Do exams take away crucial knowledge needed....

[Tayon]

So I have a degree plan set up, This summer I will be attending Franklin University I will be getting a BS in computer science. But meanwhile with my 70ish CC credits in general classes I will be going to try and get my BSBA CIS from TESC but I was hoping to be able to test out of some classes at Franklin (they call it a FUPE) but do you ever feel if taking an exam will take away from what you should be learning?

[Publius]

This questions can be asked both ways. "Do you ever feel if taking the class takes away from what you should be learning?"

Anywho, IF studying for any exam, you truly feel that you aren't taking away from what you SHOULD be learning, that's no one's fault but your own. I mean, YOU are the one who knows how well you know a subject. You know if there's something you should know or if there is something you need to go deeper in. And YOU have the opportunity to fix that.

Aside from all that, you have to ask yourself whether whatever topic it is, really requires a significant use of your brain molecules. Do you really need to know this subject cover to cover or will just being familiar with it be sufficient? If one is going into Business and they hate Biology, Chemistry, Astronomy, and pretty much anything science related, then they'll still have to be familiar with SOME science, but not all of it. You "shouldn't" need to know as much. Where you "should" know something such as Managerial Communications or Finance much better.

So when you say "take away from what you should be learning". Ask yourself, who is saying whether and how much I should learn. If you're setting your own goals, you determine how far you go and only you can stop yourself. If it's a school or program, class or something else. Are you going to need it long term or short term? Is this just to check a box, or will you really be using this?

One of the wonderful beauties from studying for these exams is that it teaches you how to study on your own. No spoon feeding from some professor or mentor to get exactly what THEY want you to have. You study and learn without limitations. As far as "crucial knowledge", a CLEP/DSST/or other "final like" exam is going to cover that crucical information. A board of proffessors and experts are the one's who developed these exams. (Oh, and there's something to be said about the retention of a typical college student who takes 4-5 classes for several months on different subjects compared to non-traditional approach of 'Study this topic for a couple weeks, get it down, and move on to the next one'. I won't go any deeper into that though)

So no, I don't think taking an exam takes away from what I should be learning. From the courses I've taken and the tests I've took, I feel I actually learn more from the exams, academically speaking, but also, in addition, other characteristics that millions of people aren't getting in a classroom.

[cookderosa]

So I have a degree plan set up, This summer I will be attending Franklin University I will be getting a BS in computer science. But meanwhile with my 70ish CC credits in general classes I will be going to try and get my BSBA CIS from TESC but I was hoping to be able to test out of some classes at Franklin (they call it a FUPE) but do you ever feel if taking an exam will take away from what you should be learning?

I think it depends on what you consider learning to mean. If you mean writing, yes - for sure. There is no writing in CLEP (except for the English exam). So, you won't be getting writing practice. I wonder though, how you can avoid learning AND STILL pass the exam? That's a puzzle.

In my life, I'll tell you that I'm a rock star student in classroom. It comes from years of being a teacher- and I'm always going to earn a top grade. (why?) I'm not smart, I'm clever. I'm good at reading people, and I always connect with my teachers. I know how teachers think. This is the case with all "good grade students" and it has nothing to do with learning the material. I read a syllabus, I know exactly where to put my effort, and I write well enough to meet the expectations of my teachers. I never miss an assignment and I never turn them in late. You'll notice I didn't say anything about LEARNING THE SUBJECT. Schools don't necessarily measure learning the subject. Think about it for a moment. Really, how is learning a subject measured?

So, in many ways, there is a learning skill that you learn by testing that you DON'T learn in a classroom, and that's relevant to independent study. Self-driven quest for knowledge is not the same as being lectured/talked at. I've done both, and I've been a talker-teacher too. In no way do I have any idea of who is learning anything. I know who does homework. I know who comes to class. I know who can pass a test. Learning is what happens in your mind, it's personal. What you take away is on you. It's not necessary for a grade, and I've yet to encounter any evaluation situation where the teacher actually cared or measured what I LEARNED.

You asked if the exam takes away from what you SHOULD BE LEARNING. The fact is, the CLEP exams boil away all the B/S and get right to the target of what you SHOULD be learning in one quick swoop. No politics, no bias, no teacher opinion, just the facts (more or less) as agreed upon by dozens of experts in the subject matter. If 100% of them say you need to know X, then it's on the test! Individual teachers, generally, are crappy test writers and FULL OF THEMSELVES. (lol, she said) They love to talk, they love to see if students were paying attention, they love to look smart and right. Tests are written accordingly. Have you never had a teacher grade "easy" or grade "hard" in class? Do certain students get favor? Do absences count against a grade you otherwise would have earned?

Frankly, the CLEP does exactly what you fear you're missing. Grades are never about learning, they're about compliance.

[a4tunatemom]

Jennifer,

I love this answer! I've tried to explain this to others but I've never been able to explain it as well as you just did.

Thanks!

Danielle

[sanantone]

Instructors, professors, teachers, etc. often can't cover a whole textbook in a course or at least they claim they can't. I had a high school world geography teacher who spent the whole year focusing on Europe. He personally thought it was the only region important to all Americans. I felt cheated and quite offended.

[NumberSix]

I have about 10 years of professional experience (4 in Army, 6 as a web developer). I can tell you most of what I studied for school is either useless or wrong. I am working on finishing up a bachelors in liberal studies at Excelsior and plan on getting a masters in IT next.

[Daithi]

I think you can cram to pass some tests and not learn much. I'll also be honest and admit that there are some CLEP/DSST tests that I will pass by cramming even though I won't learn much. These are courses in which I have no interest. For example, I have little interest in the social sciences (e.g. sociology, psychology), so I'll pass them when the time comes, but I'm mostly just wanting to get them out of the way. However, this would be just as true if I had to take a butt-in-seat course. The only real difference is that I would have to spend a lot more time in the butt-in-seat course, but I can get the course out of the way by cramming and passing a test.

Other courses I happen to enjoy. For example, Humanities --- American Lit., English Lit., Analyzing Lit., World Art, etc. I'm really enjoying studying for these CLEP/DSST tests and will spend a bit longer studying for them than it would take just to pass the tests. I enjoy doing the research to see who the experts believe are the core of literature's canon. I enjoy reading books. I've learned that I can't stand James Joyce (even though he is Irish). I've learned that I like poetry a little even though I didn't think I would. I'm reading a lot of the shorter literature classics even though it is over kill in terms of passing the tests. The point is that I'm learning on my own instead of relying on a teacher's lectures to learn --- and my way is far more effective. I also expect that even after passing the tests, I'll continue to learn even more on my own.

There are also courses for which I don't think you could cram. Mathematics in particular comes to mind, and this is especially true as the mathematics gets more complex. Good luck in cramming for a calculus test if you can barely do algebra. Mathematics is also one of those courses where you need to learn the overall concept behind a branch of mathematics, but you are also required to do lots of practice so that you can actually apply those concepts. You don't need to listen to a teacher lecture to learn math, but you do need lots of practice. Struggling with problems is a big part of the learning process as well. Lastly, it may take some doing to find good resources/books that teach at your level. However, if you can teach yourself something like calculus then you can teach yourself pretty much anything.

Proving your knowledge through testing is also vital. If you want to get into a great university then you will need to score very high on your SATs or ACTs. You want to get into a good law school then you need to score high on the LSAT (and be able to pass the bar later). You want to get into med school then you need to score high on the MCAT (and pass your USMLE tests later). You want to be an engineer then you will need to score high on your GRE (and later pass your FE and PE exams). You want an MBA from a top school then you'll need to do well on your GMAT. Knowing how to study for a test and pass the test with a high score is far more vital than knowing how to plant your butt in a seat, and that is why even higher education places more weight on these tests than they do on your classroom grades, and it is why state licencing boards also require you to pass high level tests.

[OE800_85]

I particularly like the point above. How is an easy clep different from a college bird course? Of course that won't be the bulk of your degree, but the majority of students take classes they know they need to study little for

[freddy]

My question to you: Is the information you think you are missing out on worth the cost of tuition that you will pay for the college course?

I personally think that you should test out of as many classes you can for your degree. To not do so would be to spend more money than necessary.

What is the difference between cramming for a final and cramming for a CLEP? To me they are both the same thing. What is the difference between the college board giving you a list of topics they are going to test you on and a teacher giving you a study guide for a final exam? Again my view is that it's one and the same.

I think the true difference are that people who take CLEPs are a little more of aware of what true education is versus getting a degree. I personally believe a degree has become more of a check in the box for most job applications. Most people change jobs multiple times throughout their lifetime and end up working in fields completely unrelated to their degree.

I read a book a few years back, I can't remember the name, but it was saying that to truly master something you need to spend at least 7,000 hours or 7-10 years practicing in the area you want to master. With that being said look at how much time you will spend studying for a semester long class in a traditional college environment. Even if you include the hours spent doing homework that number most likely won't exceed 100 hours. That comes no where near the amount of time you need to dedicate to a subject to truly master it.

Which brings me to my next point. All of the subjects that you tend to be able to test out of our lower level classes. You find that a lot of them have the word "Introductory" and that is exactly what they are. They aren't meant to give you an expertise a certain subject. In order to become an expert at something you would have to study it in depth for several years which is why people major in different fields and pursue masters and PhDs. These lower level classes are meant to broaden your horizons and make you more "well-rounded". Although, personally I think a lot of these classes are designed just to earn additional revenue for colleges.

Your chances of missing out on "crucial knowledge" in an introductory course is next to nothing.

You might actually learn less by attending a class than studying yourself. College professors may be "qualified" to teach a class, meaning they have the right credentials such as a PhD. However, just because they are "qualified" to teach doesn't mean they are any good at teaching. All their degree really shows is they were able to learn the material required to get that degree themselves. It in no way really reflects their ability to convey and teach that information to other people.

On the other hand, through self-study it's very probable that you will find an online resource that is a way better teacher than any teacher at the university you go to.

To directly answer your question:

No, I don't think taking an exam takes away from what I should be learning. The reason being is because I have no interest in those subjects what so ever. If I were interested in those subjects then I would be majoring in them. If I were majoring in those subjects, it would be a better use of my time and my money to get lower level courses knocked out as quickly as possible, so I could focus on upper level courses where I might learn something worthwhile.

[Prloko]

Frankly, the CLEP does exactly what you fear you're missing. Grades are never about learning, they're about compliance.

I read an article recently (can't remember where) that stated our current education system is based on a public education system developed in Prussia (now part of Germany) with one of it's primary goals of building good/little boys and girls who behave, are compliant and aren't free thinkers. If I find it again, I'll post a link; I think it was in The Chronicle. So yes, a huge part of our grades are on how well you play with others.