Is it possible to graduate in 3 years if you accumulate enough AP credits (at the schools that accept them)?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, Chicago is of course known for its very serious education.

I think the "AP = college credit" approach is wrongheaded and a missed opportunity. It shouldn't be seen as a means to get the degree faster. Instead they can just skip some survey courses and take more advanced classes. AP is mostly stuff that a good secondary school system would teach anyway. You can't get AP to get advanced standing at Yale, Columbia, Chicago etc. because the gen ed courses are more rigorous than AP courses.

My kid’s Ivy does not take AP credits. My kid had all 5s- but no credit. They want kids to take the course at she school.

Good they're basically high school or community college classes.

Anonymous wrote:Yes, Chicago is of course known for its very serious education.

I think the "AP = college credit" approach is wrongheaded and a missed opportunity. It shouldn't be seen as a means to get the degree faster. Instead they can just skip some survey courses and take more advanced classes. AP is mostly stuff that a good secondary school system would teach anyway. You can't get AP to get advanced standing at Yale, Columbia, Chicago etc. because the gen ed courses are more rigorous than AP courses.

My kid’s Ivy does not take AP credits. My kid had all 5s- but no credit. They want kids to take the course at she school.

Anonymous wrote:Yes, Chicago is of course known for its very serious education.

I think the "AP = college credit" approach is wrongheaded and a missed opportunity. It shouldn't be seen as a means to get the degree faster. Instead they can just skip some survey courses and take more advanced classes. AP is mostly stuff that a good secondary school system would teach anyway. You can't get AP to get advanced standing at Yale, Columbia, Chicago etc. because the gen ed courses are more rigorous than AP courses.

yes yes yes. Students should make use of their 4 years to get to the most advanced courses they can take, depth and breadth. Ivies Chicago and the like are structured to be 4-years for this reason. More and more, internships care about coursework completed. Jobs definitely do. Grad school cares a lot, as does med school! AMCAS lists minimum required courses as well as suggested courses, in a table by med school. The top med schools expect premeds to take all suggested upper levels and more! Course rigor plus research with faculty is how one stands out among a sea of 3.9/515+ students all gunning for the top 20 med schools which have the widest variety of subspecialty exposure and the most cutting edge treatments.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not talking about elite institutions like Yale or Columbia where the breadth requirements are part of a curated humanistic curriculum.

But it seems at say, UMCP or Penn State, a lot of time is spent on these requirements, more than a third of the degree in the arts and sciences. I can see the merit, but in practice it seems to lean to a lot of undisciplined and unfocused learning. In a lot of ways it's like high school again - take your English, take your math, take your foreign language, take your gym etc. In fact the gen-ed requirements are often more extensive than the major to which students are only devoting about 30% of the degree to.

Maybe this is why in a lot of countries the bachelor's degree is 3 years because gen-ed is mainly an American thing.

Many kids can't write so classes with writing are good education.

In other words, remedial education. Why isn't this learned in high school?

Lucy Calkins and her "Writers Workshop" crap. Her "Readers Workshop" is why John and Jane do not read well.

The whole "workshop" approach to teaching -- common in elementary schools across the country until recently - is pedagogically unsound. Most students are unable to learn effectively with that approach.

Yes, Chicago is of course known for its very serious education.

I think the "AP = college credit" approach is wrongheaded and a missed opportunity. It shouldn't be seen as a means to get the degree faster. Instead they can just skip some survey courses and take more advanced classes. AP is mostly stuff that a good secondary school system would teach anyway. You can't get AP to get advanced standing at Yale, Columbia, Chicago etc. because the gen ed courses are more rigorous than AP courses.

I graduated from a flagship with an Economics degree. The college courses were appropriately more difficult than my high school classes. I enjoyed the variety of the distribution requirements. I had several professors that took an interest in me and I took my first upper division elective in the 2nd semester of my freshman year.

This was before AP was so popularized. So I didn't have economics in high school. I'd say the only class that really overlapped were parts of the Bio 101/102 sequence.

The health class I took was "Drugs, Self, and Society". It didn't bother me to spend half a credit on that...and with all the excessive partying going on around me, I actually found it kind of relevant. And the half credit class I took was jazz dance and it was a nice break from regular school. Those were on top of a regular courseload...so free in a way.

I thought the point of the APs was that they substitute directly for gen eds if you do well enough. So what's the real complaint about duplicating high school? There's a huge variety of classes you can take that are not available at the high school level.

My kid is at a flagship now. His class choices are really interesting. They make me want to go back to college. He has been able to use his 15 AP/IB credits to give himself more freedom.

Usually you can take more than the minimum credits to graduate with a major. There should be room.

I understand the distribution requirements could be a cost issue. But I think they were effective from a learning enrichment standpoint.

Anonymous wrote:Coming out of high school, I mostly looked at colleges with strong general education programs. I wanted a well rounded education at a higher level, not just courses in my major, and I wanted to surround myself with people who wanted the same thing.

I ended up at Chicago where my experience was definitely not high school 2.0. It was focused and disciplined, and it contributed a lot to the way that college formed who I am. I've got a college friend I see once a week, and we end up mentioning someone we read as part of the core pretty often.

A well implemented program can offer a lot, but a lot of places don't have that.

Fair, Chicago is an elite school with a rigorous education. We have one kid at a similarly ranked top private. The other is at a large public ranked in the top 60. Most intro classes, ie the ones that could count toward gen ed requirements, were easier than his private high school by a mile. Multiple choice tests, easy grading, rote memorization of the homework, no challenge or analysis problems. His high school was harder, truly. The other kid got much better grades in the same top curriculum in high school and ended at an elite akin to how you describe Chicago: the distribution requirements and/or intro courses were very difficult, nothing at all like High school 2.0.
DCUM acts like all colleges are the same. They are not. Parents need to talk to people who have experienced above average versus elite. The difference is vast.

Coming out of high school, I mostly looked at colleges with strong general education programs. I wanted a well rounded education at a higher level, not just courses in my major, and I wanted to surround myself with people who wanted the same thing.

I ended up at Chicago where my experience was definitely not high school 2.0. It was focused and disciplined, and it contributed a lot to the way that college formed who I am. I've got a college friend I see once a week, and we end up mentioning someone we read as part of the core pretty often.

A well implemented program can offer a lot, but a lot of places don't have that.

Also, W&M absolutely accepts AP scores.

Anonymous wrote:The way the elite schools do it is best: they have requirements for classes across disciplines, but they can be taken anytime in the 4 yrs, they are typically seminar style that dive deep into an area, many times there are upper level courses that count toward it. They are much harder than AP across the board, as are 90% of courses at top schools, which is why no AP credit is given for most APs at these schools (AP or testing is used for placing into higher levels of calculus and sometimes sciences and foreign language).
The students do not have to complete them before starting courses toward their major(s) or concentration. Ivies, Hopkins, stanford, top SLACs, William and Mary, Wake, Duke, WashU and dozens more do it this way.
Only the large publics have it such that the first 2 yrs are predominantly gen-ed and there is high overlap with AP.

What? The "large publics" I'm familiar with have exactly what you just described. At Virginia Tech, for example, students have all four years to complete their gen ed requirements. They take them alongside courses for their major. Maybe you should research a bit more before making sweeping statements?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not talking about elite institutions like Yale or Columbia where the breadth requirements are part of a curated humanistic curriculum.

But it seems at say, UMCP or Penn State, a lot of time is spent on these requirements, more than a third of the degree in the arts and sciences. I can see the merit, but in practice it seems to lean to a lot of undisciplined and unfocused learning. In a lot of ways it's like high school again - take your English, take your math, take your foreign language, take your gym etc. In fact the gen-ed requirements are often more extensive than the major to which students are only devoting about 30% of the degree to.

Maybe this is why in a lot of countries the bachelor's degree is 3 years because gen-ed is mainly an American thing.

Many kids can't write so classes with writing are good education.

In other words, remedial education. Why isn't this learned in high school?

The way the elite schools do it is best: they have requirements for classes across disciplines, but they can be taken anytime in the 4 yrs, they are typically seminar style that dive deep into an area, many times there are upper level courses that count toward it. They are much harder than AP across the board, as are 90% of courses at top schools, which is why no AP credit is given for most APs at these schools (AP or testing is used for placing into higher levels of calculus and sometimes sciences and foreign language).
The students do not have to complete them before starting courses toward their major(s) or concentration. Ivies, Hopkins, stanford, top SLACs, William and Mary, Wake, Duke, WashU and dozens more do it this way.
Only the large publics have it such that the first 2 yrs are predominantly gen-ed and there is high overlap with AP.

Anonymous wrote:I'm not talking about elite institutions like Yale or Columbia where the breadth requirements are part of a curated humanistic curriculum.

But it seems at say, UMCP or Penn State, a lot of time is spent on these requirements, more than a third of the degree in the arts and sciences. I can see the merit, but in practice it seems to lean to a lot of undisciplined and unfocused learning. In a lot of ways it's like high school again - take your English, take your math, take your foreign language, take your gym etc. In fact the gen-ed requirements are often more extensive than the major to which students are only devoting about 30% of the degree to.

Maybe this is why in a lot of countries the bachelor's degree is 3 years because gen-ed is mainly an American thing.

Many kids can't write so classes with writing are good education.

I'm not talking about elite institutions like Yale or Columbia where the breadth requirements are part of a curated humanistic curriculum.

But it seems at say, UMCP or Penn State, a lot of time is spent on these requirements, more than a third of the degree in the arts and sciences. I can see the merit, but in practice it seems to lean to a lot of undisciplined and unfocused learning. In a lot of ways it's like high school again - take your English, take your math, take your foreign language, take your gym etc. In fact the gen-ed requirements are often more extensive than the major to which students are only devoting about 30% of the degree to.

Maybe this is why in a lot of countries the bachelor's degree is 3 years because gen-ed is mainly an American thing.