skipping the bachelor

Busho4,

I was able to complete my BS Degree from cosc in under 2 months. So yes it is possible to do it in much less time than a couple years.

At the time I was earning my BS degree I did not know about these british schools that allowed entry without a 4-year degree. If I would have known I probably would have skipped the bachelors and went straight for the MBA. Out of all the exams I took, I only needed to study for 2 or 3 of them. Either I already knew the stuff or it was so simple that paging through the study guides for an hour or two would prepare me for the test.

I would later enroll and graduate from an AACSB MBA program. In addition I graduated at the top of my class. Now what good would it have done me to sit through 4 years of undergraduate study? I don't feel I learned anything useful in the undergraduate exams I took. After completing the MBA program I can honestly say that I could have done just as well if I had not earned a BS degree at all.

If someone already has the knowledge and learns at an accelerated level there is no need to take this 'rite of passage' of going to school for 4 years to get an undergrad degree. If someone does not have any prior knowledge of the required subjects and learns at a slower pace then they may have no choice but to do it the traditional way.

It is very naive to assume that the traditional way is the only 'fair' way to go about getting into an MBA program. I'm sure there are many people on this board that have years of business experience and are more than competent enough to handle an mba program even though they never obtained their bachelors. Some of the training and experience people gain on the job is much more advanced than any undergrad degree you will find.

 

You are being ridiculous. First you say you have a right to your opinion, and proceed to flame someone else for giving theirs.

As for US health care, yes there are problems, but I've lived in many countries in the world, including ones with so-called "free" health care, and they were a mess. I'll take the US system any day.

 

Vinodgopal,
I don't speak for anyone else, but here's a couple of examples of what America has done for the world.

1) Won World War II, 2) Reinvigorated Europe and Japan through the Marshall Plan, 3) Provided over $350 million dollars in relief aid to help the survivors of the recent tsunami.

There's three off the top of my head. Now it's your turn. You appear to come from another country. Please name three things your country has done to benefit the world.

I apologize to members of the forum if this seems confrontational, but I have friends in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Indonesia at this very moment and am a little tired of people badmouthing America.

S/F,
Ryan IV

 

Thank you very much...

 

Thank you very much... And where did u get the picture I bad-mouthed America. I just stated instead of saying blunt terms such as "Greatest country", you can instead tell the mass out here of what your country has done to the world. (not just America, it applies for others as well).

India has never fought with a country or attacked another country for personal gains. It has defended against attackers. We were a colony of the brits for a long time and have gone through hell. Even now we are a pray for infiltered millitants attacking Kashmir, provoking the local people to turn into terrorists. We have been the birth place of 4 religions in the world Hinduism, Buddism and Sikhism being 3 that comes to my mind at the moment. India has been one of the peace keeping nation during the second world war and Switzerland being another major country that fought for world peace. NASA has 36% of Indians in their payrolls. Microsoft has 34% Indians. We were the earliest to have contributed in Astronomy. We dont have a culture where pre-marital sex is open and have high family values. India went on to help Srilanka for the Tsunami relief almost immediately after we had the impact to ourselves. I live in a place which is 6 miles away from a Tsunami hit area. We were appriciated by the united nations for our relief efforts. We have had 1000's of people killed on a monthly basis due to terrorism as neighboring countries based millitants sneak in and corrupt the minds of the locals and turn them into criminals and terrorists. We have been a peace keeping nation for so many years now. But I will never say remarks such as greatest country, etc...

Also pride goes for a downfall. So I dont believe in saying such stuff. I have been a former national Under 14 chess champion in India. I scored 9 upon 9, a clean sweep. I went down big way after declaring that I was the greatest subjunior player in India. By the way are u aware that Yellowstone national park in Wyoming is due a super-volcano. This can surely cause an extinction level event to the whole world. (Also nothing is certain in this world except for death and taxes). For prevention of such events we need to join hands. I like America too. And I have seen Americans like India too. So where is the question of bad-mouthing America? All I wanted to know was on what parameters did Mr.Bush benchmark his comment - Greatest country in the world. Tell me and it would be interesting to know/learn about the same.

 

Hi Ryan IV

Seeing we are off at a tangent let me offer:

Britain did not surrender in World War II in 1940 - if we had there would have been no war for the USA to fight in 1941 (after it was attacked by Japan), and arguably when Germany attacked Russia in 1941 the war would have ended with the Soviet domination of Europe and the US would have no base from which to attack Nazi Germany, even if it was minded to do so. Incidentally, compared to the Allies and their divisions attacking Nazi Germany the Soviets deployed several scores more from their side. Though everybody with sense preferred Europe to be liberated from the West under American leadership than from the East under communism, which brings us back to the crucial decision of the British to fight on in 1940, even before Stalin's pact with Hitler was aborted.

The US Marshall Plan was an act of immense imortance to the restoration of Europe, for which all democrats are grateful.

Every country in the world has responded to the tsunami disaster. The UK (population 60 million) has raised GDP100 million from private donations alone, plus the government's use of taxpayers' money to the tune of £150 million, which I think compares well with our US cousins with twice the population and several times the per capita income.

In short the record is mixed. British troops are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan and our Royal Navy is helping off Indonesia.

The issue we are actually discussing is whether people who pass exams, whatever their previous background should be 'allowed' to claim the degree award.

'Busho' thinks they should not on some principle he has, but for which he/she has no evidence (an unscientific position for someone in an academic debate - though perfectly allowed under free speech) and he worried that it may upset faculty professors if somebody gains a professorship without a PhD.

Professors are appointed after a detailed process involving convincing existing professors that they are qualified to do the job and one of the requirements is that they have completed a PhD, among many other more stringent requirements. Indeed, in the UK since last year a PhD is now a necessary requirement to be appointed to a Lectureship (the entry post in UK academe), something new since I was appointed a 'junior lecturer in 1970 with only a bachelor degree, to which I added later a MSc and a Phd to be promoted.

Would it bother me if someone was appointed a professor having survived the gruelling process commonly required but without a PhD? Not really. Some years ago a candidate for admittance to the MBA programme had no formal qualifications, except he had commanded an infantry battalion in combat, which we thought qualified him exceptionally. He was admitted. Perhaps he missed undergraduate 'hoorahs' and 'panty raids' but I presume most people would agree he had not missed anything at all.

You see, 'Busho', I have faith in the good sense of my academic colleagues to come to the appropriate decisions.

I have learned from many years teaching in universities that education is about acquiring humility not arrogance, that love of my country (Scotland) is not about denigrating other countries and that the spouting of being superior to others is plain bad manners covering a fair dose of ignorance about the wider world and the people in it. I believe that 'love thy neighbour' is a maxim from your religion and I never cease to be amazed the extent to which people claiming communion with their God forget the simple message of the Man from Galilee.

Kind regards

 

I still have scars on my hand, acquired when I drunkenly tried to pull two fighting dogs apart in the 1970s. So I fear that I'm gonna get ripped to shreds for entering into this one too. Nevertheless...

The point of an undergraduate education isn't "paying dues", it's acquiring a basic foundation in one's field.

Obviously that foundation might be acquired outside a formal classroom, but it has to come from somewhere and shouldn't just be shrugged off. The bachelors by examination schemes (which I remain somewhat skeptical of) exist to verify that foundation.

I suppose that a masters program could admit anyone regardless of their undergraduate preparation or lack of it, and then argue that if students are able to successfully negotiate the program, then they have indirectly demonstrated that they possess all the necessary foundations.

But are masters programs always broad enough and deep enough that they presuppose, draw upon and hence verify the entire undergraduate syllabus? I expect that an MS program in physics would be very difficult to complete without the math and foundational physics acquired in a physics BS program. But even in this case, I'd question whether the masters program would verify the breadth of the undergraduate curriculum, from Hamiltonians and Lagrangeans to Maxwell's and Schrodinger's equations. The masters program might delve more deeply into something like optics, but treat the rest more tangentially. In other words, I think that a physics MS builds upon the BS, but it doesn't replace it or even verify all of its content.

Unlike the physics case, I suspect that many people would find it possible to complete many of the MBA programs out there without very much undergraduate level exposure to business subjects. Actually, that's long been routine. Given the evolution of MBAs in the direction of first degrees in business, it's just natural that the increasingly token undergraduate degree requirement will be jettisoned at some point.

 

I'm not particularly accepting of the notion of earning a master's without having first completed a bachelor's. I object on several grounds, but not the most obvious: student preparation.

I have no doubt there are many people who lack bachelor's degrees, yet would succeed splendidly in graduate school. That's not the point.

The bachelor's is a broadly defined degree, covering all aspects of the student's particular field of study, though not too deeply. It also contains quite a bit of general education (here in the U.S.) not found--and not built upon directly--in master's programs.

The master's degree is a much shorter, much more focused study program, where a person "masters" their field. I consider it "icing on the cake." But with no bachelor's, we're left with icing, but no cake.

I don't have similar objections for the Ph.D. I would have no problem with someone being admitted to a Ph.D. without a master's degree; the program should be designed to make up for this. Also, I would have no problem with someone being admitted without a bachelor's degree; the Ph.D. represents a thorough and comprehensive coverage of one's field, not just a series of advanced courses (as in non-thesis master's).

My main objection is that the possession of a master's degree, right or wrong, implies that one has earned a bachelor's, which isn't the case. Unlike the Ph.D. who lacks a master's, a master's holder without a bachelor's is missing a lot from his/her academic preparation.

As to Busho4's point about testing: hogwash. Testing is a bona fide way to measure academic accomplishment. It is not meant to simulate the learning experience but, rather, the outcome. And outcomes are what ultimately matter. No one knows whether or not you sat on a cold bench on Saturday mornings in order to learn statistics, or whether you self-studied and passed an exam. They just know whether or not you understand probability, sampling, and the like. The rest is just academic snobbery. ("I worked harder than you did.") It has nothing to do with capabilities, which are what matter. Outcomes, not inputs.

I didn't work hard, nor long, for my USNY Regents degrees. I took a few classes, passed a ton of exams. But the outcome--my knowledge--was very clear. Whether one person took an easy management class, for example, while another took a hard one doesn't matter. Students like me had to pass a battery of validated exams to earn our credit. No matter what we knew, we had to prove it. It's not my fault it came easily to me. Besides, if it really was an easy way to a degree, a lot more people would do it. (And I suspect earning an H-W MBA by passing their exams is a lot harder than going to your local night school and getting one that way.)

 

Guess again. I did my B.S. in Business with USNY Regents in 18 months, starting from scratch. I was working full-time in the Air Force, and was only 20 years-old when I finished. (I took one or two classes each semester, and did the rest by examination.)

I also knew of another guy who did it in 8 months, but I don't know what amount of prior credit he had.

Typical? Probably not. But not unusual, either.

 

Yes but that only works out to 51% you must remember as the population grows so does the number of eligible voters!

Ahh..I disagree there are some really great" programs " in Europe and would rather venture to Europe then get a degree with DETC accreditation. I guarntee they will hold a higher academic standing in US institutions.

I am a citizen and was born and raised in New England!

You are right the election is over! Yet the points I make are still accurate!
FYI I am not affilated nor ever been in or involved with any political party!

Did I loose him again I hate it when he runs off!

 

I can see the argument that a Master's or even Ph.d Canadiate may not have the "well rounded background" if they do not complete a undergraduate degree, the question then must be asked do degree recipents of a master's without a bachelor's not excell in the post degree world? If both people have MBA's on this way of thinking then the one with a bachelor's degree should be better poised to take on the challanges of the real world?
That as an agrument may or may not hold some water. The reason I say that is if We look at the Edinburgh University's requirements for admission it would seem that the people who enter the "programme" have had at the very least some success in their career's already and may need the Master's to further not just their education but their career. So it may even reason that outside of academia there may be problems for those who have spent all there time with their nose pressed in a book.
I guess an outcomes study would be the best way to test both arguments!

All that being said there is also the argument that a degree is not a true measure of knowledge in the first place there are plenty of intellectuals I have met without degrees and there are plenty of degree holders I would not consider intellectuals.

 

moo goo gay pan, or, nu vorbesc englezeste, or, thank you for sharing that (I guess)

Well, between the above statement and Busho telling me he was gay and telling Rivers he wanted him to meet the Lord, I gotta get outta here. This thread is starting to look like video from the Bravo Channel with audio from a televangelist, and editing by the webmaster for American City University (sic).

Paging Pink Floyd...

 

Berf canal spelunking...

I AM happy, but I'm definitely straight. Stop trying to change me, Janko. You'll find the right man one day. It just won't be me. Try that guy who says he's from New England.

 

There used to be universities in India which offered to admit a candidate to Masters directly without a bachelors when he gets 21 or older. This is a selection entirely based on age limitation. There would be an entrance exam which included a summary of all the three years of bachelors studies. (In India we have arts and science Bachelor's degrees which is 3 years in duration while engineering degrees are completed in 4 years).

The person who obviously studies for the entertance exam gets to learn the synopsis of the 3 year bachelor program. There are exceptions however. Math, Physics, Chemistry, Botany, Zoology and other science based subjects do not offer this kind of direct admission. Also MBA's are not based on this approach. However for MBA, the admission criteria is you need to be a bachelor's degree holder. Any degree. Even if you were an BA History holder. I dont see how this can be a prerequisite for the MBA program. Similarly if a university sets a criteria for admission as having so many years of managerial experience(supervisory or whatever) why not we respect that kind of an approach? Cuz a bachelor's in history and masters in business administration is totally irrelevant and for that matter it is better to have the 21 year old guy who has 3 years of work experience qualify for the program.

 

I agree. On paper, the idea of credit by examination is a great thing. I support the principle enthusiastically.

But the way it's so often described here on Degreeinfo, it's hard for me to consider it entirely credible.

That's what I mean.

When I remember the amount of work and study that went into my Biological Science major at Cal Poly and my Philosophy and Religion major at SFSU, I find it difficult to understand how somebody could just test out of most of that stuff cold.

I guess that I differ from most of Degreeinfo in not considering undergraduate work just an insignificant speed-bump. I persist in the increasingly quaint notion that a bachelors degree represents the foundation of one's discipline and that if it is going to have any value at all, then it is necessarily going to have to involve significant content.

 

The real question isn't the amount of testing credit one earns, but whether or not it is credible at all. For example, many schools set a limit (often 30 s.h.). Why? What makes the 30th credit good and the 31st credit bad? It has been argued (by David Owen, among others) that credit-for-testing programs are little more than scholarships (or tuition discounts), reducing the cost of a degree. If true, we can see why the limits are in place: to ensure sufficient revenues from each student. Then there's also the "not learned here" syndrome, where learning (and credits) earned elsewhere are suspicious and accepted only wiith extreme caution (and within strict limits).

If the whole system is bogus, fine. Kill it. I might be an extreme beneficiary of it, but I've posted hundreds of messages on this board critical of credit-for-testing. But looking back, I was more knowledgeable and better-prepared than most college graduates my age. (I know, because I graduated a year before my high school peers.)

As "credit banking" evolves into "demonstration of competencies," I think these things will be more sound. For example, when I did my degree, the English Comp CLEP was good enough. Now, as I understand things, Excelsior requires students to demonstrate their competency by actually writing (in courses or by exams with a graded writing component).

I wonder if WGU has the right idea?

 

From "The Whole Nine Yards":

Cynthia Tudeski: Promise me something.
Nicholas "Oz" Oseransky: Anything.
Cynthia Tudeski: You'll go slow. I haven't made love in five years.
Nicholas "Oz" Oseransky: Neither have I. I've been married.

 

I have known quite a few successful businessmen that were worth millions that never stepped into a college. One that is good friend of mine has a GED and owned a business and is a regional manager of a business in Hawaii. He is currently looking to move to Tennesse and start another on his own.

I possess a degree but that degree doesn't mean nor make success. I owned my own business (from nothing) and sold it to a large corporation. I currently work in the corporate world. I think I sold myself to them as much as my degree did if not more.

I'm looking to move to Corpus Christi to start another business and my investor will be the guy from Hawaii.

A degree is important they can open a door but you've got to be more than a empty suit.

 

Another thing: I work for one of the largest corporations in the US. I've noticed that most people who are in positions of authority had owned businesses before.

 

Another thing: I work for one of the largest corporations in the US. I've noticed that most people who are in positions of authority had owned businesses before.