Why Are the Big Three the Big Three?

If I understand it correctly, the Big Three are Charter Oaks, Thomas Edison, and Excelsior. If true, how did these colleges come to be called the Big Three?

 

Because they were tired of the Big 10 and the Big 12, so they said "Why should the big boys have all the fun." So they formed the Big 3. :saevilw:

In all seriousness, I too have wondered this question. Maybe others will chime in and let us know. Great question Johny, Mahalo for asking it.

 

They are commonly referred to as "The Big Three" because these are the three schools that let you transfer-in the majority of college credits needed to graduate from other sources and then graduate with a degree. All three of these schools used to let you transfer-in 100% of your degree requirements from other sources but this has changed in recent years. Still, I think two courses is the most they require you to take with them to graduate. These three schools are also very generous in accepting non-traditional sources of credit like challenge exams, ACE evaluated training, portfolio assessment, etc. And they are all very affordable, too.

The Big Three are ideal for so many people who may have earned many different credits from a variety of sources and just need a way to put it all together to earn a degree. They are well-known for their flexibility and affordability.

 

What AV8R said....the name "Big3" is really unique to a handful of websites like this one, they don't even call themselves that as far as I know.

 

What AV8R says.

If another regionally accredited school offered a bachelor's degree that accepted almost 100% of required credit in transfer, and those transfer sources included challenge exams, etc., the Big Three would probably expand by consensus of the community on these boards almost immediately.

Athabasca University, in Canada with additional U.S. RA, has a 90 semester hour Bachelor of General Studies that will accept up to 100% of that credit in transfer. But Athabasca won't count several low-cost, Big-Three-mainstay sources of credit like CLEPs, DSSTs, and ACE CREDIT.

 

So close to the "Big Four." Soon.jpeg......

 

When these three school were established in the early 1970s, most of the so-called experts at the time, self included, wrote that this was surely the beginning of what would eventually be a comparable state-run DL school in just about every state. Boy, were we wrong. 40 years later, it is still three.

Many states have thought about it, even tiptoed a bit down the path. Hawaii, for instance, ran a worldwide contest to design a DL college for the state: everything from curriculum to mascot to website. That contest was won by Douglas Dean, Ph.D., the man who writes the "Degrees for Prisoners" chapter of Bear's Guide, serving five consecutive life terms: a man who has never seen a computer. (The prize was $10,000 and two weeks in Hawaii.)

 

Thank you, all. That was very helpful.

 

SACS, the accrediting agency for 11 states in the south, has a requirement than a minimum of 25% of undergraduate credits and 50% of graduate credits must be earned at the institution awarding the degree. This makes it impossible for a SACS-accredited school to become part of a "Big 4."

 

I was wondering, if a future SACS-accredited school could operate just like a big three? I know Anthony pointed out the accrediation issue.

Including an enrollment fee just like the big three. Since 25% of the courses needed to be taken at that institution, maybe have a special or discounted price for the courses that need to be taken. After that, still have the same set of rules that the big three operates on. Such as CLEP/DSST and transfer in 75% of credit.

I know it won't be excatly like the big three, but it can sorta be like one? If a future institution wants to open in an SACS-accredited area. Or they can just move north and open a "Big 4" and skip all the hassle, lol.

 

The "Big 3" are a product of a different time. When they were created in the early 1970's higher education--as it related to adults--was going through a revolution. Recognition of military and other forms of non-collegiate learning, credits for lifelong learning, examinations for credit, learner-centered education, distance learning, and lots more. Innovative schools were popping up in California. The Big 3 were being created in the Northeast. The Union for Experimenting Colleges and Universities evolved from a consortium of Eastern liberal arts schools and resulted in both the Union Graduate School (run by UECU) and the University Without Walls program (located in both UECU and at host universities like Bemidji State). And the National Home Study Council got into the game, changing its name to the Distance Education and Training Council and beginning to accredit bachelor's- and master's-granting schools.

What it meant to get a degree while remaining at work was changing rapidly, along with the technology to support it. Social issues (post-Vietnam war, civil rights, women's rights, and others) were flying. Heady times, they, producing some really cool highs in our field (like some of the innovations mentioned in the previous paragraph) some middling results (DETC, IMHO), and awful (remember the California diploma mills touting their "California Authorization" as if it meant something academically?).

What's the unmet need today? Were are the new opportunities? Who is pressing the social issues that create change in higher education? This seems to me, being a child of the 1970's, a very settled time in nontraditional higher education. What was weird is now normal. What was academically questionable is largely eliminated. The criminals continue, but as always, on the fringe. And these days, whether you're for-profit or not, its all about the Benjamins. Or mostly.