Why Charter Oak State College is better than Thomas Edison State College

[KittenMittens]

The popularity of a test is not based on Instantcert. Hardly anyone who takes DSSTs and CLEPs even know that Instantcert exists. Uexcel's science tests are very popular among their nursing students, but there are no IC flashcards for those. The proof that TECEPs are becoming increasingly popular lies in TESC creating more exams. They wouldn't create them if there wasn't demand. You have to remember that TECEPs are made for their enrolled students who are mostly taking courses. This forum is a small world. Most TESC students don't know this forum exists.

Popular tests means Instantcert is more likely to produce information for them. Popular tests means more data for them to figure out test questions to make. Practice examination questions also allow them to more accurately make their flash cards. I think their flash cards have hit the main points pretty accurately with many exam questions almost having come from InstantCert (not that they were – but still InstantCert nailed a lot of things accurately).

Again, until TECEPs have actual practice exams, review guides, and sufficient student feedback, you’re simply taking a riskier/greater chance.

GPA has more correlation to college success than the SAT. The SAT has been changed several times because of problems with predicting college success. You're assuming that all of these tests are good predictors without even looking for the evidence to support that assertion.

I’ve already explained my reasons beforehand – but you’re welcome to your opinion. Standardized exams are just as important as coursework – if it was as clearcut as you say it is then top institutions would get rid of it. I think, for example, it is very meaningful if a person with a 3.00 from say Johns Hopkins scores a 1600 on a GRE, or a 40 on an MCAT, versus someone from Charter Oak getting a 28 MCAT but a 4.00 GPA. Yeah that happens a lot because people generally from top tier schools not only do well academically through coursework but through standardized exams as well. It is the case where people who get admitted into programs with less stringent requirements i.e. lower SAT/GRE/MCAT/GMAT/etc. scores go to schools that are nowhere near as well regarded as programs that do – and enough people seem to think that it does matter that it hasn't been removed from any top institution that is leading in education and innovation.

Steve Foerster already proved you wrong on this.

So because .05% of people from Charter Oak got in – he proved what? For all intents and purposes, that is statistically insignificant – even if we exaggerate things and say 50 people out of the 11,000 did it, those are still poor odds. He didn’t prove anything. You think that by going to Charter Oak you have an equal chance/footing as someone who went to an ivy league? Come on now… So all those people who go to top tier undergraduate schools that cost $50,000 a year are just idiots? Maybe they shouldn't go to them and just save all that money and go to one of "the big three", and see how they fare when it comes time to apply to top tier law schools or business schools. The probability of getting in from a top tier school is far greater than that from a no name school. There are too many other factors that should be assessed before saying that COSC, Excelsior, or TESC will allow you to get into Harvard Business School “as long as you try hard enough.”

Why is IC the be-all and end-all for you? The world is much bigger than IC and this forum. There are companies doing very well selling books for CLEPs.

It’s not – but they are accurate review material, CLEPS have a lot of review material too, TECEPs simply don’t – and that’s a major problem/obstacle.

You have no proof that your plan is doable by most people. Even if your plan is more doable than mine, you have no proof that my plan is not doable by most people. But, it really doesn't matter. Students who test out of the majority of their degrees are a very small minority of college students.

That again comes down to the individual student and whether or not they agree with my conclusions. Whether or not they think using practice exams, review guides, and advice from students means anything is up to them, and I think many would find that it does make a tremendous difference –in fact that's how these test prep companies exist in the first place. I don’t think I could take a TECEP exam, study for a few hours, and pass it, and it's not because I couldn't do it - it's because I wouldn't even know where to begin. I also don’t think I could pass a UExcel without any practice materials because I wouldn’t know where to begin. I also don’t want to be bothered having to read through a dense, dry, and lengthy tome of a textbook when I can read 20 pages of notes, take a practice exam or two, see what students have thought of the exam particularly recently, and sees where things are. If TECEP had that then great. I really don’t think that’s unreasonable a claim, for many, if not most students in a similar position.

The price difference adds up the more tests you take. You also have to factor in gas and time of travel (remember when you said time is money?). I live 30 min. away from the nearest Pearson test center. I'd rather save the money on test fees and gas by taking a TECEP at home.

I’d gladly spend $34 extra for the ability to not read a 500 – 1000 page textbook where the test questions could come from any page, of any chapter, etc. It’s not efficient.

Online degree programs have been around for over 20 years. They became very accessible in the late 90s.

Which is the point I am making. Computer software/technology has made it more accessible – the ability to complete a degree online now has reached more people than it did 20 years ago.

We're not comparing Excelsior to Harvard; we're comparing it to the other two of the Big 3 that don't have "lame names." Where is your proof that PayScale's data is inaccurate? If you take a statistics course, you will learn that self selection bias creates unreliable data.

I’ve taken 3 statistics courses – not just the fluff courses through ALEKS – and I am a data scientist by profession, so I’d like to think I know a thing or two about statistics

I’m not doubting PayScale’s data being inaccurate. I’m saying it’s being misleading because they’re claiming their median incomes are the highest compared to all college graduates, but their typical college student is like 40 years old and already has a career whereas the 22 year doesn’t. They’re not comparing apples with apples, they’re comparing apples with oranges – and it’s misleading.

Like I’ve mentioned, “Payscale’s report shows, “Among college graduates nationwide,Excelsior College earned the top overall ranking when it comes to the highest median salary for those with a bachelor’s degree in liberal arts – $79,000 by mid-career (an increase from a median starting pay of $47,000).” Like you said the typical Excelsior College graduate tends to be mid-career and probably in their 30s or 40s and that’s why their median salary is already higher. It would be unfair to compare a liberal arts degree from Harvard (for the sake of exaggeration/argument) with one from Excelsior, where one individual is 22 and the other say 45.”

Also, take any statistic that tells you a starting salary for an average college graduate is $47,000 with a grain of salt. That is negatively skewed because of higher earning degrees like chemical engineering, nursing, CS, people from top schools workin on Wall Street, etc. etc. See http://www.payscale.com/college-salary-r...y-you-back The more important statistic to look at is median & more importantly look at the rate of return with a non-technical liberal arts degree. If anyone thinks they're going to get paid $47,000 out of college for a liberal arts degree without any technical proficiency or solid networking oportunities, then they are only deluding themselves. In the 80s and 90s? Sure absolutely. But not over the last 15 years or so. It's simple supply and demand, and the watering down of degrees so that anyone even those who are not really qualified can get a degree.

Why would you do that when there are easy DSSTs to take instead? Human Resources, MIS, and Organizational Behavior are generally not viewed as being difficult. What you forgot are some of the fees at COSC.

The degree program has you take DSST MIS, but gives an alternative if you don’t want to take it. More importantly, DSST Organizational Behavior doesn’t count as upper level through COSC, and DSST Human Resource Management is a lower level. I don’t believe I have forgotten any other fees other than the graduation fee which I have adjusted in the wiki and original post.

Your plan can't be properly critiqued because it's not very well organized. You're missing a couple of fees, but it's difficult to tell if you're missing anything else. None of Straighterline's courses are upper level at COSC. Would you only replace lower level Penn Foster courses? Seven of Straighterline's courses are upper level at TESC.

There was only one fee missing – the graduation fee. The fees you’re thinking of (technology fee, student activities fee, etc) have all been incorporated in the price for each course. I think it’s pretty clear to follow – the actual degree plan is not that complicated and was originally burbuja0512’s idea to begin with.