Why College?

[shinyhappypeople]

So, as I mentioned in the "online college" thread, DH is enrolling in Western Governors University soon.

 

I found an article at Inside Higher Ed that specifically about WGU's competency-based model.

 

I thought the criticisms were interesting and predictable. Obviously I'm unconvinced since DH is enrolling at WGU soon.

 

I thought this would make an interesting discussion, though. Do you think competency-based education misses the point somehow?

 

As a homeschooler and college graduate, this quote made me almost LOL:

 

“real learning requires students to struggle with difficult material under the consistent guidance of good teachers. WGU denies students these opportunities."

 

I just don't think every student needs "consistent guidance of good teachers" to learn. Some people do need that, and that's fine. But for people like my husband it's laughable.

 

Anyway, I'd love to hear your thoughts.

[Mejane]

As a homeschooler and college graduate, this quote made me almost LOL:

 

“real learning requires students to struggle with difficult material under the consistent guidance of good teachers. WGU denies students these opportunities."

 

I just don't think every student needs "consistent guidance of good teachers" to learn. Some people do need that, and that's fine. But for people like my husband it's laughable.

 

 

:iagree:Not my style either.

[Murphy101]

Illogical.

 

How difficult the material is has nothing to do with learning.

 

If my son were to find math easy - does that mean he isn't learning it?

 

That is absurd.

 

Are they then suggesting the Einstein did not learn math?

 

I think the guidance of a quality teacher or learning group can be beneficial to learning. Certainly this is true if the subject material or level of the material is particularly difficult for a student.

 

Otherwise, no, I do not think it necessary for all learning of all subjects.

[chiguirre]

As a homeschooler and college graduate, this quote made me almost LOL:

 

“real learning requires students to struggle with difficult material under the consistent guidance of good teachers. WGU denies students these opportunities."

 

I just don't think every student needs "consistent guidance of good teachers" to learn. Some people do need that, and that's fine. But for people like my husband it's laughable.

 

 

Given that that quote is from an associate professor of history who might well end up unemployed if the WGU model gains traction, I wouldn't take it too seriously.

[TeacherZee]

I think the model sounds really interesting and what many need today.

 

I've recently finished grad school, and not trying to brag here, but there were several required courses for which I did little to no work. I already knew the material. I could probably have shaved off a semester of my time if my school had followed this model.

 

This is the sort of model we need if we are going for the life long learning concept that seems popular (at least here). There needs to be more recognition that people learn in different ways.

 

I do thrive on discussion for learning but not everyone does. We* are WAY to locked in the traditional model for learning.

 

I'm rambling I should stop.

 

 

*generic we here

[Rivka]

It depends. A lot.

 

I went to grad school at a large Midwestern university that had a mediocre undergraduate reputation. The undergrad courses I saw as a TA involved textbooks, straightforward lectures, multiple-choice exams, and a couple of short writing assignments graded on simple rubrics. There, it would have been easy for a motivated independent learner to get as much or more out of the class doing everything on their own, with no instructor contact. If that were my model of college education, I wouldn't blink at a "competency-based model."

 

But my own undergraduate education was at an extremely rigorous liberal arts college. There, the assigned reading was only a departure point; vigorous and challenging discussions among students, and between students and professors, were a primary part of our education. Multiple-choice exams were only occasionally used, mostly in intro courses (and even then, not by themselves). Instead we'd write frequent papers and get back heavy, serious, high-level critiques. In the sciences, people often got deeply involved enough in research to have papers published. The work I did there was harder than my Ph.D. work, and it absolutely depended on interaction in the college environment.

 

If you need a college degree because you have to be able to check off that box to advance in your work, or you are going to college hoping to master specific facts and skills, then the WGU model is fine. Plenty of people aren't looking for a peak intellectual experience, so much as they are looking for a way to achieve particular concrete goals. But that doesn't mean that that's all there is to higher education.

[Annie G]

A friend of my daughter's just finished her second year with WGU. My one concern is that the 'credits' don't transfer- if you decide to switch to a brick and mortar school, you just start over. At least that's what she found when she tried- at three different schools here. She's sticking with WGU until she finishes.

Edited May 10, 2011 by Annie G
typo

[shinyhappypeople]

A friend of my daughter's just finished her second year with WGU. My one concern is that the 'credits' don't transfer- if you decide to switch to a brick and mortar school, you just start over. At least that's what she found when she tried- at three different schools here. She's sticking with WGU until she finishes.

 

Yeah, for sure. You pretty much need to commit to complete the whole degree there.

[gingersmom]

A friend of my daughter's just finished her second year with WGU. My one concern is that the 'credits' don't transfer- if you decide to switch to a brick and mortar school, you just start over. At least that's what she found when she tried- at three different schools here. She's sticking with WGU until she finishes.

 

Why won't the credits transfer? Is it not an accredited school?

[Donna]

I don't know anything about WGU in particular (not even sure if it is an online university) but my sister-in-law was teaching as a professor for an on-line university last year. She was teaching an English Lit class and said that a large number of her students wrote very poorly or didn't complete assignments but she was not able to fail anyone...the school would not allow her to fail anyone.

 

It was basically a money-making thing...they got students in, got federal money for those students or tuition from the students, then just allowed them to pass course after course. SIL refused to continue teaching there because even if someone did not put in the time and energy to complete her course or learn anything, she still had to pass them and it went against all her beliefs.

 

I can't imagine a degree from such a school would hold much weight. I guess if your goal is, like someone else said, to have a degree and be able to say you have a degree, then it might be fine but if you want to use that degree for something like grad school or whatever, it would be fairly useless. I, too, have heard that credits from some of those types of schools will not transfer so then you end up paying to take courses twice and waste time and money.

[shinyhappypeople]

Why won't the credits transfer? Is it not an accredited school?

 

It's a totally different approach than the traditional model. WGU is non-profit and fully accredited. In fact, in the article it talks about how some states have made formal alliances with the school.

 

I hate to see it lumped in with the likes of the big for-profits with their iffy reputations.

[shinyhappypeople]

I don't know anything about WGU in particular (not even sure if it is an online university) but my sister-in-law was teaching as a professor for an on-line university last year. She was teaching an English Lit class and said that a large number of her students wrote very poorly or didn't complete assignments but she was not able to fail anyone...the school would not allow her to fail anyone.

 

It was basically a money-making thing...they got students in, got federal money for those students or tuition from the students, then just allowed them to pass course after course. SIL refused to continue teaching there because even if someone did not put in the time and energy to complete her course or learn anything, she still had to pass them and it went against all her beliefs.

 

I can't imagine a degree from such a school would hold much weight. I guess if your goal is, like someone else said, to have a degree and be able to say you have a degree, then it might be fine but if you want to use that degree for something like grad school or whatever, it would be fairly useless. I, too, have heard that credits from some of those types of schools will not transfer so then you end up paying to take courses twice and waste time and money.

 

When we were researching DH's options, this is what I was afraid of. I didn't want to pay big bucks to earn a degree that nobody respected, kwim?

 

I think what's interesting is that in the article the main complaint of its critics wasn't the online aspect but the competency-based model. I personally love that model. It's what we do everyday here with our homeschool. When something's easy, DD can work quickly, show me she's mastered it and move on (esp. true in the 3 Rs). If something's more challenging, she takes her time.

[asta]

Quite a few colleges and universities won't accept credits from other schools. It has nothing to do with how good (or not) a school is, it has to do with money. Why accept credits from another school if you can force a student to re-take a class?

 

There is an absolutely HUGE push towards online educating coming from traditional "brick and mortar", regionally accredited (yep, the one that counts) schools nowadays. They have figured out that fully online programs are a deep money well from which to dip to augment their "regular" campus programs. And, much of the overhead isn't there, so they're cheaper to run.

 

We'll be seeing many more "good" schools offering completely online degrees in the coming years, IMO.

 

 

a

[unsinkable]

It depends. A lot.

 

I went to grad school at a large Midwestern university that had a mediocre undergraduate reputation. The undergrad courses I saw as a TA involved textbooks, straightforward lectures, multiple-choice exams, and a couple of short writing assignments graded on simple rubrics. There, it would have been easy for a motivated independent learner to get as much or more out of the class doing everything on their own, with no instructor contact. If that were my model of college education, I wouldn't blink at a "competency-based model."

 

But my own undergraduate education was at an extremely rigorous liberal arts college. There, the assigned reading was only a departure point; vigorous and challenging discussions among students, and between students and professors, were a primary part of our education. Multiple-choice exams were only occasionally used, mostly in intro courses (and even then, not by themselves). Instead we'd write frequent papers and get back heavy, serious, high-level critiques. In the sciences, people often got deeply involved enough in research to have papers published. The work I did there was harder than my Ph.D. work, and it absolutely depended on interaction in the college environment.

 

If you need a college degree because you have to be able to check off that box to advance in your work, or you are going to college hoping to master specific facts and skills, then the WGU model is fine. Plenty of people aren't looking for a peak intellectual experience, so much as they are looking for a way to achieve particular concrete goals. But that doesn't mean that that's all there is to higher education.

 

I was lucky enough to get both.

 

I needed my degree to "check the box" and many of my classes were similar to courses you saw as a TA.

 

BUT, I was also in the honors program at my university and THAT was where I felt my most beneficial learning experiences took place. It involved interdisciplinary seminars with professors who were passionate about what they were teaching and just being with students.

[Murphy101]

Quite a few colleges and universities won't accept credits from other schools. It has nothing to do with how good (or not) a school is, it has to do with money. Why accept credits from another school if you can force a student to re-take a class?

 

There is an absolutely HUGE push towards online educating coming from traditional "brick and mortar", regionally accredited (yep, the one that counts) schools nowadays. They have figured out that fully online programs are a deep money well from which to dip to augment their "regular" campus programs. And, much of the overhead isn't there, so they're cheaper to run.

 

We'll be seeing many more "good" schools offering completely online degrees in the coming years, IMO.

 

a

 

This is VERY true. One could attend the local brick and mortar community college and have the same result - end up repeating many or all the classes pending what 4 year school you transfer to. It is not an online classes problem.

[twoforjoy]

As a homeschooler and college graduate, this quote made me almost LOL:

 

“real learning requires students to struggle with difficult material under the consistent guidance of good teachers. WGU denies students these opportunities."

 

I think there's probably a happy medium. I don't think that having all of your learning guided by somebody else is a good thing, but I also think there are drawbacks to entirely independent learning, as well.

 

I have a friend who was basically unschooled from the time he was 13 on. He's really, really smart, and incredibly self-motivated. He did a college degree online, an independent-study type master's degree, and an online/independent-study doctorate. He is probably the only person I know who had NO problem completing his dissertation. Most of my friends in academia took 3-5 years to write theirs, and there was a lot of anguish and foot-dragging and procrastination, but this guy just dove right in and had a huge dissertation done within a year. He can sit down and work without any external motivator better than anybody I've ever met, and in that sense I think he's really benefited from having a pretty much entirely-self-directed education. It's certainly in sharp contrast to many of my students, who come from traditional classrooms, who increasingly seem to need hand-holding through every single step of an assignment.

 

However, when it comes to things like having his advisors evaluate his work and then incorporating their criticisms/insights into his work, or responding to the comments of editors when he submits work for publication, he has a lot of problems, and I do think that's an important part of the learning process, as well. I don't know, I guess the best way I can describe it is that he seems to lack the humility that comes from having studied under people who do indeed know more than you do. There is something humbling about that, and it's a good thing, IMO, especially when you're a young, cocky person who thinks you know more than anybody else. I think there's something very important about having your ideas tested and challenged by somebody with more experience than you have in a field, especially when we're talking about doing work at the post-secondary and graduate levels. This particularly guy, as I said, is a really brilliant guy, but in many ways his thinking and his work lacks the nuance of people who have had their ideas challenged and tested and refined through a process of discussion and study with other people, including teachers and fellow students.

 

So, again, I think there's probably a middle ground that will help people both to work independently and be self-motivated, but also have their thinking benefit from the insights of wiser, more informed people.

[shinyhappypeople]

However, when it comes to things like having his advisors evaluate his work and then incorporating their criticisms/insights into his work, or responding to the comments of editors when he submits work for publication, he has a lot of problems, and I do think that's an important part of the learning process, as well. I don't know, I guess the best way I can describe it is that he seems to lack the humility that comes from having studied under people who do indeed know more than you do. There is something humbling about that, and it's a good thing, IMO, especially when you're a young, cocky person who thinks you know more than anybody else. I think there's something very important about having your ideas tested and challenged by somebody with more experience than you have in a field, especially when we're talking about doing work at the post-secondary and graduate levels. This particularly guy, as I said, is a really brilliant guy, but in many ways his thinking and his work lacks the nuance of people who have had their ideas challenged and tested and refined through a process of discussion and study with other people, including teachers and fellow students.

 

So, again, I think there's probably a middle ground that will help people both to work independently and be self-motivated, but also have their thinking benefit from the insights of wiser, more informed people.

 

 

You make an excellent point. A certain level of teachability and humility is necessary in the real world. My DH supervises a guy who makes him CRAZY, because this employee *will not* accept direction, thinks he knows everything and can't take constructive criticism. He keeps going over my husband's head when DH's answer is "no" or "not yet."

 

:banghead: <--- what DH looks like after work sometimes.

 

 

I wonder if working adults tend to do better with this independent, competency-based model because life has already kicked us around a bit and we've (hopefully) already learned some humility in the process.

 

Good luck to your friend. Sounds like now he's getting his real education.

[calandalsmom]

http://www.wfyi.org/radio/localPrograms/INByDegrees.asp

 

This has been an interesting listen over the past few weeks and you may enjoy it.

[regentrude]

The whole idea of competency is not so new- after all, even in a traditional university you have the option of testing out of a class through credit by examination. Essentially the same thing. This lets the student get rid of prerequisites and frees him up to take other classes instead.

 

The student is examined by the professor who then certifies to the registrar that the student knows the material well enough to be given credit.

Now, in my 10 years of teaching physics at the university, this has occurred to me only once- so I guess for most students, actually taking the class under guidance of a qualified instructor works better, if it is not something that can simply be memorized.

 

Another option is independent study. There, the details are worked out with the professor and there is some level of instruction/discussion, but less than the traditional class.

[twoforjoy]

I wonder if working adults tend to do better with this independent, competency-based model because life has already kicked us around a bit and we've (hopefully) already learned some humility in the process.

 

Good luck to your friend. Sounds like now he's getting his real education.

 

I would not be at all surprised if adults fare much better in that kind of environment than traditional-age students.

[MorganClassicalPrep]

It depends. A lot.

 

I went to grad school at a large Midwestern university that had a mediocre undergraduate reputation. The undergrad courses I saw as a TA involved textbooks, straightforward lectures, multiple-choice exams, and a couple of short writing assignments graded on simple rubrics. There, it would have been easy for a motivated independent learner to get as much or more out of the class doing everything on their own, with no instructor contact. If that were my model of college education, I wouldn't blink at a "competency-based model."

 

But my own undergraduate education was at an extremely rigorous liberal arts college. There, the assigned reading was only a departure point; vigorous and challenging discussions among students, and between students and professors, were a primary part of our education. Multiple-choice exams were only occasionally used, mostly in intro courses (and even then, not by themselves). Instead we'd write frequent papers and get back heavy, serious, high-level critiques. In the sciences, people often got deeply involved enough in research to have papers published. The work I did there was harder than my Ph.D. work, and it absolutely depended on interaction in the college environment.

 

If you need a college degree because you have to be able to check off that box to advance in your work, or you are going to college hoping to master specific facts and skills, then the WGU model is fine. Plenty of people aren't looking for a peak intellectual experience, so much as they are looking for a way to achieve particular concrete goals. But that doesn't mean that that's all there is to higher education.

 

:iagree: with pretty much everything there. :D

 

BUT, I was also in the honors program at my university and THAT was where I felt my most beneficial learning experiences took place. It involved interdisciplinary seminars with professors who were passionate about what they were teaching and just being with students.

 

:iagree:with this also. I'm lucky to be in a wonderful honors program, where I've interacted with some pretty great people.

 

 

There is one professor that has really stood out in my undergrad experience (not an honors prof though). She is a history professor who I have taken 4 classes with and is acting as my mentor for my honors thesis next year. Through her input my writing and researching skills have improved immensely, and through the relationship I've built with her I even changed what region/time period I'll be studying in graduate school! This relationship is one that has not only effected my work, but will also have an impact on my professional life as her recommendation will hopefully help my get into a quality graduate program. I think the competency based schools are missing this. Of course, if you are already IN a career and just need the next level, or if you are going into a career that isn't based heavily on personal connections (knowing the right people, knowing someone who knows someone....) the WGU model could be perfect.