Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2017 April 19

= April 19 =

Academic open door policy
The article Open-door academic policy lists some examples of colleges that supposedly admit anyone (or virtually anyone) without reference to academic qualifications. I've already removed a couple from the list, because when I clicked the reference it turned out that their "open-door policy" was that staff members are open to talking to students, rather than an admissions policy. There are a couple more I'm not sure of: Do Glasgow Caledonian University and Bond University, Australia really have an open admissions policy? I can't tell from their websites. (I came here instead of the article's talk page because the latter has no traffic.) Loraof (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Goddard College may belong on that list. They are a highly non-traditional school, and having an open admissions policy would "fit" with their educational theory.  -- Jayron 32 18:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This suggests Bond University does not have an open admissions policy. See also   . Even the foundation program doesn't seem to have an open admissions policy .  I'm not sure about the other programs, but I believe Bond University's medical programme is generally seen as something done by those who've failed to gain a place in government/commonwealth supported programmes in Australia (also NZ because we don't have anything equivalent). It costs a lot more (although some Aussie universities also have FFP programmes for Aussies)  . Note the cheaper (in terms of money) alternative (in both NZ and Australia) is generally to do a undergraduate programme and then try and get in a second time around as a graduate. Although this obviously adds probably 2 or 3 years of study time and would I think be harder if money isn't an object. Still this is far from open admission.  Nil Einne (talk) 08:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually from further research my comment is no longer that correct about Australia. Many Australian universities, but not all, have transition away from the MBBS model to a MD model, see Medical education in Australia. This means rather than the 6 MBBS most will be doing 7 years (3 year undergraduate degree plus 4 years MD). Bond University has also transitioned, and they make a big deal over their combined degree only being 4 years and 8 months (although our article above suggests some others also have a combined 5 year degree). While I guess there may be a small number of locals with lots of funds wanting to finish very fast, I'm not sure how much things have changed in the perception of Bond Universities medical programme. Note at least some Australian universities with the MD still have a undergraduate entry, simply requiring a minimum GPA from the undergraduate degree and timely completion  and as mentioned by the article, some also do a double degree, see also, so it's still possible even with the MD in at least some cases for failed undergraduate admissions to consider Bond instead if they don't think they will make the cut for graduate. (And actually, I'm not certain how much of an option graduate entry was in Australia before, at least neither of the 2 universities I looked at which still do MBBS seemed to mention a graduate entry pathway.  In any case nowadays, as there remains and are multiple options for undergraduate entry barring a few who don't at least try them out (whether or not they decide to accept), most would have some idea of their chances even if they would prefer to study somewhere with no undergraduate entry option. If they got nothing, they've got to figure graduate entry does require them to perform substantially better than they did before. And while Bond does have graduate entry it's far more limited. So I suspect the details in the earlier links (some of which are new enough that the MD changed had already partially happened) remains correct the most likely reason someone would go to Bond for their medical degree is is they didn't and don't think they'll make the cut elsewhere rather Bond may boast about the time. Nil Einne (talk) 13:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Glasgow Caledonian is a normal British university, where undergraduate entry is by the usual UCAS process. For most entrants, they care about Highers (Scottish), A-Levels (for the rest of the UK), and equivalent qualifications (for candidates from other countries). For mature students they are more flexible, but that's not an "open door" policy at all. For some courses, they may take a below-undergraduate qualification they may take HDC or HND either as an entry qualification or as a means to enter at a later year. For an example (it's the top of the list) the entry for their Accounting degree lists school qualifications much in line with what I'd expect to see any British university. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 09:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Their Mature Students policy does sound potentially open, though. The prospectus states "For entry to some programmes, mature students (anyone aged 21 and over) may not need the normal academic entry requirements stated if they can support their application with equivalent relevant experience. For further information please contact the admissions office." —Kusma (t·c) 14:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that meets the requirements "A university has an open-door academic policy, or just open-door policy when it accepts to enroll students without asking for evidence of previous education, experience, or references" when they specifically ask for "support their application with equivalent relevant experience". Nil Einne (talk) 08:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)