First question to Henrik re-Knightsbridge University

What about the accomplishments of people who have an unaccredited degree?

Around here if someone finds an article that has a person being promoted, or praised and their degree is listed people treat that as a sin. Many people have written books, received promotions, etc. all after completing an unaccredited degree

 

plcscott brings up a very pertinent point about the positives that can arise from an association with an unaccredited university.
My previous notes on this subject can be found in a number of posts.
From the 'duck boy' in 'paradise'.

 

Well, now I'm confused (which my wife says is not unusual). I would think that if ANY degree would be most suitable for personal self-fullfillment - a non-accredited degree would be best - because there would be no professional fallout - it's for personal satisifaction ONLY.

 

Gus wrote:

"Were they really?

The BREM Web site states that Knightsbridge is a UK institution. I know that the name Knightsbridge was chosen to convey that impression (many degree mills have chosen similar names for the same reason), but is that factual?

I understand that a KUUK degree has a certain ring to it, but did the Malaysians truly receive a degree from a UK institution as they were led to believe?"

Gus,

Thank you very much for bringing this to my attention. BREM are under solid and 'un-misunderstandable' instruction to make the same effort we do in assuring potential candidates are aware of our status.

In true marketeer fashion they will no doubt claim 'we've said nothing that isn't right' as indeed we were at the time of commencement of the agreement in the UK, but we have always gone to great pains to emphasise that we were not a UK institution, and they were instructed to use the same phrases in their marketing. Drat.

I'll find out more, and be happy to share my findings with this forum. Thanks again.


Henrik

 

Uncle Janko corrected:

"FTR, it's Mpumalanga, not Mpulamanga. Now, see, wouldn't Southern Transvaal have been a lot easier?"

Slip of the, erm, right hand ring- and middle finger. Consistently. Must have had the 'sound' of Mpulamanga in my head. Still sounds more like it should be the one! Right, then, do a search on 'Mpumalanga+scandal'.

Henrik

 

Hi Henrik:

Here's how to work it: if it sounds like a Japanese comic book (manga), it's not in South Efrica. Seriously, though, I have two questions for you.

1) One of the ways many of us try to assess the strength of an institution is to look for its "footprint" on the web--articles or scholarly monographs by students, faculty, or graduates; references to its faculty or graduates; people listing a degree from a given school on, say, a faculty page at another institution; references to it apart from paid advertising or nondescript reference listings; and so forth. You do have some distingushed faculty members (Dr Gunaratna comes readily to mind, for example). However, it is hard to find much on KU, apart from l'affaire Nyathi and a nasty write-up in Danish from Purhus. How would you respond to an inquirer concerned about the relative lack of what might be called productive visibility of KU?

2) This is more a comment than a question, I suppose. To me, the use of "Knightsbridge" is a negative, simply because you and KU are in Denmark, not in the UK. Many degree mills--I think of the Romanian/Israeli monstrosity here--use vaguely English-sounding names to lend cachet or realism to their fraudulent product. So, were I unaware of Dr Bear's friendly comments about you, and all I knew were the use of an "English" name by a non-English institution, I would be greatly predisposed to think it a mill. Please note that I am NOT calling your school a mill. I just think that some Danish element in the name would be a good idea--or else putting the location right under the name on KU's homepage.

Best wishes, Janko

 

Henrik,

I hope you are enjoying our merry little group. I was wondering about the method of study used in order to earn a degree from Knightsbridge University, and how long it takes most students?

James

 

In response to Bill Dayson above, should have been a quickie, got carried away.

BD: One must consider students motivations in order to judge whether study at Knightsbridge actually meets students' needs.

HFK: Bill, I don't think so. Unless 'one' is the one considering whether or not to enrol with Knightsbridge.

The only other reason for considering motivations is marketing research.

We provide sober, straight-forward information. We do not engage in any hard sell, tart up our web-site, engage in banner-advertising, set up our own accrediting body. We offer what's on view. If that is attractive, people will enrol. Whether you agree with their decision or not will not affect it. And it is still their decision to make.

BD: If graduates of Knightsbridge subsequently present their diplomas to others as evidence that they are educated, the issue is broadened to whether or not a Knightsbridge education meets the needs and expectations of those third parties.

HFK: This is essentially true of all qualifications, whether they be from RA or similarly recognised institutions, unaccredited institutions, or your SRUs of this world.

In the words of the UK Department for Education & Employment:

'This Department does not register, or exercise direct statutory control over, private sector further and higher education institutions. The assessment and recognition (or non-recognition) of qualifications obtained from independent institutions in the UK would be a matter for individual employers, professional bodies and other educational institutions in accordance with their own criteria."

In my experience employers and institutions now tend to use a whole-person assessment policy, in which it is not just one particular element, such as a given qualification, that determines the outcome of applications.

BD: Considering that distance education, particularly at the doctoral level, is dominated by non-accredited schools (I'd speculate that more than 99% of online doctoral programs are not accredited, and a solid majority of these are degree mills), non-accredited schools cast a long shadow on all of distance education. In a sense, they ARE distance education. It's obviously relevant to the rest of us how and why they are used.

HFK: As much as that? If your speculation is near accurate, that's overwhelming. Still, you're talking about 'on-line doctoral programs', and unless you actually mean 'distance learning programs', I cannot quite see how such a speculation makes much difference.

If, to stay with your image, unaccredited institutions virtually 'ARE distance education', I'd be most surprised. It is not at all likely, in my opinion. The number of institutions with some form of external rubber-stamp recognition offering distance learning under one form or other is now enormous, and the types and numbers of programmes they offer staggering. The UK Open University alone constantly have over 100,000 matriculated students. Most other UK institutions offer DL programmes, and there is nary a nation without a smattering of such institutions. Let us say that the number Dr Bear has been throwing about, a conservative $200 million to degree mills per annum, is reasonably accurate. How many degrees does that make? Nothing compared to what comes out of regionally accredited and similarly attired institutions. And the unaccredited institutions of sound provenance probably come nowhere near the turnover figures of the mills.

Your imagery of unaccredited institutions - in which group you so nimbly lump degree mills - as casting 'a long shadow on all of distance education' is nothing short of under-substantiated. But thank you for the 'aspersion by association' trick, I did not expect that one at all (imagine the ironic grin).

From mine:

If your purpose is to say 'look, here's a man called a scoundrel with a Knightsbridge University degree', that's a little simplistic. I suspect that if I visited google and tried to find a Harvard, Yale, nay, let's just go University of Phoenix, and find a graduate with a less than illustrious career, I would likely succeed.

And you said:

"The scoundrels from recognized universities aren't being called scoundrels because of the university they attended. They had to find different reasons to be called scoundrels."

And I say:

You're obviously trying to imply that Nyathi was in some way brought to justice over having earned a KU award. Not so. The case was over misappropriation of funds, ostensibly. He should have known better. Indeed, from what I can tell on the basis of the file, he was led to believe that it would not matter. He was brought in and summarily moved out as a scapegoat for bigger fish.

And I'd like to repeat what I said before, in light of your apparent disdain would you have not expected to find a lot more muck to fling back at me?

Rather than answer that question, you now try and suggest that having 'very little Google-presence at all [is] not a very reassuring sign from a doctoral-level institution'. This is called 'moving the goalposts', and no doubt every time from now on that I shall address one of your points you will keep doing so until you get close enough to your regionally accredited institution to feel comfortable.

Perhaps a 'small footprint' could be linked to a small institution? Here's a Sunday afternoon pastime for you. Get a copy of 'International Handbook of Universities'. Find, say, 20 institutions that you can reasonably say are 'smallish'. Do a Google search on each. See what sort of 'footprints' you come up with. Then ask yourself, okay, how long have these been in operation. And compare.

HFK : Some of the contributors here seem to have the notion that anything un-accredited is fair game. So be it. If you wish to come on all fists at least address real topics straight on. State your agenda

BD: I'd be happy to.

I believe that some non-accredited schools are very interesting, and a few of these might actually be very good. I have posted repeatedly about California-approved schools that I personally like:

http://forums.degreeinfo.com/showth...82&pagenumber=1

But the fact remains that the vast majority of non-accredited schools are questionable, and probably a majority of them are degree-mills.

That suggests that the prudent thing to do is to treat all the non-accredited schools that we are not personally familiar with with a great deal of skepticism.

HFK: Agreed, a very sound point, and one we spend a great deal of time and effort on promoting. Let me say one thing here:

For the younger learner, a first degree should be pursued at an institution with accreditation or similar, preferably residentially, and at the one with the best name their money will stretch to. At this stage, they simply have not got the necessary awareness to enable them to make value judgements in what has become a jungle on the other side of the 'accredited fence'.

The word 'prudent' used by you is the thing to keep in mind. Only at a certain age, with a certain baggage of experience of the world, with a little bit of 'the wild blue yonder' having been removed from the eyes, can a person be considered able to do due diligence related to unaccredited institutions.

The proliferation of mills also means that the sound, unaccredited institutions are at times tarred with the same brush. That is not reasonable, but rather than whinge 'not fair', it is far better to simply plug on, and provide the information people need, and let them make their own decisions. We do not try and seduce people (which essentially a lot of marketing is about nowadays) or give them the hard-sell. We only provide information.

BD: Accreditation provides some degree of outside scrutiny and verification. Absent that, the burden of proof falls upon the non-accredited school and upon its champions to demonstrate its credibility in some other way.

HFK: Totally agree that the burden of proof lies with the provider. That actually has some credence also when talking about recognised institutions. Every nation/region has its own institutions that are generally known to be a little bit easier to earn a degree from. Some years ago, Thames Valley University were hung to dry in the press, their quality inspection having resulted in the conclusion that while TVUs recognition could not be rescinded, had they applied then, they wouldn't get it. Nasty.

At the same time, of course, if the detractor wants people to believe what they say or imply, they should have something solid to back up their story.

BD: It's not my responsibility to accept every non-accredited school a-priori, sight-unseen. It's your responsibility to convince us why we should like your Knightsbridge.

HFK: I disagree on the last part. Our responsibility is to provide information as requested of a nature required to enable enquirers to decide whether KU is a solid higher education provider. If this convinces you, fine, but we are not on a mission to actively convince you, the motivation to believe the information and empirical evidence has to come from you.

Extending your first line above, it can certainly also not be your position to always assume that what you do not know about must necessarily and automatically be less than sound?

Would you not reserve such a judgement until you've got the information you require?

BD: I'm quite willing to add Knightsbridge to the list of non-accredited schools that I personally like, but you have to convince me why I should.

HFK: Bill, like what you want. I 'm not here to convince you. However, when I sense in your text that you automatically dislike - rather than just display reservation - something with which I personally identify, and you do nothing to seek actual information, I must react.

Dislike without knowledge, to borrow a colloquialism, what's up with that?



Henrik

 

Janko,

And here was I, thinking Bob was the uncle to be.

I'll try and remember your lesson in correct spelling, should the opportunity arise again to refer to Mpumalanga (heck, now I cannot even type it without pausing!).

On the 'footprint' side, see also my response to Bill Dayson. I would have expanded on this but for the fact that somehow that message suddenly got excessively long. Verbosity, it'll get me in the end.

There are several reasons why such a footprint is no stronger or wider than it is:

1 - we are but a tiny wee thing, with but a small number of candidates and graduates. Of these, less than one third are PhD or similar awards.
2 - we do not require candidates on doctorate programmes to have work accepted with refereed journals. So expand the thesis requirement.
3 - we are not able to demand of adjunct faculty that they publish using our name, which would have otherwise obviously been a solid source of such references.
4 - there has, until December last year, I believe it was - been no real appreciation here that such a thing could be seen to matter to anyone at all.

I shall be quite happy to see to it that this is rectified with whatever means we have. Mind, as I said to Bill, then the goalposts will be moved again.

The 'nasty write-up in Danish' is a nice example of what has befallen the Danish mentality. Take a berserker viking. Take away his 'funny mushroom' drink. Let simmer for 1,000 years. Expose to 50 years of social-democrat rule. What you end up with is a nasty, jealous, green-eyed little sourpuss obsessing over the age and equipment level of the neighbour's Mazda, who cannot stand the idea of anyone doing a molecule better than they, and for whom the word Schadenfreude is coined. One of a few words that apparently moved from Denmark to Germany, otherwise it used to be pretty much one-way traffic.

We're different, is all, and the average Dane doesn't like that. On the whole, Danes are very average. They're designed like that, it's a 50-year-old sociology experiment to create an egalitarian cradle-to-grave welfare state.

I would respond to your hypothetical enquirer in the same way as to a real one, with information. They get all the information they ask for, and no big song-and-dance routine. Then they may choose to enrol.

On the name front, I had a vivid dream after the last round discussing this, that Knightsbridge started off the whole 'let's choose a nicely upper-crust moniker' game. Shudder. Prior to mine landing here, there have been prolonged discussions on the issue of a potential name-change. We've been throwing around suggestions, all somehow cheesy-sounding. Anyway, English names are the norm here now. Using something else is considered deeply provincial. Even the small, local business schools have English names to go with their native such. Strewth, guv'nor. But no doubt the topic will be doing the rounds again over the year or so to come.

As for location given on the home-page, it is. Top right, under the crest.

With this, a call for suggestions: What should we change KU's name to? Anyone?


Henrik

 

James,

Settling in gradually, thank you very much, finding that I take some things surprisingly closer to heart than I should. In retrospect I do recall that Yanks have a way with words that sometimes rubs me a bit harshly. Probably all this British circumspection having got to me.

We're pretty old-fashioned here, but thank goodness for the sudden spread of e-mail.

We've got essentially two types of programme, taught and research.

Taught programmes are full provision, i.e. students get everything they need for the total programme, no need to buy any books, all comes to them in neat packages.
Study material based around authoritative texts with background reading thrown in and recommended.
Personal tutor for the duration.

Research programmes are your classic Brit style. Started off with a compulsory Research Module, unless candidate can demonstrate having covered a similar range of topics within the past 4 years.

Duration is extremely varied, most so for research programmes, due to the fact that we allow candidates transfer in research they've been doing at other institutions (but not, of course, if they've already submitted for assessment), and also do not apply a minimum registration period.

For research programmes the shortest has probably been round about 3 months. The longest is still going, there's a few of those. Years and years. As long as candidates provide work in terms of drats, outlines, methodology, whatever, that is solid when so requested, and adjust their background reading to reflect developments in their field, we do not push them to complete at any specific date.

Taught courses is a bit more stable, most take ca. 18 months. Mind, these are calendar months, not academic months. In most of Europe, an academic year is ca. 36 weeks. 18 calendar months, thus, equates to roughly 2 calendar years. Some take considerably longer, not many take much less.

Hope this illuminates.


Henrik

 

An important part of forming an opinion of Knightsbridge is determining what sort of student the school is most appropriate for, and whether or not it successfully meets the needs of those students.

Which is precisely why we need additional information in order to form an opinion of a school, its degrees and its graduates.

As soon as a graduate attempts to use a degree to influence somebody else, the degree stops being a private and personal matter between students and their school. It becomes a matter in which third parties have an interest.

I was responding to this remark of yours:

Perhaps I might interject here that if Knightsbridge were really notorious, would you have not been able to find a whole lot more unpleasantness?

I suggested that there isn't a lot on Google about Knightsbridge one way or another. That isn't the kind of signature that most recognized universities present. You find references to them on countless scholarly and professional websites.

It seems that if we are going to argue that a low amount of negative news suggests credibility, then to be consistent, a low amount of positive news would seem to suggest lack of credibility.

Perhaps. But that puts more weight on accreditation, doesn't it? If we can't find evidence of an institution's acceptance by the scholarly or professional communities, then it's going to need some other form of verification. Shouldn't some trusted outside parties go look at it and tell us what they find?

How would you suggest that we distinguish between degree-mills and legitimate non-accredited schools?

Sure, if they are making some definite claim about the school. But if they are simply saying that they see no reason to consider the school credible, then the responsibility is back in the lap of the school's owner to provide some evidence of its credibility.

Simply statistically, if choosing a non-accredited school at random has a strong probability of landing a questionable school, then one has to face the liklihood that any unknown non-accredited school is questionable.

That isn't proof the school is substandard or a mill, but it certainly justifies asking questions and exercising caution and skepticism.

I'll definitely leave open the possibility that a school might be great. That's why I don't flatly dismiss Knightsbridge but rather ask you to make its case.

The word 'dislike' is your word, I think. I didn't use it.

I simply pointed out that there are a quite a few non-accredited schools that I find credible, and many more that I find interesting. I like them, often for very different reasons.

But the crucial point here is that there ARE reasons. I am not going to be fond of all non-accredited schools simply as a default position. My default position with regards to unknown non-accredited schools is a defeasible skepticism.

 

Hi Henrik:

I saw your response to Bill Dayson's similar question about "footprint." It makes sense to me. I do not know if all academic journals are closed to graduates or faculty of unaccredited institutions--many "refereed" journals are--but a push by KU to establish a presence there might be a good idea.

Encouraging the adjuncts to label themselves with KU, as far as their other affiliations permit, would be a good step.

I liked your response to the BREM business.

Your comments on recent Danish history and attitudes made my day! If egalitarianism is such a great thing, why does it engender such ressentiment? From my experience as a Lutheran cleric, I suspect you are too funny to be Danish (Bishop Grundtvig and Victor Borge notwithstanding). May your tribe increase! I have a CD of the late King conducting classical music--quite well, too. So there is hope for a happy spirit of enterprise even under the grey, irony-destroying cloud of egalitarianism.

As the resident nomenclature kook, I guess I'd say go with even a provincial-sounding but recognizably Danish name: maybe giving the graduate school some such thing as, say, Spentrup Graduate School of Knightsbridge University. This would defuse the fake-Brit-name problem (which certainly isn't your fault), while maintaining whatever name recognition the school enjoys.

It is really great to have an informed and articulate advocate for an unaccredited university on the board. Bill's "defeasible skepticism" characterizes my own attitude toward unaccredited institutions, although we might not agree about the moment of defeat. The usual Kinderchor of nasty mill-shills and wilfully ignorant ranters only help the RA-or-nothing attitude--if they're the best advocates UA schools can find, so much the worse for UA schools. I may not agree with all your claims, but it's a delight and an eye-opener to have you here.

Best wishes, Janko

 

It has been suggested in the past by some (including myself), that perhaps we shouldn't bother differentiating between degree mills and legitimate non-accredited schools. The public generally doesn't seem to differentiate them. At least not until the unaccredited school starts getting visits from the president of the United States. We could easily just assume that they're bad until they prove, like BJU, that they're very good?

Henrik, have you invited the President for a visit yet?

 

I didn’t. Personally, I would have liked the response better if more information had been provided. rather than the proffered whitewash.. For example, Dr. Kevin R.N. Kannan is the Managing Director of BREM. He is also listed as faculty for the Department of Management for Knightsbridge University. Moreover, he claims a Ph.D. from an unspecified university in Denmark. Could it be that Dr. Kannan’s degree is from Knightsbridge University? Could it be that he is the one responsible for the curriculum offered by BREM? If so, his listing and advertisement of Knightsbridge University as a UK institution is inexcusable.

 

Nice play on words

 

Hi Gus: If HFK gets it cleaned up--quickly--then I'll stand by my comment. If he doesn't, then you're absolutely right.

 

http://forums.degreeinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=79638

 

Bill,

Say, do you people live here? I can barely keep up with this, much less read the other threads!

BD: An important part of forming an opinion of Knightsbridge is determining what sort of student the school is most appropriate for, and whether or not it successfully meets the needs of those students.

HFK: It seems to me that you are making the mistake of equalling your views with those of the public in general.

If the public makes enquiries, we shall respond. If you make enquiries, we shall respond. It is, however, hardly of any particular interest to you individually whether someone else finds that KU, or any other, accredited or not, institution is 'appropriate', nor whether it 'successfully meets the needs of those students'. It certainly is not within your realm of influence.

You can form opinions on these factors as they relate to you, but not as they relate to others. And this really fits whichever educational opportunity you consider.

BD: Which is precisely why we need additional information in order to form an opinion of a school, its degrees and its graduates.

As soon as a graduate attempts to use a degree to influence somebody else, the degree stops being a private and personal matter between students and their school. It becomes a matter in which third parties have an interest.

HFK: I'll concede this to a point, although my above reservation still counts.

As for information, you need only ask.

As for the relationship between a graduate of any institution and third parties, as long as you - or I, or someone else - are not that third party, we are not entitled to be privy to anything.


BD: I was responding to this remark of yours:

Perhaps I might interject here that if Knightsbridge were really notorious, would you have not been able to find a whole lot more unpleasantness?

I suggested that there isn't a lot on Google about Knightsbridge one way or another. That isn't the kind of signature that most recognized universities present. You find references to them on countless scholarly and professional websites.

It seems that if we are going to argue that a low amount of negative news suggests credibility, then to be consistent, a low amount of positive news would seem to suggest lack of credibility.

HFK: I have addressed the issue of 'footprint' elsewhere. And suggested to you that perhaps there is not necessarily a relationship between this and probity and integrity. Which I am sure you would have to acknowledge.

You cannot realistically make the supposition about the relationship between footprint and credibility that you propose. 'News', by their very nature, are usually bad or intended by the writer to paint such a picture. 'Good news' is seldom seen.

A low amount of negative 'news' thus suggests that there are no more negative 'news'. Whereas the absence of 'good news' resulting from a Google search does not mean that it does not exist.

You may lead a perfect life as an active church-goer, benefactor to the arts and sciences, all-round good chap. And nobody would ever dream of writing about that. The one time you get involved, however peripherally, in something less than gilt-edged, you can be sure to find your name smeared. And it will follow you around like a shadow for the rest of your life.

Does this sound a reasonable analogy to you?

Has anyone here seen the Gary Larson drawing with a man in a newsstand, behind him 4 wildebeest? Man says to customer: 'Well, I've got good gnus, and I've got bad gnus.' Genius.

HFK: Perhaps a 'small footprint' could be linked to a small institution?

BD: Perhaps. But that puts more weight on accreditation, doesn't it? If we can't find evidence of an institution's acceptance by the scholarly or professional communities, then it's going to need some other form of verification. Shouldn't some trusted outside parties go look at it and tell us what they find?

HFK: That ,however, is not what we talked about originally. You're moving the goalposts.

And I still think you're confusing the individual and the public interest. I do not, obviously, believe that 'we', as in the public, need 'some trusted outside parties' to make such an enquiry, not relative to what we offer. I am quite happy that there be some sort of standardisation of formalities and content going on for the benefit of the younger learner and those requiring licensure. We can then discuss in a separate thread why institutions choose to pursue accreditation where this is voluntary, if not because it is linked directly to income stream.

We do not, however, deal with this group of people, they are not of interest to us. Indeed, we spend a lot of time advising such enquirers on their best options based on their stated objectives.

For the 'scholarly or professional communities', substitute our faculty and graduates. There's plenty there to substantiate the 'evidence' that you seek.

BD : How would you suggest that we distinguish between degree-mills and legitimate non-accredited schools?

HFK: It's easy to identify an accredited school, of course. Or wait, is it?

Distinguishing between things of any nature requires legwork, acquired insight and common sense. As there is no specific definition of what constitutes a mill, however, it is a little bit of a tricky thing to ask me to give you a clear-cut version.

I do think that in the marketplace for un-accredited awards, the punter is usually pretty well clued up as to what is a mill and what isn't. We very rarely have anyone make enquiries of a nature to indicate that they expect our requirements to be, shall we say, lax. And we certainly never hear from them twice.

In this, as in other fields, there is an unavoidable element of 'caveat emptor'. This goes fully for recognised institutions, too, people must satisfy themselves that what they are about to get into will be fitting for their objectives.

HFK: At the same time, of course, if the detractor wants people to believe what they say or imply, they should have something solid to back up their story.

BD: Sure, if they are making some definite claim about the school. But if they are simply saying that they see no reason to consider the school credible, then the responsibility is back in the lap of the school's owner to provide some evidence of its credibility.

HFK: If I were to make the statement 'I see no reason to consider Bill Dayson credible' I am implying that I see reason to consider him less than credible. Is it your duty to convince me that you're credible? I think not. Why should you? There'll be plenty who are quite happy to consider you credible, based on their own findings.

If anyone wants to satisfy themselves as to the credibility of what we do, they need only ask constructive questions and seek the information they require.

HFK: ...it can certainly also not be your position to always assume that what you do not know about must necessarily and automatically be less than sound?

BD: Simply statistically, if choosing a non-accredited school at random has a strong probability of landing a questionable school, then one has to face the liklihood that any unknown non-accredited school is questionable.

That isn't proof the school is substandard or a mill, but it certainly justifies asking questions and exercising caution and skepticism.

HFK: Of course, due diligence, caveat emptor, common sense, call it what you will. 'Likelihood', however, should not be inferred to mean 'certainty'. 'Any' should not be inferred to mean 'every'. Let people do their own investigation.

BD: I'll definitely leave open the possibility that a school might be great. That's why I don't flatly dismiss Knightsbridge but rather ask you to make its case.

HFK: Yet you're not being very precise as to what might satisfy you in this respect.

BD: I'm quite willing to add Knightsbridge to the list of non-accredited schools that I personally like, but you have to convince me why I should.

HFK: Bill, like what you want. I 'm not here to convince you. However, when I sense in your text that you automatically dislike - rather than just display reservation - something with which I personally identify, and you do nothing to seek actual information, I must react.

Dislike without knowledge, to borrow a colloquialism, what's up with that?

BD: The word 'dislike' is your word, I think. I didn't use it.

HFK: You will, however, acknowledge that 'dislike' is the opposite of 'like'? And 'like' is the word you used. I still do not agree that I have to convince you of anything. I don't know what you like. You do. You're the only one who can make the conclusion as to whether what you see is something you like. All we can do is make available the information you need, and let you reach your conclusion.

BD: But the crucial point here is that there ARE reasons. I am not going to be fond of all non-accredited schools simply as a default position. My default position with regards to unknown non-accredited schools is a defeasible skepticism.

HFK: One should not like all of anything as a default position. Nor the opposite. Only with information and the digestion of same, and sometimes on-going communication, can a position be reached where conclusions can be made. If the conclusion then is 'that's good enough for me' that doesn't mean it's good enough for everybody else. And vice versa.


Henrik

 

Janko,

The whole 'footprint' issue, as mentioned, is not really one that we have paid much attention to. And I think I have also substantiated reasons why it would be limited.

However, I am quite willing to make an effort to expand this, contributors willing. I will not be losing sleep over the matter just yet, though.

Have asked BREM to change the site immediately, there is nothing I would rather avoid than that of us or anyone linked to us giving the impression that KU is (or was) a UK institution.

You're right on egalitarianism. It has completely ruined this nation. And I am Danish. The Danish state church (yep, you pay over your taxes) is Lutheran - with a vengeance.

The result is that we all have to be so equal that it makes your ears bleed. A nation of think-alike little voters will hopefully keep voting for the social-democrats, at least that's the underlying philosophy.

'..resident nomenclature kook' is quite some title. Self-ascribed? As for thinking up a new name, what should be relatively straightforward is nothing of the kind. Does my head in. Whichever name we were to choose, it would still have to be in English, is one point. It would certainly be useful, were we to be able to retain Knightsbridge, if only as part of a longer moniker. Must give this some serious thought. No doubt whichever is chosen will come in for lambasting right here.

'Defeasible skepticism' is not an unhealthy approach to have in the face of most things. I certainly apply it in many cases. Sometimes perhaps I am unreasonably fervent in maintaining the skepticism, and other times I'm bowled over too easily, but by and large it's quite useful.

Having only started sniffing about here fairly recently, I did early on wonder if there had been other representatives of the unaccredited here, trying to get a word in edgeways. Do you know if that would be case?


Henrik

 

Bill Huffman wrote:

"It has been suggested in the past by some (including myself), that perhaps we shouldn't bother differentiating between degree mills and legitimate non-accredited schools. The public generally doesn't seem to differentiate them. At least not until the unaccredited school starts getting visits from the president of the United States. We could easily just assume that they're bad until they prove, like BJU, that they're very good?

Henrik, have you invited the President for a visit yet? "

Bill,

Obviously the reference to the Chief links to some event with which I am not familiar. Perhaps you would care to share with me the hilarity?

And no, I have not extended such an invitation, I have to be careful with whom I associate, reputation to protect and all that.

Not so sure that you are correct in your assertion that 'the public generally doesn't seem to differentiate them' (shouldn't that be 'between them'?). It is certainly my experience that those we come into contact with are quite well informed.

In fact, I believe it has been established more than once that the public generally has no idea what an accredited institution is, who do the accreditation, what is good and not so good accreditation. So perhaps the ability to distinguish between the good and the less so unaccredited institutions should not be the first stop for your intentions, good no doubt as they are.

As a pointer, I would suggest that a first solid indicator as to what might be less than attractive is any institution claiming accreditation from a body not in turn recognised by, in the US, the Department of Education. Claiming such accreditation seems to me to have only one purpose, to deceive the public.


Henrik