college course I've taken. For the most part, people are teaching themselves in online courses. You're mostly learning from textbooks, articles, and written presentations. That's pretty much what one does when studying for credit-by-exam.

 

All of the Big 3 require capstone courses in which you write what's essentially a mini-thesis. COSC and TESU also require cornerstone courses.

 

Remember, there's more to Mathematics than numbers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics

 

Sanantone, you may have done a lot of writing, but I don't think that hold

You can play the devil's advocate and make any arguments, but I truly feel sorry for those who trade their education for 100% testing or close to it. Knock out 20 - 40%, sure. Going beyond that is too much.

Doing a job without a degree doesn't make one competent to pass the course work. Take business or IT. You might learn certain things specific to your job, but otherwise you may have a very broad view of only certain things with many gaps and not much depth.

I don't think a small capstone course or two will make up for that. Take a liberal arts education, for instance. During that one might take many humanities courses and write scores of papers, which helps you grow as a writer and develop critical thinking skills. If you were to go memorize content for a humanities-based degree, you miss out on all the benefits of a liberal arts education. For some majors the question would then become, why even bother?

 

So then it must really bother you when someone posts a question about earning a Masters degree without having previously earned a Bachelors degree. I mean, if you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding, right?

 

Only about a third of the American population has a bachelor's degree. Among the younger generations, about 40% have a bachelor's degree. A liberal arts education is nice to have, but it's not what everyone wants. It's also not what everyone needs.

Some people care more about competence on the job than competence in the classroom. They're making the pragmatic choice to earn a degree to satisfy HR requirements. If they cared about sitting in class to listen to world class lecturers, then they would do that. Or, they could just go to YouTube or edX.

 

Well, I know they are done, but to me it seems kind of hopeless. I suppose I know little about these master's without bachelor's programs. Many schools have 4+1 BS/MS programs, so if a student completed all the requirements for a BA/BS, I don't see a problem. In practical terms, I don't think that's actually how it would play out; that doesn't seem to be what you are describing. If a student went and got a master's without a bachelor's--i.e. did not complete equivalent work --they might finish a master's but have no idea what they are doing, if they lacked all the background, foundational coursework but somehow still passed. Some master's are entry level with minimal prerequisites, while others demand more, so it really depends. It is the latter that really concerns me, if that would be done without satisfying some of that background knowledge. I don't see much value in either if a person lacks an undergraduate degree, unless much of that was made up as required foundational work for the master's.

A liberal arts education is just one example. Whatever degree a student would pursue, there is going to be more to it than just regurgitating knowledge on a test. Some other skills will be developed that can extend beyond the subject matter. I don't think a lecture is the only thing you can get in a classroom, to say nothing of the examples I gave. If people select substandard schools, I can see why they might want to test out, if it is just uninspired lecture content with minimal feedback/interaction, but for the average student much of what I described cannot be replicated through a test.

Again, it's people get out of of it what they put into it, and if people want to trade away the quality of their education for the sake of convenience, savings, or expediency, that's their prerogative. There's always going to be a quicker and easier way to get things done.