Good Morning, I'm not posting this in the main forum because of the mood and hostility that discussion has taken. I commend Lawrie Miller on past research and future research which I will take advantage of and share. I'm surprised by how threatened academics are by the concept that short term degrees through testing and assesments are not valid academically and intellectually. I hope this spirited displayed has urged and not discouraged Lawrie in her research. That's the effect it's has had on me. Good thoughts to all on a warm February day. Hille
what is the real objection? I think we know that each of us responds on two levels. Most of us are fairly logical. Some of us emote first and ask questions later. Is part of the problem that people do not trust testing methodology? It is somewhat illogical. But if one doesn't trust tests (gre, sat, clep, etc.) then it is easy to reject the fast route to an undergraduate degree. Is another part of the problem a disbelief that there can be accurate "assessment"? If you don't belief that knowledge can be assessed, then discounting the portfolio is easy. Just about all of the undergraduate programs that I know about, have a method for a student to "challenge" a course. I have more confidence in the nationally developed tests such as clep/dantes etc. which use standards and statistical review than the test devised by an individual faculty member. If the objection is due to a distrust of testing, then how is taking a course by chair-sitting better? The students work is still tested and assessed. Somehow, some people think the "learner product" and the evaluation method in a chair-sitting course course is superior to that of a testing out or portfolio assessment. But in reality the testing and assessment method, have to use the same theories and statistical method regardless of whether one is in the regular classroom, internet class. or testing out I wonder what "magical" difference some people are perceiving? I suspect much of the fear of faster route to the BA is based on a lack of knowledge and trust of the science of testing/assessment. Part of this may come from bad experiences with testing in the school system. When I look at tests and scoring in my local high schools, some classes are straight forward, others are teacher subjective. I hear lots of student complaints about the teacher subjective grading. Part of the lack of knowledge about the science of assessment could be part of poor statistical and logical reasoning skills. Many infomercial advertisements rely on sales to people who don't stop to think. I think the last emotional objection is the old one which discounts real life experience as being as valuable as the learning in academia. Logically, if someone challenges the final exam, and does well, doesn't that mean the person has both academic and practical knowledge. But again, we are not applying logic. Good luck!
It is a matter of understanding what the traditional definition is of an undergraduate degree and logic. A traditional academic degree requires about 6,000 hrs of work, includes a great degree of breadth and an "academic understanding" of the topics. 1) Academic courses are created so that a 3 credit course requires about 150 hours of preparation. In other words, you should need to study about 150 to prepare for writing for writing an exam. 2) Undergraduate degrees generally require studies in multiple disciplines. 3) Academic study involves a study of various theories, memorization of terminology, etc. Knowledge you generally do not assimilate in real life. If you rationalize this by saying that the 4 wk BA is really a 4 year BA because the person already put in the 6000 hours (i.e. the 4wks is only assessment). Then this is rather disingenuous... it is like advertising a 2hour Phd because that is how long I will defend my thesis. If you rationalize this by saying that the 6000 hours is obtained by "living" you have other difficulties. Academic knowledge is not generally obtained by "living" and breadth of knowledge is not generally obtained by "living". The number of people who read academic textbooks in multiple disciplines in the evening, I would assume, is quite small. So you end up with a fact... whatever a 4wk BA is, it is quite different than a 4wk BA in any traditional academic sense. Perhaps it is like a birthday... TESC should simply award you an associates when you turn 20, a undergrad at 30, a masters at 40 and a Phd at 50.
Hille The war being fought in other threads is certainly spreading. It seems that it is coming to this thread. Ken will probably fire the first shot. And boom, boom, boom the war will recommence in this thread without any end in sight.
My concerns are these: 1. There have been anecdotal reports here on Degreeinfo and back on AED about students having earned large blocks of credit in subjects that they had never studied, either formally or informally. If there is any truth to this, then it casts doubt on the credibility of at least some of the examinations. 2. Prospective students posting questions here on Degreeinfo steered to this assessment of prior learning path without inquiry about whether the student has had any kind of prior experience with the major subject at all. 3. The title "BA in 4 Weeks" may be unfortunate if it suggests that the shortest possible time scale in which it is possible to schedule the tests, where the student is already fully prepared in every subject and needs no careful and detailed review in anything, is an option that is realistic for the average student. It is also unfortunate in that it naturally invites comparison to Trinity C&U-type "PhD in 21 days by life experience" scams. 4. I am particularly put off by how people are exploiting this subject mercilessly here on Degreeinfo in thread after thread, in order to create heat, stoke flame wars and promote nationalistic or anti-RA agendas. It is ready-made troll-bait, and that fact has not been overlooked. I think that this kind of stuff is damaging Degreeinfo.
chair sitting The argument that the experience of "chair sitting" in a class produces better skills and knowledge than learning the material on the job, basically as an apprentice or in a mentee-mentor relationship, would seem to be illogical. Plus, when the learning is assessed or tested there is a second level of verification, documentation by an independent source. It was recommended years ago that colleges offer teaching, but to separate the assessment/testing and have an impartial institution verify student knowledge and skills. When someone argues that 15 hours of chair sitting in a college class is superior to 2000 hours of work in a field with a superior who is an expert, I have to hear more. What would be the emotional attachment or logic in equating 15 hours of in-class time with an instructor to be more valuable than even 6 months [1000] hours working under an expert in the community or in a business. 6 months in a job with just 1 hour of supervision a week produces 26 hours of contact with the supervisor. This is a huge increase of contact time with an expert over a traditional 3 credit class. Plus the knowledge has been learned and applied. Plus to get college credit, the knowledge and skills still are verified by an indepdent source, either by testing or portfolio. I think you can argue for chair sitting on sentimental and emotional grounds. I think college chair sitting can be argued for in terms of a place to find the most recent up to date research in a field. You can argue that the testing methods are invalid. but then the testing methods would be invalid for chair-sitting classes too. The argument against portfolio and testing almost always comes down to a belief, "...that it just can't be as good..." I think you can argue that you feel you get more out of some chair-sitting classes because of the synergy that comes from being with a group of 20, 30, or more people all studying the same thing at the same time. If you can quantify that in some manner it would be helpful to me. Does feeling one learned more equate to actually learning more All the best!
Re Bill's Concerns Credit for no knowledge 1. If the claims were made, and if they have validity, it would be cause for concern. However, how true are your assumptions? The most important first step would be to establish who or what particular persons or posts you had in mind. I think you had previously mentioned Peter Glaeser in this respect and the GRE subject exams, but I can assure you Peter knows his stuff and if I recall, you misread his meaning, and he personally offered testimony that you had misinterpreted his statements. There was another more recent post were it was alleged CLEP or other smaller unit credit had been gained with no knowledge of the subject. As I recall, in a subsequent account the poster moderated his remarks and retracted some of the initial statements. So, can you provide cites to these stories? This is, I think, in recent days, the third time of asking that you provide citations in respect of these claims. Picking winners 2. Who will judge a "candidates" suitability for the process? Who appointed any of us DL traffic cops? I have on occasion steered very young prospective learners away from this mode of validation of competencies toward a more traditionally structured full time degree. However, Tom Head and Peter Glaeser and others have thrived using the method. Who am I or you to judge? Generally speaking, adult learners will sift through the available information, draw conclusions, and act in what they see as their own best interests. I will not presume to second guess their judgment. Guide review based on tiltle 3. I am sorry bill, but it is quite clearly stated in the introduction to the guide and elsewhere who can earn what with which knowledge base. If you are saying that the detail of content and purpose of the guides should be able to be wholly divined by the title, then I disagree. You say "if it suggests". There are no need of "ifs" since the guides are quite clear. All that is required is that those concerned about the message of BA in 4 Weeks, be concerned enough to actually read the introduction. Just the introduction. No need to extend themselves further. Where Bill, where is it suggested that an average person who is not fully conversant with the required subjects, can fulfill degree requirements in four weeks? Of course, nowhere in the guides is that suggested. Indeed the opposite is stated, not once, but several times, in one way or another. You start with the proposition that if the title suggests that, then it may be unfortunate. Indeed, it may be. And it may be unfortunate if I offered to grant the reader a bachelor's diploma for $2,000. but I do not do that. The guides do not say that the average reader with inadequate knowledge of the subjects tested, can earn a degree in four weeks, or indeed at all. To understand the detail of what is being proposed in the work, it is necessary to read the work, same as any other work. So, I think the non issue, stated as if it were an issue, is a red herring. Degreeinfo.com in danger 4. It is not clear to me what you mean. Apparently it is a hot button issue. As such, it will arise in threads. It is certainly a focus of dispute. While "this stuff", as you put it, may be "damaging degreeinfo", BA in 4 Weeks, certainly is not. Indeed, in many respects, the issues raised by the guides go to the heart of debates about the future paths for DL and the validation of competencies. Should we avoid discussion of that which is the core of this special interest group? The BA in 4 Weeks series offers real help to real people, and its effects in terms of assisting ordinary men and women realize their dream of an accredited degree, are of greater moment than any criticism it or I will sustain in this forum. Lawrie Miller author BA in 4 Weeks http://geocities.com/BA_in_4_Weeks
thank you lawrie Many thanks to Lawrie. I think you nailed things on the head. Assessment of prior learning is more than an evaluation of living. The assessment must look at real skills, knowledge and student products. Ken. I cannot really tell where you are coming from. All the portfolios I am familiar with are based on real world learning and attainment of verifiable skills, knowledge and products. My local community college follows a format similar to tesc and cosc. It is pretty rigorous. I have worked with students as they tried to verify skill acquisition. I know several supervisors who wrote letters supporting some skills, but could not confirm others. The student not only had to spend more time figuring out what the curriculum and objectives of a college class, but also how to verify the acquisition of those objectives, skills and knowledge. I have to think there is some other agenda here. You might make a case the college courses have been "watered down". But that is a different issue than the statistical method used in AP/clep/dantes/excelsior/ACE college level examinations or assessment of prior learning. I hope this helps.
