Great university, but one man operation?

I've been reading a lot of threads about unaccredited universities, out of curiosity, and got especially interested in one about Knightsbridge University.

Most people were implying that, if the work of an average graduate (thesis/dissertation) is substandard, than the University does not deserve the same recognition acknowledged to RA schools. (nobody read a dissertation from the mentioned school, so I am not concluding anything about this specific case).



It seems that the most important vision of quality are the standards of a school. Good standards, more often than not, would equal good school (or at least a good degree).




So, my hypothetical question follows: What if someone runs a one man operation, but requires extremely high standards to approve anyone. Like thesis on Ivy League level or examinations that only the top students at most schools would be able to pass?

What if someone, by himself, designes a course and give extremely hard examinations for all students enrolled. More than that, demands a thesis/dissertation that will be among the top 20% in the world or something like that?

How would you consider such a degree? Remember it is a one man operation, one guy and one office.

Or even in a more extreme way, there is no course designed. The proprietor demands that students read a few books and provide extremely hard standards for examinations on it? How would you view such a degree?


Of course the "one man" from the one man operation must be very knowledgeable in the chosen area (if the course is on sociology, then he must be a sociologist PhD, at least).


I am curious to hear from everybody. Thanks for any answers

 

Your subject line in itself is kind of an oxymoron. There is no way that any single one person could possibly do EVERYTHING that comes with running a solid university. He would have to be the accountant, admissions committee, professor, dean, etc. The list goes on forever. Sure, perhaps he could do it with about 3 students, but you tell me how it could be done with even 1000.

Also, what you're saying is that this "university" would offer one single degree with a relatively narrow focus. There are fantastic schools, such as Thomas Aquinas college, that offer only one degree, but with a broad focus and a *REAL* college system in place to make it work.

Plus, no recognized accreditor or government would recognize such an attempt even if the proprietor had the most sincere and genuine of intentions. There is a "norm" in the university/college world and people in accrediting agencies and government will want some form of that and a "one man show" just ain't gonna cut it.

'Nova

*Starting up Family Guy University, 1 Spooner Street, Quahog, RI*

 

I am reminded of Century University which offers more KINDS of degrees than they have listed faculty (including listed adjunct faculty).

 

Regardless of the purity and rigor of the standards established and enforced in the scenario offered, the fundamental problem is inescapable of all unaccredited schools. The standards cannot be simply rigorous, they must be vetted and scrutinized and established by a legitimate third party to be as advertised.

Accreditation provides, with all its weaknesses and problems, an open process for scrutinizing the process, practices, procedures, and standards of a university. If this hypothetical one man shop has the highest of standards, without the review process of legitimate accreditation, the public would have no reasonable assurance that these lofty standards were or could actually be met.

Accreditation is the process to ensure, to at least a fundamental level, that a third party vetting has taken place. This is essential in order to offer some basis of value for a common product, such as a university degree.

 

I would suggest that it might be helpful to utilize the concept of "necessary and sufficient conditions" to determine the legitimacy of a school.

For example:

A rigorous academic process is necessary.
Legitimate degree-granting authority is necessary.
Qualified faculty is necessary.

There are many, many more.

Some combination of these necessary conditions would be sufficient.

But I believe there is only one condition that -- on its own -- is sufficient. And that, of course, is legitimate accreditation.

The Concepts of Necessary and Sufficient Conditions

 

It might be extremely valuable to study one-on-one with somebody. That would depend on who the prospective master is, what he/she offers and on what the would-be apprentice wants from the relationship.

I would have questions about the depth, scope and objectivity of the program if everything was taught by one man.

But more fundamentally, the master/pupil relationship would essentially be a private matter for its participants. While there's nothing wrong with that in purely educational terms, it's problematic when degrees are involved. Degrees are public certifications. So how does the relevant public assure itself that the degree is meaningful and credible?

Accreditation (or its equivalent quality assurance process outside the US) is the most obvious way. When that's lacking, or when it's suspect, things like academic and professional recognition, research productivity and so on can often provide useful indicators. That's why I Google questioned schools.

I suppose that if a noted figure has a protege, and they do some significant work together that receives the recognition of their relevant community, the protege's reputation will rise among those who know. But that's not really the same thing as a university degree, in part because the scope of the recognition is so much narrower.

How would I know what standards the self-appointed credit-by-exam proprietor was demanding? How would I be sure that those standards were being applied fairly and uniformly?

I suppose that I could examine the exams myself and, assuming that I was qualified to assess them, decide to recognize the exam-taker's accomplishment. But how could the wider public, composed as it is of non-specialists without access to the actual materials, possibly do that? Again, the idea is problematic when it's applied to academic degrees.

 

Re: Re: Great university, but one man operation?

This is an interesting idea. I'm reminded of the mentor relationship between the mathematician G.H. Hardy and his protege Ramanujan. Ramanujan was completely self taught. Hardy noticed his genius and they began a relatively short but highly productive relationship turning out world-class mathematics.

Under ideal conditions, I could see a one-on-one relationship with a master (who is also a great teacher) as being superior to almost any traditional academic setting. Certainly any traditional academic setting must be a compromise between the individual attention that most of us need, and the practical problems that come with "validating" each student's work as measuring up to agreed-upon standards.

I don't believe Ramanujan had any formal academic qualification. He wrote many papers that, by themselves, would have merited a PhD. Ironically, Ramanujan grew depressed because of a lack of formal recognition for his work (that, and he was often ill). Hardy fought very hard to get him elected to the Royal Society.

It's interesting that, in a certain sense, the lack of a degree is almot meaningless. Ramanujan's place in history is permanent. Yet without the formal qualifications that most of his fellow mathematicians possessed, he was kind of marginalized. It was only many years later that mathematicians, other than Hardy, recognized his genius.

 

Nice answers.

Let me try to twist it a little (all hypothetical, of course).

School X, for the lack of a better name, has 3 highly regarded Professors as faculty, and one secretary to help with administrative tasks. It is still just a small office.

School X limits its body of students to a max of 30, to assure that they will have proper attention.

The books assigned are not produced by the school. They use the so-called "bibles" in the field. Interaction is by e-mail only, except for the proctored tests. The tests are extremely demanding. Maybe we can extrapolate and assume that they are the hardest in the world for the subjects assigned.

The same happens for the evaluation of thesis/dissertations. They will only be approved if they are clearly superior to an average RA school dissertation.


The school will not be accredited. Their degrees will not be recognized. Except, maybe, by the market.

What would you think of such an education?

 

This place,

http://www.california.com/wisr/

is probably about as close to the situation you've described as you can get in reality.
The Western Institute for Social Research has a very good reputation for academic quality yet they remain unaccredited. The reason that has been cited for their perpetual lack of accreditation is that they are such a small program that they simply can not afford to go through the process.
Jack

 

I got the impression from supernova's post:

"Plus, no recognized accreditor or government would recognize such an attempt even if the proprietor had the most sincere and genuine of intentions. "

I am still learning about DL, accreditation and such. My mistake

 

The Rand Corporation has a lot of power and money though.

 

If the resulting degrees are only used within a community that's already completely familiar with and trusting of the three professors, then what do the school's degrees add that the professors' personal recommendations doesn't already have?

If the degrees are taken beyond the circle that's already familiar with the professors, then what reason does anyone else have for believing that the school's degrees mean something?

 

I see, but the question is more concerning the quality of the education itself than who will believe in the degree, since it would be something non accredited. If its something accredited, then all the problems go away, and there's little discussion

 

The quality of education in your hypothetical example will be high, so I don't see the question. The value of the resulting degree, on the other hand, is open for the debate.

 

Philosophically speaking, the value of hypotheticals lies in their ability to separate cases and expose underlying issues. We can create an unlimited number of hypothetical situations:

What if a person with God-like powers (omniscient, etc.) were to create an unaccredited university...

In the real world, the value of a hypothetical lies in its proximity to reality. Your hypothetical is rather divorced from the real world of higher education and so any conclusion that might be reached by examining such a hypothetical has limited or no value.

Let's talk about the real world, not hypotheticals.
Jack

 

Yeah, but it is a possibility. In fact you were the one who provided an example pretty close to the idea.

An omniscient entity creating a university would be very uncommon , while this situation is relatively possible to happend.

I like working with ideas that already are not in practice because that is a way to estimulate progress. Although I know my post will not estimulate anything, but still I was interested in those kinds of issues.

Keeping to a real case, how does the California school you posted would compare to a weak accredited one, now talking about recognition of the degree, instead of quality? I think that, even having more quality (maybe), the school on the link would still have trouble having its degrees gaining more market recognition than any RA institution, except regionally. What do you think?

 

No, not pretty close, just the closest of which I am aware. In reality they are rather far apart. As for the rest, it's just more hypotheticals. Why don't you ask about real programs that really exist instead of trying to compare apples with hypothetical oranges? The issues involved here are complex enough without engaging in fantasy.
Jack

 

I really dont have any urge to talk about real programs. They are there already. There is no progress, no news material in there. When was the last time you opened a paper with a heading called "University X is still there, and nothing is changing" ?

I mean, if anything that is out of what is already there is not useful to discuss, even changes in today's school would be "oranges" by your definition.


Not that you can't compare apples and oranges. Apples are sweeter, oranges sucks