uopeoplestudent

UoPeople requires a high school diploma equivalent and English proficiency. If you meet that, you're golden.

The school uses a process they called "foundations" in which you take basic college-level courses to demonstrate the ability to complete them. If you maintain a decent GPA in those courses, you are granted "degree seeking status." So, essentially, you meet the minimum requirements and then earn your way into the program.

You will not need to submit your previous transcripts when you apply. However, I would recommend submitting them later and transferring any credits your can. No sense in repeating what you've already studied.

Even if you do submit your transcripts when you apply, I seriously doubt it would hurt your chances. The school is very big on "access to higher education," so denying you would run counter to that.

You could also try reapplying to WGU. If you struggled in community college, WGU might not work for you--yet. Then again, UoPeople might not either. If you feel like you've grown since then, developed better study and time management skills, then give either a shot.

Another option is that some universities offer "academic forgiveness."[0] It's basically a way to help students recover from a rough start.

[0] This is an example, but if you search for the term you'll find many schools with similar programs. https://www.tulsacc.edu/student-resources/student-records/ac...

> If you are serious about learning, look elsewhere.

This is unfair though. You can still acquire a decent education through the school. Depending on your goals, it might be better to look elsewhere.

And the faculty can be hit-or-miss. Some are awesome, some of okay. A few are just awful.

Personally, I had an instructor for Java who had difficulty managing different JDKs one a single machine. If I, as a student new to Java, can figure it out, I absolutely expect my instructor to know how to do so. Granted, this particular instructor was a "standout" in the negative sense. Most have been okay.

Fortunately, instructors are mostly inconsequential as there's very little interaction with them.

I already knew what I was getting into when I started because I've been in and around academia for more than 2 decades. However, many of the students don't understand the intricacies of American higher ed. And they can be hard to explain to current and prospective students who just want to know if the degree will help them get a job or obtain some other goal in life.

That said, if I am not mistaken there are rules about to go into place at the US Department of Education which is supposed to eliminate the distinction between national and regional accreditation[0]. This should be fun to watch how it plays out.

[0] https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2020/03/17/pros-and-con...

The proctor requirement can be fulfilled through a professional local to you (librarian, minister, etc.) or through an online service called ProctorU.

If you use a local professional, there is no fee and you are not permitted to pay them. If you use the ProctorU service, you must pay a fee to that service. None of these fees are provided to the school. It's purely a payment to the service.

[0] https://www.uopeople.edu/about/uopeople/essential-uopeople-d...

There are plenty of students around your age range. There are plenty who attend school full-time (2 courses per 8-week term) while also working full-time. Some are also raising families in the process. So, definitely feasible.

If you have more specific questions, I'd be happy to answer them.

Sophia Learning is currently offering their courses for free through July. They are ACE "accredited" (recommend is actually the proper term, I believe). I think they're normally ~$300-350.

There are several of us students doing courses there to transfer in.

Study.com offers many courses in CS and other areas which are ACE recommended. They charge $199 a month and an exam fee. If I recall correctly, you get so many exams in the monthly fee.

AP exams are another option.

DSST offers credit by exams.

And Excelsior College offers credit by exam as well, but I'm not sure of the costs.

> Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email us and we'll look at the data.

Report me, then.

I would prefer a more rigorous program, but for what I pay I accept it for what it is.

And you're right that many of the students struggle with even the basic courses, and there's very little in the way of support for them. Then again, that tends to be the nature of online education in general.

I don't know of any low cost "top tier" bachelor's programs, but I do know the University of Texas Austin and Georgia Tech both offer online master's for ~$10k. As I understand the programs, they're supposed to be more for students who didn't major in CS in their undergrad though.

I actually find some of the coursework in the Tech program interesting like Computational Photography.

Tuition free, which it is.

https://www.uopeople.edu/tuition-free/what-is-tuition-free/

"UoPeople’s Tuition-Free Model is 100% real! We offer degree programs absolutely tuition-free, thanks to our generous donors who support our mission. To help support the university’s continued operation, UoPeople charges a $60 application fee, and an Assessment Fee per course completed ($100 for the undergraduate programs, and $200 for the graduate programs). That’s it. No annual enrollment fees, and no cost for course material. For those who cannot afford these fees, scholarships are available to help support their studies."

> advertises itself as accredited but isn't.

Nationally accredited, which it is. Here's what the US Department of Education says: "Accredited since (01/16/2014)"

https://ope.ed.gov/dapip/#/institution-profile/233675

> I don't consider WGU prestigious.

UC Berkeley is fairly prestigious, no?

https://www.ecampusnews.com/2016/04/22/uop-partners-with-uc-...

Sure, new account could be a shill. I understand the skepticism, but I think I've provided enough throughout my various comments here to demonstrate that I'm a student while also maintaining my privacy.

You don't have to agree, but at the very least you can stop spreading misinformation about the school.

I am curious. Why do you think I'm deluding myself? What do I stand to gain?

I've already stated elsewhere that my pursuit of this degree is purely for the love of learning. I've also stated that I already have an existing bachelor's degree from an RA school. I even have grad school experience--again from an RA school. I don't need this degree for anything.

I don't benefit anything from deluding myself. However, I do think it's important for other students to have a realistic understanding of how they can benefit from UoPeople and what its limitations are.

By saying "credit don't actually transfer" you're spreading misinformation. They do. They have.

Will they transfer to most RA schools? Probably not. Will they transfer to some, including some prestigious schools? Yes. These are facts. And it helps provide a realistic perspective to potential and/or existing students.

However, Georgia Tech and the University of Texas Austin both have online MSCS degrees that come in around $10k.

There are also students compiling lists of schools which will consider and/or accept UoPeople credits/degrees.

https://www.reddit.com/r/UoPeople/comments/g55smv/list_of_in...

The idea that UoPeople is some kind of academic dead-end is simply not accurate. It's not going to get as far as a degree from a no-name state uni on its own, but it can definitely be leveraged to further one's goals.

Several of the students on that Discord are doing this or have done this. I know one is just about to graduate from WGU after doing it.

However, it's potential utilization is much, much more diminished compared to a no-name state school.

This might change when (if) they acquire regional accreditation, but they've only just started the process. Thus, it could take upwards of 5 years.

The first is through discussion forums. We are required to post a response to a discussion prompt each week. We return to write a minimum of three responses to our peers, and we also assess their response on a scale of 0-10.

The idea is that peers will touch on different aspects, extend one another's learning, and engage in further discussion. In reality, we end up getting "great post" responses most of the time and minimal effort put in by our peers. That's not always the case, but it happens enough that I don't think it's actually helpful or a meaningful approach.

The other means is through peer assessment of regular assignments (e.g., 'papers,' programming assignments, etc.). We submit these one week, and then our peers read/study and assess our assignments based on established criteria. Peers are supposed to provide feedback on each aspect and then an overall response.

Again, the idea is that we learn through studying and responding to our peers. In reality, most students make minimal effort. So most of the time my assessment responses are limited to "good job." So, not really beneficial. (I've had a few really good responses, but it's rare.)

As for group work, I'm not aware of any instances of that at the school. (I've had it in graduate courses in the past, and I don't like it.)

I really do not like the "peer learning" system at UoPeople. I think it can work, but I don't think you've done a good job of implementing it. And instructors that I've had to date only have minimal interaction with students. (Though, I don't really need it, so it doesn't concern me much.) I've considered transferring several times, but the idea of paying $1-2k per course at a state school vs. $100 per course at UoPeople doesn't appeal to me. (As I've noted elsewhere, I'm not doing this primarily for the degree. Instead, it's about learning for me.)

They can't "take it all the way." If they removed the requirements (e.g., English proficiency, high school diploma equivalent), they wouldn't be accredited.

See: Section VIII. D.

https://www.deac.org/UploadedDocuments/Handbook/Accreditatio...

For those unaware, that's the "study skills, introduction to college, college success" course.

Yeah, that was pretty awful. I don't mind the material. It was nothing new to me, but the quality of discourse, grades, assessments, and so on--ugh.

With each step through the CS prerequisites, things have improved. So it seems the less prepared students either washout or get stuck doing general education courses. (Thankfully, I've got all that covered in transfer.)

Though, in the case of UoPeople, it's purely about nationally accreditation lacking the prestige (and sometimes rigor) of regional accreditation. It's been that way for at least a couple of decades since I started reading up on higher ed.

For study and eventually work? No. The school does not participate in the student visa program. It's purely online.

Some students start at UoPeople and transfer to a better known school to finish. This saves a fair amount of money. So, that's a possible path. But, getting a work visa in the US might be a challenge even then.

I don't need the degree. I don't intent to pursue employment which will require it. And should I decide to continue at the graduate level, I already have a regionally accredited bachelor's degree and grad school. Thus, I have options for that path.

I like the structure and grades. Sure, I could I learn just as well using MOOCs, textbooks, and so on. However, the grade hovering over my head provides a touch of external motivation to stay focused. Plus, it's nice to interact with students from different places and with different interests.

So, basically, it provides me a cheap means to fulfill my curiosity.