Master's Program without an Undergraduate Degree

Discussion in 'General Distance Learning Discussions' started by soupbone, Jan 19, 2009.

Loading...
  1. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member


    Good catch. Thanks. This is pretty quick MBA though.

    Abner
     
  2. japhy4529

    japhy4529 House Bassist

    I was accepted into the Aspen Univ. MS in IT program without having a Bachelors degree. However, I did have the requisite 15+ years of work experience, along with three professional references. Aspen stopped this practice about a week after I was accepted. I read (on this board) that they stopped the practice due to a change in DETC regulations. Not sure if that is true or not, as I never looked into it. I ended up leaving Aspen, due to disinterest in the program and school.

    While this is probably a topic for another thread, I was able to transfer all 9 of my Aspen graduate credits to Excelsior (I'm wrapping up an A.S. in Liberal Studies). I just had Aspen send the transcript to Excelsior and I faxed over the course syllabi. I heard back from Excelsior about 5 weeks later. That was it.

    As ebbwvale mentioned above, a number of schools outside of the U.S. allow one to enter a graduate program without a BA or BS degree. This is common (but not universal) practice amongst many UK and Australian schools, including: University of London, Charles Sturt and Monash University.
     
  3. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member



    Thanks for the info. I am glad to hear Excelsior has sped up their NA credit transfer process. I think the first NA credits evaluated were from California Coast University. It sounds like they really streamlined the process.

    Abner
     
  4. ebbwvale

    ebbwvale Member

    I didn't transfer them in because it would have been too expensive. I would have needed to have them evaluated and it was easier to undertake some examinations for credit. i never get questioned about the order of earning the degrees.

    I am more likely to get a question why I did a US degree. It is a little unusual for an Australian to have a US degree. The Police Commissioner from the Victorian State Police in Australia, however, has an MBA from Harvard. She rocketed along after achieving that. It seems Harvard even has clout here.
     
  5. soupbone

    soupbone Active Member


    Now this is what I just don't follow. If several Universities in Australia and a few in the UK accept this then why are we not even attempting this in the U.S.? Is there some problem with the Australian Higher Education system that proves the idea ridiculous? Is it simply that the U.S. system is just stuck in its ways and is not willing to be more open minded? I just can't get past this idea that we (the U.S.) are more open minded to change. Like I said if it's possible to prove that you spent 15 years in the same career, AND have the knowledge to back it up then why is this not more accepted?

    I have heard the arguments about why testing out of a bachelor's degree is a bad idea. You miss out on intellectual discussions, networking, etc. but these are things that 15 years in the same career should accomplish. Also I still have not heard any examples of the utility this degree would hold here in the U.S. I guess it just hasn't been tested enough.

    As an aside to this my buddy (16 years experience with no degree) has been following my discussions and is now considering this for personal reasons. Also I think he might want to challenge some areas of this and test it here. So now I need to find him DL schools that might offer this. Any in mind?

    Also I am really enjoying this debate. I wish more people would join in. I find this topic fascinating. :D
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 21, 2009
  6. Vinipink

    Vinipink Accounting Monster

    Because there are a segment of the population that is resiting everything, hopefully, when these individuals retire and or die in the next 10 years or so, you will see changes happening more quickly. Change is inevitable.
     
  7. TCord1964

    TCord1964 New Member

    Athabasca University will allow a student into their MBA program without an undergrad degree, but there is a catch. First, you must earn their Graduate Diploma in Management. That can be used as the credential for entry into the MBA program.

    Southern Methodist University, University of North Carolina and Georgia State University will supposedly allow students with business experience, but no undergrad degree, into their Executive MBA programs.
     
  8. John Bear

    John Bear Senior Member

    Abner: "As far as the 15 year admission question, I wonder if Dr. Bear will weigh in on this scenario? Dr. Bear, what other schools besides Herriott Watt allow a student to jump from an AA to MBA? Moreover, what do you think of their utility in U.S. workplace?"

    John: My knowledge (and opinions) mostly derive from the eight years that I was the US/Canada marketing agent for Heriot-Watt/Edinburgh Business School (1991-1999).

    Utility: This was a really crucial issue, so we watched it very closely, and helped wherever possible when students were approaching their employers. We kept careful data on the first 1,000 situations. We found that about 70% of employers routinely and automatically accepted it, either because they accept all Royal Chartered British degrees or, more commonly, because Heriot-Watt is listed in the Higher Education Directory, and because it was assigned (in the 1960s) the 6-digit FICE number by the US Dept of Education. Another 29% accepted it after the student or our office made further explanations or presentations. Some HR people wanted to see sample exams, for instance. I loved this part of it. After a presentation to Gillette, on behalf of one students, the head of HR approved it, made it known to his relevant folks (11 more enrolled), then enrolled herself. The remaining 1% said no, either because they simply didn't accept non-US degrees (some referenced defense department contracts), or, in the case of Ingersoll-Rand, the HR guy I was meeting locked his door, and said, "Look, I busted my ass for two years earning my MBA at Rice. If you think I'll approved this distance program for my people, you've got another think coming. And if you tell anyone what I said, I'll deny it."

    Lower degree requirements: Heriot-Watt requires no prior credentials. There were high school dropouts enrolled. Their position is: this is a 100% exam-based program. If you can pass our exams, regardless of where you got the knowledge to do it, then you get our degree."

    During my time of involvement, we were not aware of any other recognized university that had this policy as the only policy. Then and, I think, especially now, there are quite a few schools where such a thing is possible, in certain circumstances. (That's why I always included a "breaking the rules" section in my book.)

    One small bit of evidence. I once wrote to the 20 top executive MBA programs (from US News list), pretending to be a top level executive at a Fortune 500 company, 20 years of executive experience, but no Bachelor's degree, interested in taking a leave of absence to do the executive MBA in residence, was there any hope. Of the 18 who replied, 16 left the door open, either because they had an official policy of admitting a small percentage of MBA students without a Bachelor's, or because "we can probably work something out." Only Brigham Young and Yale replied that they absolutely would not do that.
     
  9. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    Degree-mills often award life experience degrees, a practice that's widely and in my opinion correctly condemned.

    Yes and no. (Mostly no.)

    I think that a good first step might be to clarify what subjects we are talking about here. and what the function of a bachelors degree is in those subjects.

    In the traditional arts, humanities, science and engineering fields, a bachelors degree is NOT just an extension of high-school, wasted time that can be dismissed with a shrug. (Ideally, that isn't what high-school is either.)

    Bachelors degrees are typically the most important degrees that most people earn. The bachelors introduces students to their subjects and to its various branches and subdisciplines. It provides the conceptual foundation that advanced studies presuppose and upon which they build. Bachelors degrees provide the necessary supporting subjects - the mathematics and physics that engineers require and the chemisry and biochemistry that are so important to biologists. And at least in the United States they provide students with a broad general education that justifies graduates calling themselves educated people.

    Obviously 15 years of on-the-job experience teaches people things too. Often those things are more important than what they learn in school. They learn how their jobs are actually performed, they learn what their organization really does and how it really functions from the inside. That's vitally important stuff and it's why employers pay so much attention to the experience sections of employees applications.

    What I'm questioning is whether the latter can be identified with and fully substitute for the former.

    One of the things that distorts this discussion is that it's apparently being looked at through the MBA lens. MBAs are atypical in the sense that they are well along in the process of changing from being traditional graduate degrees into being first-professional degrees. It's increasingly unnecessary for MBA students to be undergraduate business majors. Any major will suffice, and the MBA is turnng into the first introductory degree in business.

    So when we are talking about MBAs specifically, I think that your proposal might have more merit. Arguably, 15 years of job experience really is better preparation for a first business degree than a tangentially-related bachelors degree would be.

    But I don't think that the idea would work very well in molecular biology, applied mathematics, ancient history or soil science.

    Of course, if people with 15 years experience really truly believe (self-deception can be a powerful thing) that they have already mastered all of the undergraduate material, then they could investigate doing a bachelors by portfolio at one of the "big three" or at a French 'VAE' wonder. That raises its own set of issues, but it's out there as an option.
     
  10. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member


    Thanks so much for your comments Sir, they are much appreciated.


    Abner :)
     
  11. ebbwvale

    ebbwvale Member

    It comes back to the purpose of education. Do you want a credential, development, or both. I guess the first thing is that universities are not the sole providers of human development. Learning takes place in all aspect of human life and this can develop the individual. A person working with professionals and has a strong interest in the same field will read and soak up information from the work. this may be far more powerfully educative than a student merely trying to get credits to achieve a credential. I have known students with no bachelor's degree but a huge background in the topic area whho have undertaken research masters successfully. Human passion for a topic area is the highest motivation for learning that there is.

    What is the purpose of post graduate education? It might be agrued that it is intended for the development of professional skills. Why do universities provide that better than the profession itself? Good question. Universities have somewhat arrogantly elevated their education over that of professional boards. Many professions required on the job training, plus the passing of professional exams before one became professional. Some still do, of course. In some jurisdictions, you still can become a lawyer without a degree.

    After effectively supplanting the professional board approach, and generally increasing the costs of entry to professional status, they have created further barriers. The LLB was replaced by the Juris Doctor. The first degree was no longer acceptable, post graduate study was now required. The university expanded its turf and the coffers were filled. The argument for this was that the person needed development that only the university could provide. Nonsense of course, and unprecedented in history. It assumes that the non undergrad is underdeveloped and remains professionally unworthy, regardless of the learning experienced by working and world exposure. Perhaps the Doctorate will be the new benchmark, driving up the costs again, and increasing the universities growth potential. Psychology seems to be going this way.

    Some universities have recognized the closed shop mentality that has been going on, and provide admission to professional areas of study for people who can demonstrate the adequacy required. Does that mean that the professions will suffer? It does not. It merely recognizes that learning and development is not the sole province of the university. You can achieve the development required by other means. The only requirement is that you can demonstrate that to the admissions people. The bachelors degree may be a rite of passage and a demonstration of development, but it is not the only one. This does mean some loss of revenue to the university and a reversal of the myth that the university is the sole province of intellectual development, but diversity is power for a society.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 22, 2009
  12. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    I think that we can both agree on that. I don't have any objection when a person with years of experience challenges university courses or submits portfolios. (Assuming that the assessment is credible.) I can even imagine unusual cases where somebody might challenge their entire undergraduate degree, if he or she is already familiar with all of the material.

    My objection is to the idea that bachelors degrees can just be waived for people with some arbitarary number of years of job experience.

    My reason for objecting is because I think that suggestion demeans the bachelors degree, and by implication graduate degrees as well. Bachelors degrees are the most important degrees that most people earn and they can't just be shrugged off.

    Let's look at what a BS in Mechanical Engineering at a decent but relatively unspectacular engineering school (San Jose State) requires:

    Three semesters of Calculus and one of Differential Equations, three semesters of Physics and Chemistry. Statics, Intro. to Materials, Design and Grapics, Computer Applications, Dynamics, Fluid Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Fundamentals of Mechatronics, Heat Transfer, Thermal Lab, Experimental Methods, Applied Engineering Analysis, Dynamic Systems; Vibration and Controls, ME Design, a year-long senior engineering project, and even more engineering electives and stuff. Plus all the general ed requirements.

    My worry is that working in some kind of mechanic or technician capacity for X number of years might make somebody very good indeed at a whole variety of processes and techniques. But it isn't necessarily going to teach them calculus or the ins and outs of fluid mechanics. It might familiarize them with some of it, but all of it? Maybe, but I doubt it.

    Again, if a technician really thinks that his or her work experience has taught them anything (or everything) covered on the degree syllabus, then they probably should be given an opportunity to demonstrate it by challenging classes or by submitting portfolios. I'm all for that. Even if people don't get their entire bachelors degree waived, they could still succeed in significantly reducing the number of classes that they will need to take.

    If the masters is just a large specialized research project, then I can imagine students further pursuing the kind of things that they do at work and then writing it up. My worry there would be about breadth. Somebody could conceivably graduate with a masters by research, be very well informed about one particular thing, but still be essentially clueless about large parts of his or her own discipline. They might always be running to catch up, trying to teach themselves material that their coworkers already know.

    I think that the best applicants probably have a combination of a broad and strong university background, and real-life experience in a variety of employment applications. It's not an either-or thing.

    If people are trying to get their practical experience in university classes or trying to absorb their advanced theory informally on the job, that's certainly possible but it's probably suboptimal. Of course, universities sometimes offer industrial internship programs and employers sometimes offer classes internally (sometimes bringing in universities to teach them), so there's overlap.

    Here in the US, professional boards aren't educators. In fact, they seem to be the ones who are driving many of the degree requirements. They are the ones who are trying to regulate the use of professional titles and who often demand specific degrees with particular accreditations.

    My father, now deceased, was an aeronautical engineer despite his never having earned a bachelors degree. He came up through tinkering with airplanes, being a WWII/Korea-era Army Air Corps/USAF flying officer, and spent many years working for a prominent aviation firm. His background did limit him and he took university classes individually over the years in order to get up to speed in things he didn't know. He could probably have portfolioed a BS, had that option been available. My point is that what he did 50 years ago probably isn't even possible today. He'd probably need some kind of licence from some board, and he probably wouldn't qualify for it. It's the licensing laws and the professional boards administering them that have seen to that.

    Providing an alternative to that is what motivated the French 'VAE' idea and the American challenge-exams and portfolio-credit approach. I'm all for it as long as it's done credibly.

    Again, my objection is to the idea that bachelors degree requirements for graduate admissions can simply be waived upon substitution of X years of job experience. I think that's just mistaken.

    Some attention needs to be paid to whether or not all that job experience familiarized the applicant with all of the things that the graduate program presupposes and builds upon. That's why there still need to be challenge exams and portfolios.

    So the issue isn't really waiving bachelors degrees, it isn't just throwing the bachelors syllabus into the trash, it's whether the bachelors material can be learned and bachelors credit earned by non-traditional means. I think that both of us agree that it can.
     

Share This Page