Accelerated Degrees: Process v Outcome - 4wk BA, 7Wk MA,Ph.D?

I've started a different thread in response to a very well argued post by Craig Hargis.

I've truncated Craig's post but I think the quote above summarizes the core of his thinking. He is not alone in his view and I think he articulated his position succinctly and with some passion. The core disagreement here is about processes verses outcomes. Coherence is not the exclusive preserve of traditional course work. All of the institutions discussed in this article demand coherence in degree composition. What the three assessment institutions, COSC, Excelsior, TESC, and the Heriot Watt MBA program seek to do is validate competencies . That is, if you are proficient in a subject to some given academic level, you deserve recognition of and for that learning, regardless of how you acquired it. Put another way, it is not how you know, or where you learned what you know, or how long it took you to
know what you know that matters, but rather that you do know.

I think the argument that promotes process over the examination and validation of outcomes, is bankrupt. When thought through, it has no currency. Any particular educational process is only useful and relevant in so far as the outcomes of that process,

(a) are objectively measurable by way of assessment or testing
(b) are found by that assessment to have met or approximated the required outcome.

It is immaterial where learning may have taken place, who oversaw it, or who may have taught whom what or when..

The nature or character of the process is irrelevant, all that matters is that it is effective in terms of outcomes. Process has no other purpose for being other than to facilitate and/or produce the required educational outcome. The award of a degree is a validation of learning. Learning is measured by assessment. Assessment is neutral (or should be) in bias to a candidate's history, and blind to the process employed to prepare the candidate.

If an alleged inculcated "quality" that it is claimed, requires a particular process, cannot be measured by objective assessment, then to all intents and purposes it does not exist. If we cannot describe and examine this "quality" sufficiently well to assess a difference in it after completion of the process, then how can it be claimed the process has affected it? Well, of course, we cannot. Yet many will argue that even though a learner may pass all of the required assessments in a program, the fact that they have not undergone some particular additional educational experience or ritual {1}, means they have not been "properly" or sufficiently educated, and do not deserve that their learning be validated by way of the award of a degree or other credential.


As stated previously, the assessment institutions at bachelor level seek to examine and award credit for demonstrated competencies. This takes the form of credit for formal college course work, for portfolio assessment, and for proficiency examinations. Assume for a moment that a learner, through prior learning, formal and informal, possesses a range and depth of knowledge equivalent to that of a college graduate. Assume further, that not only does the learner know what she knows, but that she can prove that she knows what she knows by way of objective assessment{2}. Doesn't such a learner, if she can demonstrate competence, deserve the same recognition as the college graduate who spent 4 years in classrooms, or two years in an internet mediated program? And if the learner required only a year to demonstrate competency, or six months, or even four weeks, is the learning any less valid for that?

If it is less valid, why is that so, given equivalent assessment? Processes only exist to deliver outcomes, they have no other intrinsic value. The widely held notion that a process may imbue learners with some vital yet unmeasurable and non assessible understanding, and that therefore learners who have not participated in the process, are unfit to receive due recognition of their demonstrated accomplishments, is pedagogical quackery .


{1} e.g. seat of the pants tuition or other method of instruction, or been enrolled in study some particular minimum length of time, and so on.

{2} "Objective assessment" to include consideration and grading of essays, written examinations, objective examinations, theses, projects, and portfolios.


.

 

Accelerated Degrees Process veracity and reliability of outcomes

.

At undergraduate level
The BA in 4 Weeks series seeks to guide learners through the process of earning a regionally accredited degree by examination. Four weeks is the practical minimum amount of time in which this process can reasonably be completed by a learner of the caliber detailed in the example above. That is, one who will require light revision and who will spend most of the four weeks demonstrating competencies . It is estimated that 15% to 20% of those intelligent, motivated adults who embark on this process, could complete requirements in under a calendar month (see the guide introduction for a fuller analysis). The focus on 4 weeks to completion is quite deliberate. It sends a signal to the reader about possibilities. It allows the process to be presented in cohesive and accessible format. The email I receive make it clear readers intuitively understand that the timeline is flexible and can be adjusted to suit their needs and abilities. Given many of the misconceptions revealed during debate in this and other fora, I suspect that most of the grief I receive comes from those who have not read further than the guide title and byline.

The "value-added" component of the guides surfaces where they help push readers to action. The specifics are there to offer evidence of guide veracity and to provide an example process template for those who require one. However, the main aim is to demonstrate to the reader that not only can it be done, but that they can most likely do it (by whatever combination of methods and within a time frame of their choosing).

A challenge
It often happens that those who doubt degree requirements can be completed in four weeks "or anything like it", have taken few or none of the listed exams. Those who have taken a number of them and know whereof they speak, have generally endorsed the proposition as doable. I must confess that I get a little irritated when I read the occasional certain pronouncement from those without experience, that it cannot be done. Perhaps an abbreviated challenge to the doubters, practical of time and resources, would be in order. Say completing a year of a degree in one week? I am perfectly prepared to rise to that bait and put their money where my mouth has been.

Oh, what the heck, to make it interesting, why not say the final year of a degree to be completed not in a week, but in around 12 hours of testing over 3 and a bit days using 10 3-hour ECE exams (formerly New York Regents exams) comprising 30 semester hours upper division credit?. That's averaging just over an hour per 3-hour exam, and writing three exams per day. The final year of a regionally accredited degree completed in the time it takes to get registered for a class at some universities. Can't be done? I'll give you good odds. Any takers? Lay your money on the table.

Well, if that can be done, doesn't that mean these exams are a fraud and a sham? No,the exams assess competencies at the level expected of a student in a traditional college course (at upper or lower division level). I can do it because I know the material well enough. If you know the material, you can do it too. If you do not know the material, you will not be able to do it. It isn't magic, or fraud, or BS. It's about ensuring you know what you should know and then demonstrating proficiency at the required level in the examined subject.

I find it incredible, that despite of the overwhelming evidence, including the testimony of many who contribute to this board, that there are still those who contend that earning a degree by this method cannot be done and done quickly. Many adult learners have laid down their money on these and other exams in multiple day testing, and most, according to the email I have received, have won their bets (be it in one, two or three exams in a day). Were they to have listened to the naysayers, they would still be grubbing around wondering if they coulda or shoulda or can. I don't think it an exaggeration to say that the BA in 4 Weeks series and other texts and guides promoting accredited accelerated degrees, are about empowering people to take charge of their own destiny.

Exceptions to the rule
Is the award of a degree by examination always appropriate? Probably not, where it is the case that formal assessment is inadequate or impossible. In addition to formal examinations, a physician's competence clearly must also be assessed day by day, crisis by crisis, in the environment in which he will practice his craft.

At the graduate level
(If there were objections and criticism of BA in 4 Weeks, I'd expect much wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth when this series is released).

Later this year I will start to release a new series of guides with the working title, 7 Weeks Study to an Accredited Master's Degree, that will detail how regionally accredited* masters degrees can be earned with as little as seven weeks actual study time**. The first degrees covered will be traditional in nature in that their assessments follow the common essay + exam, - early - midterm - final, modes. Although the methods of assessment differ from those required to earn the undergraduate degrees detailed in BA in 4 Weeks, the recommended modes of study will remain the same.

Accelerated Ph.D.and other doctorates
Surveying and studying the detail of the various options is both fascinating and addictive.

So, are we establishing a pattern,
- 4 weeks for a BA
- 7 weeks for a masters
- and for a Ph.D.?

. . . Watch this space.



..................................................
Lawrie Miller author BA in 4 Weeks
A non commercial resource for adult learners
Read CLEP poster boy, Roger Habeck's account of how he earned a degree from COSC from scratch in under a year.
Watch for DL's only agony column "Ask Lawrie", for answers to questions on the Big Three and on credit by examination,
Try the new BA in 4 Weeks in-site search engine
http://www.geocities.com/ba_in_4_weeks/mainmenu.html



* or the foreign equivalent of regionally accredited

** official minimum time limitations will require "dead time" ranging from a minimum 8 months on up to two years depending on program


.

 

Lawrie - One key issue for you to think about that challenges your argument. Can outcomes be totally and accurately defined for educational programs?

The heart of this, IMHO, is the difference between "training" and "education" I think this is a fundamental difference here.

College education, however, is more than acquiring a specific and easlily tested set of skills and facts. Education is preparation for a lifetime of learning. The most important part isn't the specific facts and skills that you know - but rather your ability to apply concepts to new and different situations. I submit that there is no substitute for time to educate individuals.

Take two examples - Microsoft MSCE certification and an MD. for the Microsoft case, can one reasonably define what a network administrator must do day in and day out. They create user ids, they resolve network traffic issues, they install new hardware, etc. Can one develop a competency based certification for this discipline?

You sure can and Microsoft has. Much of the competency can be defined and tested. Of course I hear IT managers often complain about a person who is an MSCE, but has little real hands on experience with a Microsoft network. They can do the routine stuff - but unusual or new situations are beyond their reach.

What about an MD? Are there skills that you can define for a physician? Sure enough - routine treatments for things like a kid's ear infection can be defined. You can test a new MD to see if he/she knows how to treat this. But what about new and unusual diseases? What happens when the standard treatment doesn't work?

Would you really want to be treated by an MD that earned his degree by a competency based approach? Or would you prefer someone with 8+ years of education who has developed skills to learn and adapt to new and different circumstances.

Just a thought Lawrie.

Regards - Andy

 

In the case of the MD, I would prefer that he or she was someone who has developed the skills to adapt to new and different circumstances, but I don't care if it took the doctor fewer than 8 years to do it.

Incidentally, most of that doctor's experience in dealing with new situations probably came while he was interning at some hospital--away from the classroom.


Tracy<><

 

And if you read my second post in this thread, Andy, you will see that I did think of that and did address the issue.

Lawrie wrote:
Exceptions to the rule
Is the award of a degree by examination always appropriate? Probably not, where it is the case that formal assessment is inadequate or impossible. In addition to formal examinations, a physician's competence clearly must also be assessed day by day, crisis by crisis, in the environment in which he will practice his craft.


Now, while there are exceptions, they are, by definition, not the rule. The case above addresses a class of learning where more mainstream methods of asessment would prove inadequate. But we are still dealing with assessment, delivering quantifiable measures on outcomes or competencies. This issue in no way addresses let alone supports your position, which we will deconstruct next.

But Andy, how do you know this "ability to apply concepts" is important, or exists at all, unless you have made some assessment of it? If you have in fact made some assessment of it, then it is an assessable skill or attribute, just the same as any other. If it is not amenable to assessment then it is meaningless to talk of enhancing it. How would you ever know you had ever succeeded? If you cannot assess it, you cannot measure its improvement can you? In that case "the process" cannot be demonstrated to imbue the student with this (unmeasurable) attribute. In that case, your rationale for insisting on the need of process in place of, or in concert with testing, is bankrupt. It is meaningless to talk of a desirable attribute that cannot be tested or assessed.

If you can in fact bring to bear some rational method of detection and assessment (examination or test of this as yet ill defined attribute), how then does it differ from any other skill that can be tested? And if it can be tested, and assessed for quality and range, what need is there for any particular process to the exclusion of other effective processes (self learning et al)? Surely
the only point of interest is whether the attribute or skill it is present in the examinee or student, and the degree to which it is present?

If its presence can be detected, and changes in its quality and range measured (i.e., if it is assessable), then the particular process used to inculcate this attribute or skill (for that is what it is), is of no concern other than in terms of its measurable outcomes.

Thanks
Lawrie

 

Tracy Gies wrote:

"College education, however, is more than acquiring a specific and easlily tested set of skills and facts. Education is preparation for a lifetime of learning. The most important part isn't the specific facts and skills that you know - but rather your ability to apply concepts to new and different situations. I submit that there is no substitute for time to educate individuals. "

Different individuals will necessarily need different amounts of time in order to be "educated" (whatever THAT means), that set aside, Lawrie's series is basically directed towards people who have had lots more time to learn to apply knowledge and concepts to different and real situations (as opposed to the theoretical situations in school), with real outcomes, some positive, some not so positive. Someone who manages to pass all the examinations required for a RA degree, in the above 90 percentile range, wtihout a lot of studying, is necessarily someone who can think, who can put his/her knowledge to work in diffrent situations, who can apply logic (real, not "college formal") to these situations, and who can solve a situation better than 90% of college graduates (Or where do you think the percentile # comes from?)

The most successul corporation to date is legendary in the methods used by one of its top executives to hire (most people will know I am talking about Microsoft and Steve Ballmer). Ballmer would interview the applicants, not caring at all about their papers, and ask questions like "How many gas stations are there in the US?", and he was not interested in very accurate answers, I think he may not have known the answers to some of the questions, he was interested in THE PROCESS used by the interviewee to arrive at the answer, I let history determine weather this was a good method, or weather "papers" are more important.



Tracy Gies wrote:
"Would you really want to be treated by an MD that earned his degree by a competency based approach? Or would you prefer someone with 8+ years of education who has developed skills to learn and adapt to new and different circumstances."


My father is a doctor, medical, PhD in Radiology, retired for many years now, he had an assistant working in his office who did not finish medical school for financial reasons, he worked there for about 12 years, my father said his "diagnostics" (he would tell my father what he thought the patient had as often as he could) were very accurate, more so than many "Doctors" that he knew. Personally, I would rather have this "non-Doctor" with real experience diagnose me than many "real Doctors". What is important here is that HIS KNOWLEDGE DID NOT COME FROM A UNIVERSITY, just as the knowledge held by most people who can easily pass the exams to earn an RA degree does not come from a school, but from experience, from reading (I average 1 book per week, 50 per year, 1,200 since the time I was supposed to have finished college, I guess that will give me some knowledge). Most of it comes from DOING, with all the right decisions and the mistakes we learn from (I bet a dollar you will not find a school that will give you that) there is nothing that beats EXPERIENCE.

Knowledge, and the good use of that knowledge is what is important, REGARDLESS of where, when and how you acquired it.

BTW I never finished High School, my English is self taught (at 17 when I was supposed to have been finishing high school in Mexico, I was travelling around Canada) , when I did my GED my percentile for English was 99, I started 2002 with 0 credits, I have 48 right now, I did not finish in 4 weeks like Lawrie because I did not care to do it, but it is certainly doable, so far my percentiles have been above 90 (some 99), the most I have had to "study" (review via internet some concepts) has been 2 hours for a test, I have had to use some review for three tests, the rest I have taken with 0 study, and I do not think I am anywhere near superior, I just have more experience than college kids.

I want to thank Lawrie for his work, it saved me a significant amount of time.

The only reson I want a degree is because I have a 4 year old daughter and I want to be able to spend time with her while she grows up, and want to have the same vacations (all summer, Christmas etc.) so I want to become a teacher, but schools don't want to know what I know, they want a paper, I will give them a paper.

 

Lawrie - Another thought. If outcomes are so important and process doesn't matter at all - why is there such a focus these days in industry on quality standards (such ISO 9000) that are almost entirely process focused?

Is it possible that the truth of the matter is somewhere in the middle? Is it possible that schools should be required to demonstrate outcomes AND process to their accreditors?

Regards - Andy

 

Process is important, but only in so far as it serves output. It has no intrinsic value that does not relate to its service to output.

Success is measured in terms of output, not in terms of the process used to achieve output. Where there exists a cheaper better way to produce a product with equal or enhanced quality, you can bet current processes will be discarded for more efficient ones.

The widget maker is only interested in process insofar as it assists the efficient manufacture of a quality product. That is, the bottom line is the output of the process. The dog is the product, the tail is the process, and it is the dog that wags the tail. Clearly, that must be the case since the only reason we engage in process is to deliver output.

There is no general case that can be made for process in the educational context that does not relate to, and that is not subordinate to, outcomes. Indeed, as implicitly stated above, it is meaningless to consider process in isolation from outcomes. Efficiency, in terms of quality, use of time and resources, demands that process be shaped by the needs and requirements of outcomes.

Unfortunately, that obvious point is not always grasped in professional academic circles. That is not directed at you, but the general case. To me it is incomprehensible that this should even be an issue. It is clear on inspection that the "paradigm of process", alive and kicking in Academe is plain nonsense.

It may serve the entrenched interests in colleges and universities around the country, and indeed, around the world, but it does so at the expense of students, taxpayers, commerce and industry.

It has to go, Andy. Now, would be a good time.

.

 

Lawrie - Two comments - first, can you answer my question - "Why is industry so focused on process in quality standards like ISO 9000 if process doesn't matter?". Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that outcomes and process are tied together in ways that are difficult to separate.

Second, you make a good case for making "widgets", but not for "education". The product of education - an educated person has so many attributes, some of which are quite subtle, that it defies any comparison to manufacturing products.

The measurement of outcomes as abstract (but real) as "creativity" and "artistry" can't be measured by a simple test. If you want to generate high quality architects and pianist, you need to look both at outcomes and the process.

I've worked in manufacturing and education for many years. There is a world of difference between creating educated people and manufacturing physical products.

Perhaps now is a good time for you to understand the difference.

Regards - Andy

 

ISO 9000 is primarily customer focused. It looks at the process to determine if everything is being done to meet the customers' needs. Consider the following quotation from http://www.iso.ch/iso/en/iso9000-14000/tour/plain.html :

"In the case of ISO 9000, it [the process] is going to affect whether or not everything has been done to ensure that the product meets the customer's requirements."

For whom does the process of education work as you see it? Does it meet the needs of the student, the professor, or the organization? It seems to me that if ISO 9000 were applied to university education, the focus would be more adequately on the students' needs. Maybe you should bring it up at the next faculty meeting.

Tracy<><

 

gmohdez,

In the interest of accuracy, I would like to point out that the quotations you attribute to me in your post, would be more accurately attributed to Andy Borchers. I was just quoting them in my post.

I wish you success in your pursuit of a degree. And I hope you get at is quickly as possible, without sacrificing standards--a phenomenon that may be more likely in the traditional setting, as Andy tells it.

Tracy<><

 

Thanks, I apologize for quoting out of order, I do not often post on BB's.

 

I'm glad "gmohdez" brought up the legendary job interview approach Microsoft has used. Clearly it can work with schools, too. Our former neighbors, the Colfaxes, sent their four sons, who had never set foot in a classroom in their lives, to Harvard, where they prospered. But they had been turned down by various 'lesser' state universities, who relied primarily on test scores and grades.

When I was head of advertising for the Midas company, muffler shop franchisees were selected based on their views on social change, improving neighborhoods, and social justice, rather than knowledge of the automotive aftermarket. They were the most successful of all the franchisees. (The ad we ran, to sell franchises, appeared in places like Psychology Today and were headlined, "Look, we know it sounds ridiculous, but we ask you to think about buying a muffler shop franchise.")

 

Well Andy, I usually agree with you but I do believe that outcomes are more important than the process.

However, we have to be careful about what "outcomes" we are talking about.

Generally accepted academic standards have generally accepted academic outcomes which are difficult to obtain and atrophy rather quickly. It is not easy to pass the CPA exam, or the bar or to earn a degree from a real university... it takes work, academic work (i.e. usually not that which is learned in daily life) and lots of it.

Of course, there is a large market of individuals wanting credentials without putting in the time and work involved and unfortunately, IMO, the method of quality control in the US does maintain minimum standards equivalent to those in other countries. Hence we have given birth to an industry of "quick and easy" degrees... a shame.

 

Tracy - It is interesting how two people can read one website and conclude two different things. The very website you quote says:

"Both ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 concern the way an organization goes about its work, and not directly the result of this work. In other words, they both concern processes, and not products – at least, not directly."

This sort of thinking was the basis of my comment. I think my point is valid - and one that I'd like to hear you (and possibly Lawrie) respond to. If industry is so focused on ISO certification today - and such certification is focused on process, not product - why shouldn't universities and their accreditors look at process? I don't deny the importance of outcomes - but process matters too.

Second, as for your question: "For whom does the process of education work as you see it? Does it meet the needs of the student, the professor, or the organization?"

What about the needs of society in general? Educational institutions (at least the non-profit ones) have a broad set of stakeholders - including society, students, employers and faculty.

Of course students have interests that have to be addressed. At times, however, being student centered can be taken to an extreme. A classroom of 18 year olds in a Calculus class may want "A"'s without learning calculus. Faculty that are concerned for their students and society as a hold can't always be "student centered" here. The nature of a student - faculty relationship is a special one and isn't the same as a customer buying a bar of soap at a drugstore. Students don't always know what is best for them - that's were faculty have a role to play.

The same point can be made about mid-career folks pursuing DL degrees. While student motivations may vary - there are, in my observation, a fair number of students that want their degree in the most convenient, easy to digest format. I'm sorry, but statistics (a class I often teach) isn't easy for many students to absorb, especially many of the math illiterate folks of today. Yes, I can and should, make it as understandable as I can. But frankly there is no substitute for hours of work. IMHO far too many in the DL crowd want easy degrees with no hassle. It is refreshing - as often does happen - that I come across a student (or group of students) that is willing to take some "pain" to "gain" an education. Sadly, there are many that are so "customer oriented" that they expect that they deserve an A just because they paid their tuition.

Ah, yes, I feel better. I hate to rant, but topics like this do seem to get me going....

Regards - Andy

 

I have spent most of my career during the past 20 years either in software development or in the pharmaceutical industry (and during some periods in both fields). I find it interesting that these rather different industries both use the mantra “You can’t test quality into a product.” The implication is that successful testing may be indicative of no more than a veneer of quality—and that process really does matter if quality is to have depth. Indeed, the FDA can (and does) declare products “adulterated” if there are defects in the process even if all the test results are perfect.

An obvious difference between the assessment of quality in software (and drugs, vaccines, and so on) and the assessment of quality in education is that in the former case you are looking for evidence of rare and hard-to-find defects, whereas in the latter case you are looking for evidence of the breadth and depth of learning (without much concern about a few discrete defects, since everyone’s knowledge and skills have gaps and imperfections). Nevertheless, I do believe that the educational process should be at least as important as educational outcome testing.

 

The reason process is looked at in ISO 9000 is to see that every step in the process is geared toward customer satisfaction. What exactly is the process of education and how does the professor in the classroom control it so that every step is one more step toward making the student educated? And why can't it be done outside the classroom? Furthermore, why can't the student control that process himself, and later show that he is worthy of a degree under the guidance of an academic advisor? "Student-centered" doesn't mean giving students an easy course any more than "customer focus" means giving customers a free product. "Student-centered" means that the students aren't required to jump through meaningless hoops, like forcing them to spend 4 years getting a degree when they already have been educated, by whatever means, to that level.

You seem to have a rather jaded view of college students in general. Of course they all want an "A" but how often has a student made the argument to you that they should have an "A" just because they want it?

I've taken some DL courses, too. Statistics was one of them. It wasn't easy simply because it was DL. And I did learn it. It took hours of work, I endured the pain and I got the gain. It will take hours of work for someone to learn statistics to the necessary level to pass a test. If they've put in the work to learn it already, why should they have more hoops to jump through? Surely, as one who teaches statistics, you must be able to see how someone who has learned it on job could know it well enough to get college credit. I learned it by reading a text, listening to recorded lectures, and spending hours doing practice exercises. I proved I had learned it by taking proctored exams, just like the traditional students do. It worked quite well.

The type of student for whom the BA in 4 weeks model may work is the student who has already gone through the pain and now wants some gain. Nothing is being given to them anymore than it is being given to the traditional student. I fail to see how anyone who has received an education by some nontraditional manner should be denied the opportunity to prove that they are worthy of the credential.

Tracy<><

 

Are you saying that there are aspects of educational outcomes that are important but not assessable, and that can only be imbued by certain processes?

 

Incidentally, Andy, nowhere is it even implied in the principles of ISO 9000 that, if the process is found to be flawed, the product is considered to be flawed. So, even in a process approach, process and product are not as closely tied together as you are trying to make it sound.

I ask you too take a good look at Principle #4, aptly titled "Process Approach." The first key benefit listed to the process approach is, "Lower costs and shorter cycle times through effective use of resources." So it is more than implicit, it is--in fact--clearly stated, that one of the benefits to looking at the process is to reduce costs and cycle times, ultimately leading to quicker production. It is accomplished by effective use of resources.

Do you still think your point is valid?

Tracy<><

 

Sometimes the process IS important. The advantage of a true campus-based education for the typical 17-21 year-old has as much to do with growing up and socialization than it does with knowledge accumulation. In fields that require interraction with others, such as law and psychology, proving raw knowledge thru exams is just one component of a successful outcome.

Otherwise, why couldn't a physically-fit person who has read all the tactical and historical works re warfare and the rest of their curriculium just "test-thru" West Point and take a platoon?