People should be able to earn credit toward college degrees by taking standard tests

College Confidential Community
1

<p>ParaPundit:</a> Walter Russell Mead For Standard National Tests</p>

<p>Something I've long supported, put in words far better than anything I could say.</p>

<p>There's the traditional argument that "well, what about meeting new people?" Yet, you can meet all sorts of new people over the Internet (especially on online intellectual forums) - people of all ages. Moreover, this is where you can have disucssions that can last for months, rather than over the course of a single course period.</p>

<p>some more discussion:
The</a> Audacious Epigone: Parapundit on online education</p>

2

<p>That's a stupid idea. The workload, stress, collaborative learning and other numerous factors you experience at college are part and parcel of the education experience. A "national standardized test" just wouldn't be the same - and requiring graduate schools to accept it would be absurd.</p>

3

<p>I have no problem with limited testing to replace some college classes; in a way, we already have that with AP tests. The problem with this guy's idea lies in standardizing entire degrees. If everyone (or at least a large percentage of people) learns from the same taped lecture and takes the same test, society will start to limit the number of 'lenses' through which it comprehends issues. The result is homogenized thinking which, obviously, is socially dangerous, not to mention inefficient. When everybody thinks about things the same way, we lose innovation. Society loses.</p>

4

<p>
[quote]

There's the traditional argument that "well, what about meeting new people?" Yet, you can meet all sorts of new people over the Internet (especially on online intellectual forums) - people of all ages. Moreover, this is where you can have disucssions that can last for months, rather than over the course of a single course period.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No offense, but you really need to get out more. I guarantee you would be happier if you had more real life friends.</p>

5

<p>Such tests would have to cater to the lowest common denominator of state universities, otherwise there'd be an outcry since there'd exist some colleges whose students were considered "unworthy" of a college degree. How would students react if they paid tens of thousands of dollars for a degree from a mediocre state school, then took the national test and were considered "unqualified" for the degree? How would that reflect on the universities and their reputations?</p>

<p>And of course once people started lowering the bar on the tests, industry would never consider them equivalent to a "real" college degree...</p>

6

<p>


</p>

<p>It took you this long to notice? I've been thinking that ever since I read this guy's first post.</p>

7

<p>
[quote]
That's a stupid idea. The workload, stress, collaborative learning and other numerous factors you experience at college are part and parcel of the education experience. A "national standardized test" just wouldn't be the same - and requiring graduate schools to accept it would be absurd.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Just the "normal educational experience" in 21st century America, which really wasn't necessarily the "normal educational experience" for many centuries, even for the very top people. If the person learns the material, he learns the material. Any USAMO qualifier is going to be good, irrespective of how the hell he learned the material. Moreover, there is no "standard college experience". People pursue learning the material in different ways. Some people skip all of their classes entirely, some people work totally alone, and it's all for the same end: to demonstrate mastery on tests designed by individual professors just for the credentials to prove that the person has the knowhow to perform well in a particular professional role. </p>

<p>Ultimately, there is really only one purpose for the degree: to get a job. And if the organization finds ways to measure "talent" outside of college degrees, and if such ways of measuring talent are able to tap into a deeper talent pool than other means of measuring such "talent", then it is conducive for the organization to pursue such a route. </p>

<p>
[quote]
The problem with this guy's idea lies in standardizing entire degrees. If everyone (or at least a large percentage of people) learns from the same taped lecture and takes the same test, society will start to limit the number of 'lenses' through which it comprehends issues. The result is homogenized thinking which, obviously, is socially dangerous, not to mention inefficient. When everybody thinks about things the same way, we lose innovation. Society loses.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It's not necessarily degrees inasmuch as it is standardizing "knowledge" by means of tests. And the corporations that hire workers are going to base their hiring practices on what produces the MOST number of CAPABLE people for the profession, IRRESPECTIVE of where the people come from. If an abnormally high number of talented students choose the alternative route, and have a means to show that they are successful in the workforce, then the workforce does not have to demand that students go through a college to get a degree. Rather, it only needs to demand standardized tests AT A PARTICULAR level. It may not accept standardized tests AT ALL levels. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Such tests would have to cater to the lowest common denominator of state universities, otherwise there'd be an outcry since there'd exist some colleges whose students were considered "unworthy" of a college degree. How would students react if they paid tens of thousands of dollars for a degree from a mediocre state school, then took the national test and were considered "unqualified" for the degree? How would that reflect on the universities and their reputations?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>From the blogpost:
"The College Board already offers advanced placement tests. Either that organization or colleges could administer a more extensive set of standard tests. Absolute national uniformity would not be necessary. After all, every college now has its own tests that vary from class to class from one year to the next. Groups of colleges could offer different sets of standard tests."</p>

<p>=> He does not say that there must be a SINGLE set of standard tests. Rather, he says that there can be MULTIPLE standard tests. Professional organizations, moreover, can create their own standardized tests for their own clients (just like the American Chemistry Society creates the USACO tests, which are more difficult than the tests the collegeboard creates, or like the AMS creates the AIME and USAMO tests). The same society can create multiple levels of tests. It is up to the corporation/organization that SELECTS people to select which tests are legitimate and which tests are not legitimate (it is able to do this by statistical correlations).</p>

<p>If professors are capable of creating subject-based tests on MULTIPLE LEVELS, then organizations like the AMS or ACS can also create subject-based tests on MULTIPLE LEVELS (which they already do, but only on the high school level). </p>

<p>It's a way to increase the professional talent pool that can be tapped into (so that it doesn't have to be restricted to people who have parents willing to pay for their college expenses).</p>

8

<p>
[quote]
Professional organizations, moreover, can create their own standardized tests for their own clients

[/quote]
</p>

<p>They already do. See "MCATs."
They merely do not play as central a role as you want them to. (Perhaps for good reason.)</p>

9

<p>Also from the blog...
"Standardized tests would provide better measures of knowledge and skills acquired. Also, tests for levels of knowledge at finer levels of granularity than an entire bachelors degree in a subject would allow demonstration that a person has acquired any number of combinations of skills which might be needed in different jobs."</p>

<p>It is precisely this very granularity that allows such a service to be flexible. </p>

<p>commenting again on... (the first response should have been directed towards the second paragraph)</p>

<p>
[quote]
Such tests would have to cater to the lowest common denominator of state universities, otherwise there'd be an outcry since there'd exist some colleges whose students were considered "unworthy" of a college degree. How would students react if they paid tens of thousands of dollars for a degree from a mediocre state school, then took the national test and were considered "unqualified" for the degree? How would that reflect on the universities and their reputations?

[/quote]
</p>

<h1>Well, first of all, industries would have a mix of hiring practices, as they still have to establish correlations between "indicators of success in industry" and with "GPA or test score in particular field". After that period of time is over, the universities should know how well their students compare with the independent-studying students. And as for students who pay thousands of dollars who gain nothing - well - if students went through 4 years of college and really had nothing to show for it in terms of the tests they took - then such students really aren't so qualified for future professions that demand such tests. (similarly, that's why colleges ONLY accept AP tests for placement - or they accept their own tests). But really, it's quite possible to review and to self-study the material for such tests (just like one reviews for an AP), so most students who learn the material should make the cut.</h1>

<p>
[quote]
They already do. See "MCATs."
They merely do not play as central a role as you want them to. (Perhaps for good reason.)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The MCATs are reasoning-based tests, not subject-based tests (they test subject-based reasoning, much like the ACT does).</p>

10

<p>addition to response above

[quote]
The problem with this guy's idea lies in standardizing entire degrees. If everyone (or at least a large percentage of people) learns from the same taped lecture and takes the same test, society will start to limit the number of 'lenses' through which it comprehends issues. The result is homogenized thinking which, obviously, is socially dangerous, not to mention inefficient. When everybody thinks about things the same way, we lose innovation. Society loses.

[/quote]

there can be a variety of taped lectures on each particular course that one can choose between - the logistics of which are not difficult as there are already thousands of lectures on the same material made by different professors all over the country.</p>

<p>already there are a diversity of self-study guides for particular tests by the collegeboard, so there's no reason not to think that this won't apply for college tests.</p>

<p>there are possible problems with forcing people to take non-applicable general electives (like humanities courses) though (if one desires that everyone must go through such courses as a requirement), as it's entirely possible that corporations/industries/hiring agencies do not care whether people go through such courses or not.</p>

<p>there are also possible problems with the omission of homework, labs, and essays. (and the disincentives that personal interaction could provide to potential cheaters). While essays can be sent to an external grader (this also reduces bias), the lack of personal interaction could promote cheating (this is an unsubstantiated hypothesis, although it makes sense). In the case of labs, it could be an obligation that must still go through the university. In the end though, it's only correlations that matter, and if correlations between academic performance and job performance persist even when subject tests are the sole means of consideration, then corporations and industries have incentive to hire people who have gone the "alternative route" (since there are untapped talent reserves - 50% of people don't even go to college, and in that 50% are a number of very smart people). But they need means of selection for people who have gone the alternative route (some corporations have already developed some means - frex, IT certification). of course recommendations would then come from work experience in this case.</p>

11

<p>==> but really, it's just an alternative route that some employers/universities may initially take with skepticism. So there is a risk in such a route (especially for the first students who take such a route, but there will probably be many such students, considering how many already struggle with their college expenses). However, results on such tests can be shown as indicators of knowledge that may improve a student's desirability to, say, a professor the student can work with (who the student can then solicit a recommendation from), or (in the case of businesses/internships), to business/internship opportunities, through which the student can find alternate means to demonstrate desirability. </p>

<p>for example, transfer admissions to caltech are largely determined by the caltech entrance exam. one of the surprising results (this may not be causative, but it's still interesting) is that community college students have higher acceptance rates than 4-year public university students. For community college students, it's 10%, which is not THAT far short from the 17% acceptance rate of caltech</p>

<p>While such a method cannot completely supplant traditional education for ALL students (and may initially put such students at some disadvantage, but not at a total one), it provides a viable route for the thousands of students who cannot otherwise afford the thousands of dollars they need to pay for education</p>

12

<p>What about all those people who are actually pretty smart, yet test extremely badly... and those who simply crumble any stressful situation? They're completely fit for the workplace (for the most part), but their tests would not indicate that. Also, what about lazy bastards like me who are completely <em>unfit</em> for work, yet score very well, because they're amazing test takers?</p>

<p>Also, everyone can afford a college education. Both my brothers go to college on their own dime (one with no scholarships). One goes to a CC, one goes to U of IA.</p>

<p>Further, these tests already exist to an extent, and they don't really work. For example, my dad keeps trying to get new jobs and needs to take a standardized test every time to determine his qualification for the job. He runs out of time every time.... The workplace doesn't quite have the same time restraints.</p>

13

<p>
[quote]
What about all those people who are actually pretty smart, yet test extremely badly... and those who simply crumble any stressful situation? They're completely fit for the workplace (for the most part), but their tests would not indicate that. Also, what about lazy bastards like me who are completely <em>unfit</em> for work, yet score very well, because they're amazing test takers?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Like I said, they can have alternative options for demonstrating their ability. I did not argue for complete abolition of the original system, rather, for the existence of another system on top of that. These tests already are used. If you suck at tests, you won't get a high GPA - precisely because so many courses are based on such tests. my argument is simple: allow for the existence of tests independently of forcing students to take courses for them.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Also, everyone can afford a college education. Both my brothers go to college on their own dime (one with no scholarships). One goes to a CC, one goes to U of IA.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Not necessarily. Your brothers are not representative of all poor people. moreover, many people have to work in order to afford such an education. It's pretty clear that their work hinders their ability to study as much as others can. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Further, these tests already exist to an extent, and they don't really work. For example, my dad keeps trying to get new jobs and needs to take a standardized test every time to determine his qualification for the job. He runs out of time every time.... The workplace doesn't quite have the same time restraints.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>These tests already are used. If you suck at tests, you won't get a high GPA - precisely because so many courses are based on such tests. my argument is simple: allow for the existence of tests independently of forcing students to take courses for them.</p>