Fluent in
WGU.

You progress by demonstrating you can do something rather than by accumulating seat time, so finishing a course early costs nothing extra. That is where the savings in the model come from. It also means nothing external paces you, so a term can expire with several courses open if the sequencing was never planned.

An objective assessment is a proctored examination with a published pass mark: you clear it or you sit it again. A performance assessment is a document you submit, which an evaluator reads against a checklist of required elements. The first rewards drilling under time pressure; the second rewards structuring a file so that nothing on that checklist can be overlooked.

The published mark an objective assessment must reach. It is absolute rather than relative, so no curve exists and nobody else's result affects yours. In practice that means extra revision in an area you already clear contributes nothing, while one weak competency can pull an otherwise strong attempt below the line.

Generally because a listed element could not be located, not because the work was weak. Evaluators tick requirements individually, so anything mentioned in passing, or dealt with beneath an unrelated heading, reads to them as absent. The usual remedy is to give every requirement its own visible heading, in the order the task sets them out.

Yes, and that is the main financial advantage of the format. Sequencing decides whether it works: courses ending in a test compress well because study time is yours to control, while courses ending in a submitted task do not, because evaluation turnaround is not. Starting the ones with waiting built into them first is what makes a term close.