-For a layperson, sure. For serious credit towards a pre-req, no it's not adequate. (I taught A&P at the college level and facilitated a human cadaver anatomy lab)
We have to keep in mind that most people are layperson's. Then consider that a person on the road to a career in healthcare and taking an A&P course be it at Sophia, at the local college, or in medical school is still a layperson at that point. So, we should expect it to be difficult at that juncture. There is a building process. Nothing wrong with a person being at the beginning of it and taking an A&P course. It wouldn't be fair to dismiss a person because they haven't reached university professorship.
-They really don't, its a handful of schools and when compared to a student with real in person classes...
They truly do. Thousands of schools are much more than a mere handful:
https://www.straighterline.com/colleges
-guess who is going to win?
This isn't a competition though, not unless someone is trying to get into nursing school or medical school or the like, but that wouldn't describe the majority of students using this program.
This is more about general learning in the way a person feels is the best method for them. Personally, I've done both in-person and online education and have degrees from both methods. My grades have been the same and very good with both, but I prefer learning online. It allows me flexibility, and allows me the time to absorb everything at the pace that best suits me. I also absorb way more information this way. I've known people who simply cannot learn online and have to be in a classroom, everyone is not the same, and I totally respect that.
-Source.
"Accepted by 3,000 Colleges. We’ve helped students successfully transfer their StraighterLine credits to over 3,000 colleges and universities beyond our partner network."
https://www.straighterline.com/colleges
-Very few medical oriented programs accept ACE credits from Sophia...
Although we're talking about more than just Sophia in this context, what you're saying there is true, but almost none of the students taking these courses are trying to get into medical programs. Remember, most students are taking these courses to meet the general education requirements of undergraduate degree programs.
-Depends, generally I would agree but if its truly about learning a library card could suffice.
I used to take that same stance often, and I still do for some things. But after all of these years banging around (lol) and graduating from education programs, I've come to realize that there really is a difference between going to a library and grabbing some books for free, versus paying a fee to enroll in a course and having some skin in the game.
Plus, paid courses have a structure and a direction, and even built-in accountability + someone watching your progress, grading your work, and giving feedback. All of that is really what we pay for which goes beyond just grabbing and reading some books.
-Do you even know what radiology school is?
Is that even a serious question? I sure hope not. Remember, you don't actually know my background or it's depth. I don't brag or flaunt it like some others might. But your way of putting that reminds me of another poster who used to write like that. At some point he disappeared. I wonder if you're... well, never mind...
-Are you talking about actual radiology? Rad tech? MRI/CT/US/ECHO techs? None of these classes would suffice for these programs.
I'm talking about exactly what I've already stated.
Pretty much every single subject has an introductory course. You're jumping between understanding that and then bringing up broader scopes or higher levels.
-Learning for what and how?
For knowledge. For preparation for higher levels of learning. To brush up on prior learning (I fit this example exactly), and other reasons.
-The purpose of Sophia is to provide ACE credits for colleges...
Right.
-a "Radiology" class isn't going to fit into any of these heavily specillized allied health fields
You're showing the point I made when I said "You're jumping between understanding... and then bringing up broader scopes or higher levels." We're talking about gen ed requirements for general undergraduate degree programs. It would (and does) fit that level.
-Soooo really no credit purpose then...because it doesnt offer much for a layperson or student clinician in these fields.
We're in total disagreement on that.
-Again, no one is stopping someone from using the library or google.
It's not the same. I spoke on that a bit earlier.
-What is the incentive for Sophia if these classes transfer as nothin other than a 100 level general science course.
You just answered your own question. That's precisely how Sophia/Straighterline/Study.com and so on make money.
-These are all upper level science courses if done right (and require substantial Gen Bio and Micro knowledge)
Level is a suggestion, but ultimately it's up to the receiving institution to determine if they fit as upper or lower. People have found the results on that are mixed.
-Sophia has plenty of general science course already which meet that 100 levle requirement. What is the incentive for more?
That's the same question that could've been asked of Straighterline 15 years ago, but they kept adding more. Why? Because their market research showed that there was a demand for them. To allude to what I said about this on a different page, as consumers, we can only ask. In the end, it's up to the institutions to research and determine if a course is viable for their business model. No harm is done by voicing an interest in seeing certain courses, since that is, after all, the point of the thread.
-I have taken some of these courses (when I had some time left on my subscription) and have taught them at the college level, no they don't. I dont really think you have the authority to make this as a declarative statement. I have written articles meant for the laypublic, it doesn't matter than a MD gave their input or edited sections.
Well, we disagree again. I'm confident that if a person were to use most or all of the materials given within the courses (videos, texts, challenges, quizzes, exams, flashcards, kits, tutors, labs) that they would certainly learn a substantial and useful amount, particularly if that person did not have prior knowledge of the subject. Do most of the students go through all of those materials? Maybe not, but that goes back to the point I made before. You get what you put into it. And again I point out that you don't know my background so what you think about my "authority" on this is entirely not relevant to the discussion. The real issue here is that you present in this way:
"I know it all, you all know nothing, I'm smarter than you, and that's that."
People who are collectively more qualified and with far more experience in education than anyone here have already made a determination and put their stamp on it to count for college credit, so we're really debating a closed case.
Maybe you just know more than most in your field about these things, and if that's somehow the case, that's great, but I can't confirm that. I can confirm that the subject matter experts behind these courses, and the course evaluating organizations who have their own subject matter experts to evaluate these courses have deemed them suitable for college credit. I'm going to go with what is known over what is not.
-The purpose of Sophia is to provide useable college credits, libraries are free.
I addressed this earlier.
-No, most schools do not recognize classes like A&P as replacements (nor would they recognize the vast majority of classes you suggested) for in-person prereqs, that isnt true. You are conflating ALL of Sophia which is not the purpose of my post. That's disingenuous.
I'm definitely not doing anything "disingenuously." That's ridiculous. And you're making your own conflation between what these courses are, and in-person prereqs. Many schools absolutely do recognize them for transfer, a few for prereqs, most for general education in various degree majors. If that were not the case, these courses wouldn't have been made available for as long as they have been at these types of programs. These didn't just pop up over night.
Further, the critical point you're missing is that schools accept courses based on circumstance. If I need science prereqs for, say, a degree in Business Administration, a school is more likely to accept these for that degree program. But if down the road I decide to come back and try to get into nursing school or medical school or some other health field, that same school is likely to tell me that my science courses will not apply to those programs. That is a standard scenario that I think most here understand.
-What is the purpose of Sophia again?
For people to learn at the college level, more efficiently, more affordably, and transfer the credits.
-Same titles means literally nothing.
That's not the point that was made...
-That's the problem, its deceptive.
I disagree.
-They don't even qualify as pre-reqs (and they shouldn't).
Oh, but they have. You keep saying they don't, when they already have (you actually acknowledged that earlier). That's an odd.
-Sure, new knowledge is great but what's the purpose of Sophia again?
See my previous answer to that same question.
-You are conflating again, not all credit sources are the same.
I'm not conflating anything there, but you definitely are. I've simply stated the fact that these courses have been made available online at various programs. You're conflating what I said with the idea that "all credit sources are the same." That's not what I said at all, nor did what I say imply it.
-Sophia is a FAR cry from places like UNE.
That's great to hear. We should expect an institutionally accredited university teaching upper division courses and charging nearly $1500 per course to be better than an institutionally unaccredited school charging as low as $79/month for as many courses as you can take.
Having said that, here is a take from someone who took a course in UNE's program:
https://www.reddit.com/r/UNE_Prehealth/c...appointing
Wow. Not good.
-Most online science classes are still not accepted by most schools, and those that do accpet them almost always require them to be RA source not ACE suggestions.
I'm not disagreeing with that.
-There is no skin in the game on Sophia, let's be real.
Disagree. Paying for a course and having to pass is an undeniable example of skin in the game. Of course, it's not the same as having to pass a USMLE, lol, so one can disagree with the level of it, but it doesn't change the fact that paying and needing to pass changes the dynamic.
-Almost 0 stress
Depends on the student.
-no proctoring.
Most online programs don't have proctors.
-Almost no cheat controls.
That's online learning. But some studies have shown that while a significant number of people cheat, most people still don't. Cheaters cheat. They'll find a way to do it offline and they'll do it online no matter what controls are put in place.
-Also, I have found better medical information sources on YT than any of the Sophia science classes so far.
YouTube is great. As a platform, it can draw from a level of sources that no university on earth can pull off, so I wouldn't think it fair to make that a knock on Sophia. Sophia is a tiny operation compared to that and most other schools.
-There are quality channels like Ninja Nerd who produce better content than Sophia by a mile.
I'll have to check that out.
-If you looked at the syllabus, you'd notice that it is Red Cross-affiliated not AHA. That makes it essentially useless for healthcare folks. For people doing it for funsies? Sure, go ahead....or just take the real course....
I have looked and that's quite a statement, because literally every hospital in my area accepts Red Cross training. Heck, they promote it. Moreover, if you check Indeed, you will see that at this very moment more than 40,000 jobs list it as acceptable.
I'm not here to debate the quality of Red Cross vs AHA and have no desire to. But it just stands to reason by sheer numbers alone that not everyone shares your position on this.
Besides all of that, to reiterate, a person must complete a separate hands-on program in order to get credit for the course. Knowing that, nothing would stop a person from getting it from an AHA program since one is not required to get it through the Red Cross.
-You aren't going to sway me on this, its my job and has been for 15+ years.
I have no interest in swaying you on anything. This is just a discussion about online education of which I will always defend.
-Given this board's purpose, there is an unhealthy bias to greenlight literally everything that bypasses the traditional route.
Let's say that's 100% true. You seem to have a bias against things that bypass traditional education, but you participate on a forum that is literally devoted to it.
-For many gen eds I think Sophia serves a purpose, for these sorts of subjects (especially many that act as cut courses for schools like A&P)....absolutely not.
Regardless, in the end, each school will decide what they will or won't take. So no matter what is said here, the schools get the final say.
We have to keep in mind that most people are layperson's. Then consider that a person on the road to a career in healthcare and taking an A&P course be it at Sophia, at the local college, or in medical school is still a layperson at that point. So, we should expect it to be difficult at that juncture. There is a building process. Nothing wrong with a person being at the beginning of it and taking an A&P course. It wouldn't be fair to dismiss a person because they haven't reached university professorship.
-They really don't, its a handful of schools and when compared to a student with real in person classes...
They truly do. Thousands of schools are much more than a mere handful:
https://www.straighterline.com/colleges
-guess who is going to win?
This isn't a competition though, not unless someone is trying to get into nursing school or medical school or the like, but that wouldn't describe the majority of students using this program.
This is more about general learning in the way a person feels is the best method for them. Personally, I've done both in-person and online education and have degrees from both methods. My grades have been the same and very good with both, but I prefer learning online. It allows me flexibility, and allows me the time to absorb everything at the pace that best suits me. I also absorb way more information this way. I've known people who simply cannot learn online and have to be in a classroom, everyone is not the same, and I totally respect that.
-Source.
"Accepted by 3,000 Colleges. We’ve helped students successfully transfer their StraighterLine credits to over 3,000 colleges and universities beyond our partner network."
https://www.straighterline.com/colleges
-Very few medical oriented programs accept ACE credits from Sophia...
Although we're talking about more than just Sophia in this context, what you're saying there is true, but almost none of the students taking these courses are trying to get into medical programs. Remember, most students are taking these courses to meet the general education requirements of undergraduate degree programs.
-Depends, generally I would agree but if its truly about learning a library card could suffice.
I used to take that same stance often, and I still do for some things. But after all of these years banging around (lol) and graduating from education programs, I've come to realize that there really is a difference between going to a library and grabbing some books for free, versus paying a fee to enroll in a course and having some skin in the game.
Plus, paid courses have a structure and a direction, and even built-in accountability + someone watching your progress, grading your work, and giving feedback. All of that is really what we pay for which goes beyond just grabbing and reading some books.
-Do you even know what radiology school is?
Is that even a serious question? I sure hope not. Remember, you don't actually know my background or it's depth. I don't brag or flaunt it like some others might. But your way of putting that reminds me of another poster who used to write like that. At some point he disappeared. I wonder if you're... well, never mind...
-Are you talking about actual radiology? Rad tech? MRI/CT/US/ECHO techs? None of these classes would suffice for these programs.
I'm talking about exactly what I've already stated.
Pretty much every single subject has an introductory course. You're jumping between understanding that and then bringing up broader scopes or higher levels.
-Learning for what and how?
For knowledge. For preparation for higher levels of learning. To brush up on prior learning (I fit this example exactly), and other reasons.
-The purpose of Sophia is to provide ACE credits for colleges...
Right.
-a "Radiology" class isn't going to fit into any of these heavily specillized allied health fields
You're showing the point I made when I said "You're jumping between understanding... and then bringing up broader scopes or higher levels." We're talking about gen ed requirements for general undergraduate degree programs. It would (and does) fit that level.
-Soooo really no credit purpose then...because it doesnt offer much for a layperson or student clinician in these fields.
We're in total disagreement on that.
-Again, no one is stopping someone from using the library or google.
It's not the same. I spoke on that a bit earlier.
-What is the incentive for Sophia if these classes transfer as nothin other than a 100 level general science course.
You just answered your own question. That's precisely how Sophia/Straighterline/Study.com and so on make money.
-These are all upper level science courses if done right (and require substantial Gen Bio and Micro knowledge)
Level is a suggestion, but ultimately it's up to the receiving institution to determine if they fit as upper or lower. People have found the results on that are mixed.
-Sophia has plenty of general science course already which meet that 100 levle requirement. What is the incentive for more?
That's the same question that could've been asked of Straighterline 15 years ago, but they kept adding more. Why? Because their market research showed that there was a demand for them. To allude to what I said about this on a different page, as consumers, we can only ask. In the end, it's up to the institutions to research and determine if a course is viable for their business model. No harm is done by voicing an interest in seeing certain courses, since that is, after all, the point of the thread.
-I have taken some of these courses (when I had some time left on my subscription) and have taught them at the college level, no they don't. I dont really think you have the authority to make this as a declarative statement. I have written articles meant for the laypublic, it doesn't matter than a MD gave their input or edited sections.
Well, we disagree again. I'm confident that if a person were to use most or all of the materials given within the courses (videos, texts, challenges, quizzes, exams, flashcards, kits, tutors, labs) that they would certainly learn a substantial and useful amount, particularly if that person did not have prior knowledge of the subject. Do most of the students go through all of those materials? Maybe not, but that goes back to the point I made before. You get what you put into it. And again I point out that you don't know my background so what you think about my "authority" on this is entirely not relevant to the discussion. The real issue here is that you present in this way:
"I know it all, you all know nothing, I'm smarter than you, and that's that."
People who are collectively more qualified and with far more experience in education than anyone here have already made a determination and put their stamp on it to count for college credit, so we're really debating a closed case.
Maybe you just know more than most in your field about these things, and if that's somehow the case, that's great, but I can't confirm that. I can confirm that the subject matter experts behind these courses, and the course evaluating organizations who have their own subject matter experts to evaluate these courses have deemed them suitable for college credit. I'm going to go with what is known over what is not.
-The purpose of Sophia is to provide useable college credits, libraries are free.
I addressed this earlier.
-No, most schools do not recognize classes like A&P as replacements (nor would they recognize the vast majority of classes you suggested) for in-person prereqs, that isnt true. You are conflating ALL of Sophia which is not the purpose of my post. That's disingenuous.
I'm definitely not doing anything "disingenuously." That's ridiculous. And you're making your own conflation between what these courses are, and in-person prereqs. Many schools absolutely do recognize them for transfer, a few for prereqs, most for general education in various degree majors. If that were not the case, these courses wouldn't have been made available for as long as they have been at these types of programs. These didn't just pop up over night.
Further, the critical point you're missing is that schools accept courses based on circumstance. If I need science prereqs for, say, a degree in Business Administration, a school is more likely to accept these for that degree program. But if down the road I decide to come back and try to get into nursing school or medical school or some other health field, that same school is likely to tell me that my science courses will not apply to those programs. That is a standard scenario that I think most here understand.
-What is the purpose of Sophia again?
For people to learn at the college level, more efficiently, more affordably, and transfer the credits.
-Same titles means literally nothing.
That's not the point that was made...
-That's the problem, its deceptive.
I disagree.
-They don't even qualify as pre-reqs (and they shouldn't).
Oh, but they have. You keep saying they don't, when they already have (you actually acknowledged that earlier). That's an odd.
-Sure, new knowledge is great but what's the purpose of Sophia again?
See my previous answer to that same question.
-You are conflating again, not all credit sources are the same.
I'm not conflating anything there, but you definitely are. I've simply stated the fact that these courses have been made available online at various programs. You're conflating what I said with the idea that "all credit sources are the same." That's not what I said at all, nor did what I say imply it.
-Sophia is a FAR cry from places like UNE.
That's great to hear. We should expect an institutionally accredited university teaching upper division courses and charging nearly $1500 per course to be better than an institutionally unaccredited school charging as low as $79/month for as many courses as you can take.
Having said that, here is a take from someone who took a course in UNE's program:
https://www.reddit.com/r/UNE_Prehealth/c...appointing
Wow. Not good.
-Most online science classes are still not accepted by most schools, and those that do accpet them almost always require them to be RA source not ACE suggestions.
I'm not disagreeing with that.
-There is no skin in the game on Sophia, let's be real.
Disagree. Paying for a course and having to pass is an undeniable example of skin in the game. Of course, it's not the same as having to pass a USMLE, lol, so one can disagree with the level of it, but it doesn't change the fact that paying and needing to pass changes the dynamic.
-Almost 0 stress
Depends on the student.
-no proctoring.
Most online programs don't have proctors.
-Almost no cheat controls.
That's online learning. But some studies have shown that while a significant number of people cheat, most people still don't. Cheaters cheat. They'll find a way to do it offline and they'll do it online no matter what controls are put in place.
-Also, I have found better medical information sources on YT than any of the Sophia science classes so far.
YouTube is great. As a platform, it can draw from a level of sources that no university on earth can pull off, so I wouldn't think it fair to make that a knock on Sophia. Sophia is a tiny operation compared to that and most other schools.
-There are quality channels like Ninja Nerd who produce better content than Sophia by a mile.
I'll have to check that out.
-If you looked at the syllabus, you'd notice that it is Red Cross-affiliated not AHA. That makes it essentially useless for healthcare folks. For people doing it for funsies? Sure, go ahead....or just take the real course....
I have looked and that's quite a statement, because literally every hospital in my area accepts Red Cross training. Heck, they promote it. Moreover, if you check Indeed, you will see that at this very moment more than 40,000 jobs list it as acceptable.
I'm not here to debate the quality of Red Cross vs AHA and have no desire to. But it just stands to reason by sheer numbers alone that not everyone shares your position on this.
Besides all of that, to reiterate, a person must complete a separate hands-on program in order to get credit for the course. Knowing that, nothing would stop a person from getting it from an AHA program since one is not required to get it through the Red Cross.
-You aren't going to sway me on this, its my job and has been for 15+ years.
I have no interest in swaying you on anything. This is just a discussion about online education of which I will always defend.
-Given this board's purpose, there is an unhealthy bias to greenlight literally everything that bypasses the traditional route.
Let's say that's 100% true. You seem to have a bias against things that bypass traditional education, but you participate on a forum that is literally devoted to it.
-For many gen eds I think Sophia serves a purpose, for these sorts of subjects (especially many that act as cut courses for schools like A&P)....absolutely not.
Regardless, in the end, each school will decide what they will or won't take. So no matter what is said here, the schools get the final say.
![[-]](https://www.degreeforum.net/mybb/images/collapse.png)
