Met with some banking HR people on campus today.

[KittenMittens]

I'll bet once you get deeper into the HR process stuff like RA, AACSB, etc. matter more. It might get you past the first hurdle though. A lot of that also depends on how big the company is that your trying to work for. I'm sure a small mom and pop operation would care less. That is all based on nothing, by the way. I have no experience with that or inside information. I do really hope it doesn't work that way, for what it's worth.

It is a really interesting experience, though. I'm glad you took the opportunity to ask and to share it with us.

@KittenMittens - Just out of curiosity, how would you view a candidate with a Penn Foster degree or certificate. Many of their certificates are RA and they have been in business a lot longer than their competitors. How would any of you view them?

ETA: I asked about Penn Foster because so many people on this board advocate using their courses. I'm even re-thinking my opinions on taking a few or getting a certificate, maybe. The ability to pay a small monthly fee is really appealing. For 125 years they've been doing what they do, and many people in years past would not have thought twice about one of their credentials. Should they be treated differently than other for-profits, or are they just to be accepted as collateral damage in this bad media frenzy?

I think the RA vs. NA debate comes into play because some jobs care, others don't. If you get an NA degree, you limit your choices to only those that don't care. With RA, at least, you have a bigger pool to choose from. In the business/banking world, I think there are several other factors that come into play.

Penn Foster is a joke too. Open book finals, ability to take exams/quizzes twice, courses that take a few hours, using openly searchable test banks, no proctors for finals, etc; and it's not like they don't know - they just don't care. Those standards are so abysmally low I think very lowly of Penn Foster as well as I'm sure many do. The only reason why I and others are ok with using their courses however is because once it's on the RA college transcript, graduate schools/employers/etc. couldn't really care any less or don't know/bother. Why? Because all they care about is if the bachelor's transcript is "regionally accredited."

I admit that there are some online college courses through RA colleges that can also be a complete joke, but on a whole, RA colleges are on a whole different calibre than NA ones which really are an embarrassment to higher ed academically at least. Sure, if a student wants a piece of paper to feel better about themselves that's fine I guess, but at least one has to wonder why these schools weren't able to become regionally accredited in the first place and it's because their standards are just too low.

Though there are some RA schools that can be easy to complete a degree, there is still a certain level of academic rigor to it all - including TESC, COSC, and Excelsior. Besides, you can get an RA degree for far less than an NA one, and I believe you can't even get federal aid for NA schools which are also typically for profit.

So will an employer care where you went to school? Maybe, maybe not. State/feds/military absolutely care if it's RA no matter what. But what if it's University of Phoenix which is RA like others have said? It has a bad reputation that it can hold you back and as strange as it sounds, it could be argued that it looks better to have no UofPhoenix degree on a resume rather than one at all.

ETA: I asked about Penn Foster because so many people on this board advocate using their courses. I'm even re-thinking my opinions on taking a few or getting a certificate, maybe. The ability to pay a small monthly fee is really appealing. For 125 years they've been doing what they do, and many people in years past would not have thought twice about one of their credentials. Should they be treated differently than other for-profits, or are they just to be accepted as collateral damage in this bad media frenzy?

I think the RA vs. NA debate comes into play because some jobs care, others don't. If you get an NA degree, you limit your choices to only those that don't care. With RA, at least, you have a bigger pool to choose from. In the business/banking world, I think there are several other factors that come into play.

Eh, I get that some or a lot of employers wouldn't know or check about the RA vs NA distinction, but with so many candidates from RA schools, why settle for less especially when an RA degree can be had for cheaper, will literally open more doors in government and graduate school? In the end you get what you put into something I guess.

Ironically, even the people who work at Penn Foster, as I am sure at most/all NA schools went to RA schools. See the CEO of Penn Foster for instance: https://www.linkedin.com/in/fbritt

As to getting certificates from Penn Foster that are RA? I don't really know. I mean I guess it's better than nothing, but I haven't been impressed with the academic quality or lack thereof of Penn Foster courses. I don't know how they could be 3 credits a course. But anyways, if it were me, I'd pocket the money and spend them on certificates from established reputable programs.

Also, I'm only speaking about the academic side, I have no idea what the technical/vocational aspects are like, so I can't really speak much for those, except probably with a hunch that they're not too great either.

[videogamesrock]

My CC allows you to take each test twice. After first attempt it gives you the answers and you can retake for 100% At the second attempt.

[sanantone]

Penn Foster is a joke too. Open book finals, ability to take exams/quizzes twice, courses that take a few hours, using openly searchable test banks, no proctors for finals, etc; and it's not like they don't know - they just don't care. Those standards are so abysmally low I think very lowly of Penn Foster as well as I'm sure many do. The only reason why I and others are ok with using their courses however is because once it's on the RA college transcript, graduate schools/employers/etc. couldn't really care any less or don't know/bother. Why? Because all they care about is if the bachelor's transcript is "regionally accredited."

I admit that there are some online college courses through RA colleges that can also be a complete joke, but on a whole, RA colleges are on a whole different calibre than NA ones which really are an embarrassment to higher ed academically at least. Sure, if a student wants a piece of paper to feel better about themselves that's fine I guess, but at least one has to wonder why these schools weren't able to become regionally accredited in the first place and it's because their standards are just too low.

Though there are some RA schools that can be easy to complete a degree, there is still a certain level of academic rigor to it all - including TESC, COSC, and Excelsior. Besides, you can get an RA degree for far less than an NA one, and I believe you can't even get federal aid for NA schools which are also typically for profit.

So will an employer care where you went to school? Maybe, maybe not. State/feds/military absolutely care if it's RA no matter what. But what if it's University of Phoenix which is RA like others have said? It has a bad reputation that it can hold you back and as strange as it sounds, it could be argued that it looks better to have no UofPhoenix degree on a resume rather than one at all.



Eh, I get that some or a lot of employers wouldn't know or check about the RA vs NA distinction, but with so many candidates from RA schools, why settle for less especially when an RA degree can be had for cheaper, will literally open more doors in government and graduate school? In the end you get what you put into something I guess.

Ironically, even the people who work at Penn Foster, as I am sure at most/all NA schools went to RA schools. See the CEO of Penn Foster for instance: https://www.linkedin.com/in/fbritt

As to getting certificates from Penn Foster that are RA? I don't really know. I mean I guess it's better than nothing, but I haven't been impressed with the academic quality or lack thereof of Penn Foster courses. I don't know how they could be 3 credits a course. But anyways, if it were me, I'd pocket the money and spend them on certificates from established reputable programs.

Also, I'm only speaking about the academic side, I have no idea what the technical/vocational aspects are like, so I can't really speak much for those, except probably with a hunch that they're not too great either.

The federal government does not care about RA vs. NA when it comes to hiring. They only care that the accreditor is recognized by CHEA and/or the U.S. Department of Education. You can receive financial aid at NA schools. Many dirt cheap DEAC (formerly DETC) schools do not participate in Title IV funding because they believe in not putting students in debt (even though they technically are in debt with the schools). Schools like Penn Foster, New Charter, and Ashworth offer payment plans. The only NA schools that are typically a lot more expensive than RA schools are the ones accredited by ACICS and ACCSC. This includes ITT Tech, Kaplan College (not Kaplan University which is RA), some Everest campuses, Westwood College, Sanford Brown, Full Sail, and Brown Mackie. You can receive federal financial aid at all of these schools. At the tuition rates they charge, no one would be able to afford them without student loans.

[Prloko]

The federal government does not care about RA vs. NA when it comes to hiring. They only care that the accreditor is recognized by CHEA and/or the U.S. Department of Education.

This comment is a little too general. The real answer is "it depends". For example, the Fed has programs for new graduates, some are posted on USAjobs and anyone can apply. Others are recruited on campuses. The Fed will recruit on state and private campuses, but you won't see them at UoP.

Your NA degree may get you a cert, but it may get halted when the agency has to select among the best qualified.

[mednat]

This comment is a little to general. The real answer is "it depends". For example, the Fed has programs for new graduates, some are posted on USAjobs and anyone can apply. Others are recruited on campuses. The Fed will recruit on state and private campuses, but you won't see them at UoP.

Your NA degree may get you a cert, but it may get halted when the agency has to select among the best qualified.

UoP is regionally accredited, so I don't think that is a good delimiter. Maybe for profit is a better one?

I can't think of a good reason for recommending NA schools, other than in very specific instances. Most of these are related to very specific busineses, ie : Full sail (used to atleast) has a very impressive setup/curriculum for movie special effects/graphics. A friend of mine attended there, and gave me a tour and overview of their setup and it was hands down better than any of the other schools in the area.

I've seen some NA art/trade schools that had very specific appeals as well.

By and large though, I agree, there is very few instances where I'd recommend NA vs RA, because it has the potential to be limiting.

[mednat]

I also wanted to make a point about penn foster. I've seen them bashed quite a few times about their lack of controls on their material and the ease of the classes. I don't disagree about the classes being easy, however, I believe a certain amount of integrity and responsibility falls on the student.

If you do not follow the lesson plans, read the book or take in any of the material, and pass the test then you will be allowed to progress. I am not one to judge on this matter, but to call the organization a joke while disregarding all of their lesson plans, policies and/or violating their code of conduct (using outside sources on tests) is a bit unfair. I am not claiming that they provide the highest caliber of credit available for the courses they offer, but I am saying that it is each students responsibility to put into each class/test/etc what they would like to get out of it. If nothing is put in, it's silly to blame the institution that nothing is acquired.

I don't want to derail this conversation but I do need to say this. As of late, I've seen a number of statements that lead me to believe that as a whole we are suggesting placing results before ethics, and I find this to be a horrible change of direction for the forum as a whole. For me at-least, the goal was a degree, but never at the cost of my ethical beliefs or education as a whole. I believe many on here share this feeling.

[Prloko]

UoP is regionally accredited, so I don't think that is a good delimiter.

I agree. I was more getting to the point that school choice plays a difference, especially early in your career. Schools like Penn Foster will leave a very bad taste in older HR staff who will probably remember the old cheesy commercials that used to be on tv, I'm not sure about the younger generation.

Back on UoP, I don't get into the habit in the office of bashing schools, especially UoP, or Strayer for that matter. These schools are getting a large alumni base, and several of my bosses had UoP degrees. Unless someone is working in Hedgefunds on Wall Street, it's safer to clear from the school bashing. This includes the HR reps mentioned in the OP.

[KittenMittens]

I also wanted to make a point about penn foster. I've seen them bashed quite a few times about their lack of controls on their material and the ease of the classes. I don't disagree about the classes being easy, however, I believe a certain amount of integrity and responsibility falls on the student.

If you do not follow the lesson plans, read the book or take in any of the material, and pass the test then you will be allowed to progress. I am not one to judge on this matter, but to call the organization a joke while disregarding all of their lesson plans, policies and/or violating their code of conduct (using outside sources on tests) is a bit unfair. I am not claiming that they provide the highest caliber of credit available for the courses they offer, but I am saying that it is each students responsibility to put into each class/test/etc what they would like to get out of it. If nothing is put in, it's silly to blame the institution that nothing is acquired.

I don't want to derail this conversation but I do need to say this as of late I've seen a number of statements that lead me to believe that as a whole we are suggesting placing results before ethics, and I find this to be a horrible change of direction for the forum as a whole. For me at-least, the goal was a degree, but never at the cost of my ethical beliefs or education as a whole. I believe many on here share this feeling.

No one is suggesting putting results before ethics, merely just pointing out the obvious. Regardless of who or how many people may believe here, there are just as many if not more who believe otherwise. Ethics and beliefs on right or wrong are merely opinions and everyone has their own notions on right or wrong - and that's all they will ever be, though imo it's naive to believe that ethics and morals are so black and white. Regarding Penn Foster, it is up to them to secure their own resources, but they likely don't want to spend the money on infrastructure.

Appeal to ethics and morals is hard to make when colleges, leaders, and virtually every industry where there is a concentration of money and power, tend to be highly corrupt, unethical, and hypocritical in general. Indeed, every position of any significance tend to have a plethora of sociopaths in power.

That said, a lot of people have opinions on what education entails and consists of. Mark Twain, for instance, famously said to never let schooling interfere with education. I'm of the opinion that testing out of a degree is nowhere near the same level of experience, rigor, and knowledge gained from immersive coursework, independent learning, and life learning in general; it is merely a way to put another notch on the belt to say that you did it, and progress career-wise.

[mednat]

No one is suggesting putting results before ethics, merely just pointing out the obvious. Regardless of who or how many people may believe here, there are just as many if not more who believe otherwise. Ethics and beliefs on right or wrong are merely opinions and everyone has their own notions on right or wrong - and that's all they will ever be, though imo it's naive to believe that ethics and morals are so black and white. Regarding Penn Foster, it is up to them to secure their own resources, but they likely don't want to spend the money on infrastructure.

Appeal to ethics and morals is hard to make when colleges, leaders, and virtually every industry where there is a concentration of money and power, tend to be highly corrupt, unethical, and hypocritical in general. Indeed, every position of any significance tend to have a plethora of sociopaths in power.

That said, a lot of people have opinions on what education entails and consists of. Mark Twain, for instance, famously said to never let schooling interfere with education. I'm of the opinion that testing out of a degree is nowhere near the same level of experience, rigor, and knowledge gained from immersive coursework, independent learning, and life learning in general; it is merely a way to put another notch on the belt to say that you did it, and progress career-wise.

You are certainly entitled to that opinion, and I have no desire to argue with you. Therefore I will not offer retort; I have said my piece and I will let it stand alone. The view you presented of the world is a sad one indeed, I will strive to do my best to not perpetuate that.

[KittenMittens]

The view you presented of the world is a sad one indeed, I will strive to do my best to not perpetuate that.

The world is a sad place with a dog eat dog mentality - will never change as it's hardwired in our DNA. It's a constant struggle against poverty where more than half the world's population, 3+ billion, live in poverty, famine, disease, war; of course, in the developed world, most people are not exposed to such levels of hopelessness, and live in blissful (or not so blissful) ignorance. We live with ever increasing fresh water shortages, and the prospects of global warming. In the U.S., higher ed is prohibitively and unnecessarily expensive and puts most students in life-long debt, the rich can get away with practically anything and get a slap on the wrist compared to poor disenfranchised people who can be easily convicted and sent to prison for frivolous things i.e. smoking some weed, wars are fought not on what's right or wrong, but what it can gain for a few, where health care is seen not as a right, but as a privilege for those who have the money, and so on.

That said, I find accepting the way the world is and not turning away from it makes me a better person, and consider myself realistically optimistic.