Straighterline New Proctor Policy Change

[IrishJohn]

I think Straighterline's move to proctored exams is long overdue. TESC uses ProctorU for its exams so why shouldn't Straighterline?

Well first there is the obvious: TESC is an accredited school while SL is not. I can choose a different school if TESC's use of ProctorU disturbs me, which it does, and transfer any credits earned there. With SL my choices are far more limited, to around 30 or so schools. At the very least I could switch to Excelsior or COSC which don't mandate using ProctorU. Secondly, while TESC is moving towards making the use of ProctorU standard for their exams it currently still allows its students to use acceptable third-party proctors. There is a chance that will continue with feedback from their students. It boils down to an issue of trust in allowing an outside company access to one's personal computer. I find that to be unacceptable, others may disagree.

Straighterline's costs are still competitive and I still recommend them as long as there is no CLEP or DSST exam that covers the content or if the student has failed the CLEP test already.
Students should focus more on learning and less on the logistics of proving that learning.

Before this kerfuffle I would have agreed with you, but now I would argue that that being "competitive" involves more than just cost. The utility of credits earned via SL is far more limited than CLEP, DSST or TECEP. Looking at their current courseload, much of what they offer with few exceptions for most students can be found at ALEKS, CLEP, DSST, ECE or TECEP. These alternatives are also transferrable to hundreds of more schools than SL courses are. I don't necessarily object to SL requiring proctored exams, mostly the wisdom of this regardless of the requirements of the schools where the credits would be transferred to as well as mandating the use of ProctorU. Yet if you want to break it down to just dollars and cents, it is far cheaper to use one of the alternatives now than it is to take an SL course. It's not just the price of SL's courses, with the possibility of more money if you need extra time to complete a course, but also the textbooks that are required. Even when found cheaply on Amazon or elsewhere that adds to the overall cost. I've taken 7 courses through SL before all of this and can say that studying for their finals won't be much different than preparing for a CLEP or DSST, at least in the business courses. I've taken CLEPs & DSSTs with very little studying (e.g. an hour or two on test day) and passed them, which IMO at the very least equates to an open-book exam. Heck, I've taken open-book exams before that were quite challenging if you didn't study beforehand.

The cost is not a minimum of 49+99 per course as long as you can complete more than one course in a month. I always recommend that people buy the required textbook prior to enrolling and read through the book. Then pay the fee and begin taking the tests.

Their recent changes and very poor manner in rolling them out to their customer base has one good aspect in that it woke people up to look at exactly what they offer and the alternatives. One could just as easily take free open courses through Saylor.org, use IC or other online resources, and then take the CLEP or DSST or ECE or TECEP. The time frame is about the same but the cost is much, much less. The credits earned from both are not exactly the same, both in transferrability and frankly in appearance on your transcript IMO. I fail to see what SL offers now that makes it the better alternative since you have to take a proctored exam regardless of which way you go. No, from now on I'll be recommending alternatives to SL because IMO they are far better for students and are better overall.