One Week MA---Two Week Ph.D. ???

Precisely my point, Bill. Even though one could schedule the exams in a four week period, the level of knowledge required to pass those exams could not be gained in that amount of time.

 

In the introduction to the guide it states:


CREDIT BY EXAMINATION
The title of the series is BA in 4 weeks.. Four weeks is the practical
minimum amount of time in which this process can reasonably be
completed. The process includes the completion of all degree credit
requirements. There will probably be an additional delay while
administrative gears whir and turn, before the actual degree diploma
is cranked out.

In fact Bruce, the average time it took the then Regents College to receive my test transcripts was about 10 days. I sometimes received the updated Regents transcript before I received the official test results (specifically the case in CLEP and DANTES exams). Objective ECE exam results are available to the college and to the examinee immediately. This may also be true of the new CBT CLEP. As you will note, the guide states that the degree requirements can be met in 4 weeks, and that there will likely be an delay before administrative details are completed and the diploma conferred. I note that my diploma was in my hand a week after it was conferred.

Could you quantify this "big but" of which you speak in terms of time? Further, can we be clear that the guide states right up front in the introduction and elsewhere, that the student can meet degree requirements in 4 weeks? Are you really saying that the administrative delay in degree conferral and diploma delivery in the mail renders the title a fraud? Is that what you are saying, Bruce? Is this your serious ojection?

Now, why do you think that? I know I can do it, and if anyone cares to put up the money, I'll demonstrate that it can be done. Further, I know of nothing that would single me out to be particularly gifted in respect of passing these or any other exams. Testimony appears here all the time from individuals who have taken these exams with minimum preparation.

Negates the " 'quickness' attraction"? You mean if they take two months or three months or even six months to complete degree requirements the "quickness" attraction is negated? Really? Or are you say that degree requirements cannot be completed in these timelines either?

In the introduction to the guide it states:

The 15% to 20% passing in four weeks is not an estimate plucked out
of thin air. These exams are "normed" relative to the performance of a
population of young college students. It is my experience that many
a mature, motivated adult, who sets himself the task of completing
these exams, can typically outperform his younger brethren by quite
a margin.

The 15% to 20% of students who can consistently score "A"s in
these exams or score in the top 20% of all students, can likely pass
most of the same exams (within the top 50%) with no study at all.
This is not because the exams are a sham, but because these adults
have accumulated a wealth of knowledge over the course of a lifetime
that has direct application in these tests.

And it was never intended that everyone nor indeed the majority should follow the schedule to the letter. It is a minimum time to completion, not the only time to completion. That is discussed at length in the course of a relatively short introduction :

Four weeks is the practical
minimum amount of time in which this process can reasonably be
completed.

It's estimated that 15% to 20% of motivated adults could complete
the process in under a month if inclined to do so. I think it entirely
likely that fully 60% of motivated adults taking on this project, could
complete degree requirements within six months. I am as sure as I can
be that close to 90% of motivated adults could complete degree
requirements within a year.

The 15% to 20% passing in four weeks is not an estimate plucked
out of thin air.

If you have less knowledge coming into the process, it will take you
longer to complete it. How much longer depends on your existing
knowledge base, how efficiently you study, and your native wit.


It is likely that most people will earn their degree using credit earned
in a variety of ways. The game here is not necessarily to earn all
credit via examination, or by way of portfolio assessment, or even to
do it all in a month

BA in 4 weeks seeks to provide a template that you can apply in
whole or in part to your particular set of circumstances where and
when you think it appropriate.


Now, the quotes above are all from the introduction, and all, in one way or another make it perfectly clear that not everyone (in fact, I estimate 15% to 20%) will be able to complete requirements in 4 weeks, and indeed that it is expected most learners will complete requirements in an alternative time frame and in manner that best suits their needs.

 

And that is clearly stated in the introduction:

On certain adults ability to complete exams requirements in 4 weeks . . .
This is not because the exams are a sham, but because these adults have accumulated a wealth of knowledge over the course of a lifetime that has direct application in these tests.

If you have less knowledge coming into the process, it will take you longer to complete it.

Could I ask that you at least read the introduction to BA in 4 Weeks before commenting on its contents, Russell? Given the above, how does your criticism have any meaning. It is stated in the guides that those completing requirements in 4 weeks do so on the basis of prior learning.

.

 

It might have been prudent to read the guide before accusing me or it of misleading anyone. It is made clear that those completing degree requirements in four weeks do so on the basis of prior learning.

Who is stating that high school students or others with little or no knowledge of the subjects examined could meet degree requirements in four weeks? Who is saying that, Russell. Cite your sources, please.

From BA in 4 Weeks introduction . . .
The 15% to 20% of students who can consistently score "A"s in these exams or score in the top 20% of all students, can likely pass most of the same exams (within the top 50%) with no study at all. This is not because the exams are a sham, but because these adults have accumulated a wealth of knowledge over the course of a lifetime that has direct application in these tests.

If you have less knowledge coming into the process, it will take you longer to complete it. How much longer depends on your existing knowledge base, how efficiently you study, and your native wit.

Lawrie Miller
BA in 4 Weeks
http://www.geocities.com/ba_in_4_weeks/mainmenu.html

 

Well, it is relevant because most making assertions do no detail how they arrive at their conclusions. They say it cannot be done, or the exams are a fraud, yet offer no convincing rationale, if they attempt to offer a rationale at all. And whether or not you have experience of the process you are critiquing is absolutely relevant
when readers try to make a judgment about your qualifications and expertise vis a vis the issue.

Thank you, but who has made the assertion about obtaining large blocks of credit from the GRE subject exams with minimal or no knowledge of the subject? At one time you could receive 39 credits from Regents for a pass above the 35th or 40th percentile, but those days are long gone. A pass above the 80th percentile in the subject GREs is required for the award of 30 credits at Excelsior these days. COSC awards 18 or 24 credits, most of which are lower division, for a pass above the
40th percentile.

This is why it is important to cite, Bill. Who claimed receiving large blocks of credit for little or no knowledge in the GRE subject exams? Minimal study is possible if you already possess the necessary knowledge. It then becomes a matter of revision.

Who is claiming large blocks of credit for no knowledge? If we know we can inspect their claims more closely.

 

No, I see no evidence that that is the implicit assumption. The assumption, if there is one, might be that they can likely fulfill requirements in some period after they have obtained the necessary knowledge, and if it should be that they already possess the necessary knowledge, then indeed, they may fulfill requirements in four weeks.

And, of course, if they read the BA in 4 Weeks Guides they will put right as to any misconceptions they may still have, wont they?

 

No, Bill, that is meeting degree requirements in four weeks. It isn't the scheduling that is important either to the learner or to the conferring institution, it is whether or nor competencies have been demonstrated. If the learner can do that in four weeks then he has met degree requirements in four weeks and has earned a degree.

Wait a minute. The clock starts ticking on earning a degree when you start "wanting to learn a new subject"? And another requirement is that the the learner start, "beginning at average layman's level knowledge in that field". This is a requirement of the definition of "earning a bachelors (sic) degree"?. Further, "{i}t ends with having the knowledge and skills necessary to deserve a BA/BS. The assessments are just an appendix".

Well, it is an appendix many do not write. Perhaps then, BA in 4 Weeks should be re-named, "Appendix to a Degree"?

They aren't education? The title of the guides is not, "A Degree Education in 4 Weeks". The guides are about earning a bachelor's degree by examination, by demonstrating competencies. It is about the fulfillment of degree requirements, Bill. Fulfillment of requirements without which no degree will be granted. Fulfilling degree requirements is what you do when you earn a degree.

As it relates to BA in 4 Weeks it is precisely certification that interests people. The email I get make it plain that learners considering using the guide templates know fine well what it is that is being presented in the texts. They understand what it is they require and what following the processes delineated in the guides will deliver them. They have little need of lecture from me or you as to what earning a degree may mean, when it may commence, or where its appendix may be.

.

 

Absolutely correct, Bill. Yet those I am talking about say they make the remarks in reference to the processes delineated in BA in 4 Weeks, i.e., those of validation of competencies. It is here that it seems certain they have not read beyond the guide title. Should I change it because of that? Because some choose to form opinion and offer criticism on a text they have never read? Not a chance.

Those who matter, the average working stiffs, and the homemakers, and the non credentialed professionals, who read and benefit from my guides, know what it is that is being proposed. That there are those in cyberspace who choose to pontificate in ignorance of the facts, is unfortunate, but not entirely unexpected.

.

 

No one is saying that is typical, and there is a sliding scale of level of competence. People can gain sufficient knowledge through life experience to include formal academic training or study. Most coming to the BA in 4 Weeks web site and who subsequently write to me, say they have at least some college credit or experience. Some have a boat load of vendor training and other work related learning. I suspect many have significant work related learning that would compare well to that of the average college student in an academic setting.

No, it is not the act of reading or watching television that warrants recognition, but the learning that may have been mediated by these means. Learners are required to demonstrate college learning at the appropriate level in proctored examinations. If they can demonstrate competence, they will be awarded credit, if they cannot, they will not be awarded credit. That is not absurd. Indeed, it is a fine thing.

If everyone did deserve a degree, why should they be denied that which they deserve? Not everyone deserves a degree, but those who can demonstrate they do, should not be denied recognition of that accomplishment. Why seek to deny to others that which you yourself covet?

.

 

Thank you, Bill. You are of course entirely at liberty to write your own guide and present it as you think fit. I would at some subsequent point be pleased to offer comment on its content and presentation.

1. As you say, these are statements made, if they are made, in the context of a fairly anonymous forum. You alluded to someone gaining a large block of credit from a GRE subject exam on the basis of little or no study and no prior knowledge. I do not think that possible as it relates Excelsior College given the credit granting structure for GREs. In the case of COSC, the pass threshold is above the 40th percentile, for much less significant credit in amount and level. I think a case could be made for raising the threshold at COSC.

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, but I can assure you Peter knows his stuff and if I recall, you misread his meaning. There was another more recent post were it was alleged CLEP or other 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?

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.

.

 

Lawrie, you should lighten up and try reading for comprehension. It was neither serious nor an objection, merely an opinion.

I can't imagine how you could possibly imagine that I was trying to say that a degree by exam is a fraud. You should know me well enough by now that, if anything, the opposite is true. What I said was that the TITLE was a bit misleading. If you interpret the title literally, it's implying that you can have a BA degree in-hand within 4 weeks. That's not totally accurate, is it?

As for your invitation for someone to put up money, I don't know what you're getting at. Are you going to prove it by passing the same exams you've already passed?

As I stated before, I think your web site is a fantastic resource. I just think you need to stop seeing a conspiracy around every corner and accept some constructive criticism.


Bruce

 

I understand, Lawrie, and commend your for the clarity. The title seems to imply that one can earn the BA in 4 weeks--period. My comments were directed to that implication.

 

I am sorry, Bruce, I thought when I wrote, quote
Are you really saying that the administrative delay in degree conferral and diploma delivery in the mail renders the title a fraud?,

that you would take the words "renders the title a fraud" to mean I knew you were talking about the title, and that my reference was to the title. Had I thought your reference addressed the content of the guide and not the title, I would have not used the word title where I did. That is, I would have written, " . . . renders the guide a fraud". Since I used "title", I think it clear I did comprehend that you were referring to the title.

Now, what were you saying about comprehension?

Yes, it is entirely accurate. The term is further refined within the body of the text. "BA in 4 Weeks", means what it says, you have earned the degree in 4 weeks. If it takes a while longer for the paperwork to be formalized, so be it. I do not think that means the title is in any way misleading or a fraud upon the reader, where "a fraud", means a deceit, or trick.

I suffer delusions of conspiracy because I disagree with you? Do you really think such prepubescent comment appropriate?

Do not bother to respond.


.

 

Sorry Lawrie, but you don't get to dictate what I or anyone else here decides to do. So, respond I shall.

The reason I half-jokingly threw in the conspiracy comment is because, plain & simple, you can't take any criticism, constructive or otherwise, about your website. That's a shame, because I'd be willing to bet that your attitude has already turned off some people from checking it out.

Don't be surprised if the majority of people find that attitude obnoxious. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar, but, once again, that's up to you. It doesn't matter to me either way.


Bruce

 

In *my* opinion, your typical DL student, who is already facing some obstacles to getting his or her degree, isn't necessarily going to be turned off by someone's attitude. If they think the BA in 4 weeks model will work for them, they will pursue it.

Tracy<><

 

Mmm, yet judging by this invective, it clearly does matter to you. Sadly, you seem to have a problem dealing with anyone who disagrees with you. Do you really think this forum a suitable venue for your tantrums? Now, I will accept your apology this time but do try to control your hostility in future. There's a good chap.

Lawrie Miller
BA in 4 Weeks, a non commercial resource for adult learners

"Give me your poor, your tired, your hungry, yearning to be degreed"
http://www.geocities.com/BA_in_4_Weeks

.

 

Nice try Lawrie, but you have a better chance of hitting the Powerball than seeing me apoligize to you for anything, especially something conjured up by your imagination.


Bruce

 

You may well be right, Tracy. Then again, you might not be. I'd wager that at least one person has been turned-off by Lawrie's attitude, but since there's no way to prove it, it doesn't really matter.

Perhaps it's I that has the problem and not Lawrie, but when I produce a body of work (whether it's an arrest report, or an article for journal submission), I'm going to submit it to my peers for their review and suggestions.

When they do offer suggestions, I don't fly off the handle and attempt to discredit them. That type of behavior is what kindergarten teachers call "doesn't play well with others". Also known as "it's my ball, if I can't play then I'm going home".

But, hey, what do I know.....I'm a prepubescent, right?


Bruce

 

Come now, kids! Sit down, and I want each of you to write 100 times, I must not act in a prepubescent manner toward my DegreeInfo classmates!

 

You do seem incapable of letting this go. What this and your other posts over the last day or two comprise is an abuse of another member with whom you disagree. You state that when others critique your work, you do not "fly off the handle and attempt to discredit them". Yet, that is exactly what you have done here, because someone had the temerity to critique your critique.

This perhaps illustrates the need for moderation, and critically, the need for moderators who are themselves moderate in demeanor, and who can lead by example.

.