Can Doctorate be Unaccredited?

You say you have no idea. I think what I'll have to interpret that to mean is that you can't think of any other explanation except for the obvious explanation which is that it is important to distinguish between accredited and unaccredited dissertations. That is important to UMI because it is important to UMI's customers. It is important to UMI's customer for the reason that accredited institutions aren't interested in "Research Abstracts" because unaccredited institutions aren't generally part of the academic community.

UMI has never vouched for the content of any of their dissertations or "Research Abstracts". That is clearly the responsibility of the issuing institution. I have not argued that

"they don't accept documents from unaccredited institutions because they do not wish to use the UMI name to vouch for their content".

I argued that UMI no longer carries "Research Abstracts" because UMI's customers were not interested in them because unaccredited institutions are not part of the greater academic community. They can't trust these "Research Abstracts" because they can't be sure that proper academic/scientific procedures were followed.

BTW, a few years a go I called UMI on the phone and this is where I got the information on "Research Abstracts". Note that they told me that they were going to discontinue accepting "Research Abstracts" because the accredited schools weren't interested in them.

You made the argument that just because the unaccredited dissertations are not read by the accredited academic community that this information could still be shared within the unaccredited academic community. Well Henrik, perhaps I've misunderstood you but I don't believe that to be true. You yourself admitted that you don't have any public lists for your own dissertations. This seems to be very common for unaccredited institutions. How does this unaccredited academic community communicate the availability of the dissertations? You yourself said that the graduate himself does that! How could individuals that have just graduated from an unaccredited institution get the attention of the academic community? What academic community is it being shared with if not the greater academic community?

 

It is interesting to note that your nonexistent list is growing. I do not believe that the exorbitant requirement that the author of a dissertation make you aware of it’s existence and supply you with its exact title would fit the definition of “making available to the public.” It certainly sounds like an extremely limited and personal availability to me. If Knightsbridge University does not even make a list of dissertations available, how can they claim that the dissertations are available to the public?

However, you are now implying in another post that you did not post UMI's reply in its entirety (this, of course, after acting indignant and acting as if your honor was so above reproach that you did not leave out a sentence that did not lend credence to your conclusion). Which is it?

Let me see if I can make this clear to you. The first thing the person maintaining the database would do is add the name of each submitted dissertation to some kind of list (or key) so that they could be retrieved when necessary. This list forms the basis for public awareness and availibilty. Knightsbridge does not maintain a list; therefore, Knightsbridge does not make the dissertations available to the public.

Actually, my assertion was based on your statement that you do not have the resources to even maintain a list. If you cannot maintain a list, it stands to reason that you do not have the resources to ensure all your dissertations are published or made available by a third party (a considerably greater expense of time, money, and effort). Nevertheless, I accept your challenge. Post on this forum a list of all of the organizations that maintain legitimate databases that accept dissertations from unaccredited schools and I’ll do your research for you. If they won't accept Knightsbridge dissertaions, or if you fail to provide the list, then my assertion stands.

What you posted here, Henrik. However, the information you posted concerning UMI is now suspect as you are implying in another post that it was incomplete or might have been edited.

I stand corrected, Henrik. The image you pointed out is usually referred to as a smilie and indicates humor. Now that I know you are adverse to smilies (or humor, I don’t know which) I promise you I will, from now on, strictly play hardball.

If it will help, I’ll agree with your definition: If I do it it’s sniping: if you do it, it’s witty sarcasm. (Normally I’d put some kind of emoticon here, but you have me convinced it would only spur you on to more whining).

What’s this? A new variation on your age-old whine about moving goalposts? This is nothing more than the refrain employed by those who cannot logically counter arguments. Stop whining already.

Let’s see. First, you’re not a victim, then you whine about on-the-floor tactics (does a ROFLMAO count as an emoticon?).

No I don’t see. First, I provided substantive and corroborating evidence as to why my conclusion was accurate (based on the information you originally provided), then, you just spun and whined.

The Danish authorities have not responded to any of my emails. Why do you think that is?

Your feelings betray you, Henrik. I have not received a single reply from any Danish official. Personally, I believe they think my enquiry is a joke. I think they believe it is inconceivable that anyone would set up or anyone would enroll in a for-profit, fee-based, private unaccredited institution in a country where excellent and legitimate higher education institutions are free. It seems you are flying under the radar, Henrik; I believe that if I had enquired about a legitimate institution I would have received a reply. These are, of course, just my opinions.

What, precisely, is unfounded? You seem to have a problem with everything I say. None of it is to your liking or suits your purposes, so you characterize it all as unfounded. How convenient. It all rings true to me. Tell me what, specifically, it is that you want me to corroborate.

Let's see. You admitted that no Danish students are enrolled in Knightsbridge, so local consumers aren’t affected. It's logical to think it is ludicrous for an individual to pay for lower quality when he or she can have high quality for free, just as it is to hold the opinion that questionable schools tarnish the reputation of legitimate ones. Which opinions of mine do you believe have absolutely no basis in fact?

Are you saying that in order for the exchange to be productive I have to blindly believe everything you say? That may be productive for you, but what about me (or others)? Don’t take it personally, Henrik. I’m not saying you can’t earn my trust, but nothing you have said or done on this forum has moved you in that direction. Moreover, keep in mind that as the owner of a (at best, unaccredited, at worst, degree mill) school you have an obvious agenda.

I choose to protect the public from the owners and promoters of schools that are, at best, unaccredited, and at worst, degree mills.

Are you aware of how ironic it is for you to ask me what qualifies me to assess quality standards when all we have as proof of your institution's quality or legitimacy is your word? What qualifies you to assess quality standards? What standards do you employ? How do you ensure your institution adheres to those standards? How can a prospective student or the members of this forum first become aware of what the standards are and then verify whether they are being met? Legitimate external approval usually fulfills these functions. What do you offer in its stead?

 

This little snippet from Henrik merited its own post.

You’re kidding, right? Are you really trying to blame me for not responding to Mark?

You asked why I mistrusted and had difficulty believing what you say, Henrik; this post illustrates precisely why. I am simply not convinced that you believe what you say. You appear to be too smart to do that.

 

Excuse me, but I thought this thread was about unaccredited dissertations; particularly whether or not they have any value to society or to the person awarded the degree????
I believe that Henrik has shown that they do have value. And I'm sure even Gus knows that there are a number of people in senior positions that have Knightsbridge Doctorates; just as there are people with Doctorates from St Clements, K-W, Greenwich, etc.
Gus's present obsession about wanting a list of Knightsbridge dissertations is purely grandstanding and totally irrelavant to the debate - otherwise he would have surely asked to read the brown teal manual!
Dr Anatidae (a.k.a. Dr Duck)

 

"Oh, I'm just getting warmed up!"
—Al Pacino (as Lt. Col. Frank Slade in Scent of a Woman)

Now your just imitating me. Can’t you at least be original?

You’re kidding, right? How could it? You repeated what supposedly someone at UMI told you. Unfortunately, you led the members of this forum to believe that it was your own assessment and conclusion. There’s a word for that.

I have not changed my opinion, if that's what you mean. You have implied (I can't ever be sure that you're admitting anything) that you have manipulated the information. As such, it is suspect.

No you did not. I simply assumed you were interested in fair and honest discourse and would do the honorable thing. I won’t make the same mistake again.

No you simply led everyone to believe that what you posted was an honest and complete response. I know I won’t make the same mistake again.

You know it does, Henrik. So what are you saying? You’ve now posted seven questions in a row. What’s your point? If you had already contacted UMI a subsequent time before making your first post on the matter, then you were simply baiting the members of this forum. Of course, in typical fashion, you are not saying you did, nor are you saying you didn’t. You are simply posting more nausea-inducing spin without saying anything at all in another attempt to bait the members of this forum (or maybe just me). Rest assured, I will not make the same mistake again.

That makes eight questions. Do I refuse to believe the veracity of which post of yours? If you are referring to your post with what you termed the follow-up questions to UMI, I don’t know what to believe. It might help immensely if you were to quit acting so sly and coy and simply state the names of the people you contacted, the dates of the contacts and provide actual and complete quotes (to both the questions and answers). Why does acting and communicating in a straightfoward manner seem to be such an arduous task for you?

 

Why wouldn’t an unaccredited dissertation have value to the person awarded the degree? That’s not what’s being discussed. Nor is value to society being discussed. What is being discussed is legitimacy, both of the dissertation and the degree that results from it.

Even though that’s not what’s being discussed, I don’t believe he has. I don’t even think he has addressed the issue. Could you provide a specific quote that would make you feel this way?

I am sure there are. What’s your point? I’ll make you a bet that the vast majority of these individuals do not want their employers being educated about the true nature of their alma maters and degrees. Why do you think that might be?

You know, before exhorting people to read your manual, it would behoove you to actually read the posts of the people you refer to in your comments. You are characterizing me as obsessing about wanting a list of Knightsbridge dissertations. Nothing could be further from the truth; I have never expressed this desire nor have I ever requested such a list. Moreover, if you had been reading Henrik’s posts, you would know, as I do, that such a list does not exist.

Personally, I think you are just plugging your Brown Teal manual again. I truly am saddened every time you mention it. Your manual serves as a cruel reminder of how degree mills exploit and take advantage of even little old men and their passions. My purpose here, as I see it, Dr. Hayes, is to prevent any more like you from being screwed by the likes of your alma mater and their ilk.

 

Gus, I may be older than you but I'm not little!
Yet again, your comments typify a person with a blind obsession. An obsession which is most certainly based around demeaning anyone who dare counter your fantasies.
Your latest comments also support my belief that you have lost track on what this thread is all about. ("Lost the plot" as we say in 'paradise') And, as in all threads you've become involved with, you have chosen to resort to personal abuse within minutes of participating.
Your continued abuse of my dissertation also show that you are really out of touch with reality. More Prozac may help?
Please go and join your mate Rich (Rich was in fact far more pleasant and knowledgeable) on AED. I bet you wouldn't last more than a week there, or on any other DL discussion forum.
Contrary to what Henrik believes (Henrik is a real gentleman who obviously has extensive experience in the DL world), and what I briefly believed, it seems that in fact you have little to offer to the 'real' DL world.
Dr Anatidae

 

This, of course, is the question that I've been asking Henrik since he first appeared.

Henrik's countryman Soren Kierkegaard embraced Christianity because it is absurd, but in my fallen state I'm simply unwilling to accept Knightsbridge based solely on Henrik's posts, no matter how absurd those become.

If Henrik really wants to be a representative of non-accredited schools, at some point he is going to have to discuss whatever reasons exist for believing in their academic credibility.

 

Gus, The purpose of this thread was to discuss "CAN (A) DOCTORATE BE UNACCREDITED?". Henrik, and others, have attempted to show the clear purpose and objectives of Doctorates - their value to society and to the recipient. You are one of the few people who has chosen to discuss legitimacy - which is really quite irrelevant. And if you really think you can change the world by pointing out that degrees from St Clements, Knightsbridge, K-W, Greenwich, and even TCU, are in some way fraudulent you need to come down to earth and 'get real'. Read what John Bear had to say about why people wish to obtain a degree, and then take a close look at why unaccredited universities are flourishing. There are hundreds of thousands of people throughout the world 'wanting to be screwed' as you so crudely put it.
I mentioned some months ago that when Greenwich was forced to quit Norfolk Island some people in the USA would end up with egg on their face. Your egg will soon be in its way. I might even send you a rotten brown teal egg!
The facts are that numerous unaccredited degrees are widely recognised all over the world. And whilst some people in the USA think that they are the fountain of knowledge on DL education it is simply not true. DL in New Zealand and the UK had been around for decades before ICS 'invented' DL education!
I have asked you on several posts to divulge your qualifications, and with a nil response we can safely assume that either you don't have any or that they came from a real degree mill.
Dr Anatidae

 

Dr. Hayes, I do not recall any posts in this thread (besides your most recent) that discussed this topic. My intent with starting the thread was to discuss the legitimacy of unaccredited doctorates from the point of view of, do they satisfy the criteria of making a significant contribution to the academic knowledge of mankind. I believe that this is significantly more focused than having value to society and the recipient.

For example, perhaps you weren't aware that research done in say a commercial environment and then documented in a report cannot be a dissertation. The research must be done under the guidance and within the academic community. The dissertation must then be made available to others within this community. This then makes it part of the academic knowledge of mankind.

While your dissertation may be the greatest thing since sliced bread, my understanding is that it does not fit this criteria. I get the impression that you did all the research on your own, most of it totally outside the academic community. I'm guessing that you then contacted Trinity and they happily took your money. You then completed your work and published it on your own. Did Trinity do a review? What direction, oversight, or guidance did they provide? Did they help publish it. Did Trinity have other Brown Teal Experts available for you to communicate with? Did Trinity even have any other biologists or any experts related to your field that worked with you?

 

Gus,

To repeat:

"Show me where I said that the documents are not available to the public."

+

"Individuals and organisations with a proper reason can request the loan of such documents. Such bodies would usually be sponsoring parties or colleagues. Their knowledge of the document would have come directly from the author."

Where have I implied that I 'did not post UMIS's reply in its entirety'?

Originally posted by henrikfyrst
Let me see how I can make this clear to you: If we were to submit documents to a database, we would not submit a list, we would submit electronic files, one at a time, in the format specified by the people behind the database. They would be probably not very interested in receiving a complete listing of all the documents we hold with each new submission.

GUS: Let me see if I can make this clear to you. The first thing the person maintaining the database would do is add the name of each submitted dissertation to some kind of list (or key) so that they could be retrieved when necessary. This list forms the basis for public awareness and availibilty. Knightsbridge does not maintain a list; therefore, Knightsbridge does not make the dissertations available to the public."

That, however, would be their list. Adding a document submitted to their database adds to their list. They would have no interest in the existence or otherwise of a list maintained by us.

Originally posted by henrikfyrst
There are numerous such databases available. Would you like to contact them all to confirm your 'cannot' claim?

GUS: Actually, my assertion was based on your statement that you do not have the resources to even maintain a list. If you cannot maintain a list, it stands to reason that you do not have the resources to ensure all your dissertations are published or made available by a third party (a considerably greater expense of time, money, and effort). Nevertheless, I accept your challenge. Post on this forum a list of all of the organizations that maintain legitimate databases that accept dissertations from unaccredited schools and I’ll do your research for you. If they won't accept Knightsbridge dissertaions, or if you fail to provide the list, then my assertion stands. "

It doesn't matter what basis you made your assertion on. You re the one bandying about the 'cannot'. Prove it.

Originally posted by henrikfyrst
Original words on what, exactly? Are you talking about what I posted here, or referring subliminally to some other source of information?

GUS: What you posted here, Henrik. However, the information you posted concerning UMI is now suspect as you are implying in another post that it was incomplete or might have been edited."

Suspect, my foot. You're yet, despite your predilection for throwing about links, to demonstrate where I've implied anything of the sort. Prove it.

Originally posted by henrikfyrst
That's odd. Go back and look at the toothy individual after this sentence:

GUS: I stand corrected, Henrik. The image you pointed out is usually referred to as a smilie and indicates humor. Now that I know you are adverse to smilies (or humor, I don’t know which) I promise you I will, from now on, strictly play hardball."

The smilie indicates humour if the statement you have made is humorous. In the instances shown you're using these things to hedge your bets ('Oh, I didn't really mean it'). If you really want to say what you are saying, show a little backbone to go with it.

Your calling me a whiner and asking why I play the victim etc. gives you away. Is that really the level you will stoop to? 'Think, think, what to do? Oh, I know, I'll start calling him names, that's sure to make him go away!' Instead of calling me a whiner, show me evidence of the claims you're making, or drop it. Strange how people here seem to think that taking exception to their outrageous misrepresentations constitutes whining.

If I have referred to the moving of goalposts several times, could it be that goalposts are being moved? Nooooo, of course not, if you're 'discussing' with Gus Sainz you're just whining.

quote:
"No I don’t see. First, I provided substantive and corroborating evidence as to why my conclusion was accurate (based on the information you originally provided), then, you just spun and whined."

You provided nothing of the sort, you gave an opinion. It turns out that your opinion is incorrect. Isn't that just bad luck? Trying to make it look as though the information I've given is suspect won't work. And of course, changing the subject doesn't mean you weren't wrong.

quote:
"The Danish authorities have not responded to any of my emails. Why do you think that is?"

Either they think you're whining, or they don't consider your enquiries of any importance or merit. There's any number of alternative options, of course, and I remain confident that as soon as you hear from them I shall be the first to know, as you will be dead keen to share.

Originally posted by henrikfyrst
So, what did they tell you? I have this odd feeling that you received a response that you did not like. Why? Because otherwise you'd have plastered this forum up and down with whatever you got. Why not answer the question?

GUS: Your feelings betray you, Henrik. I have not received a single reply from any Danish official. Personally, I believe they think my enquiry is a joke. I think they believe it is inconceivable that anyone would set up or anyone would enroll in a for-profit, fee-based, private unaccredited institution in a country where excellent and legitimate higher education institutions are free. It seems you are flying under the radar, Henrik; I believe that if I had enquired about a legitimate institution I would have received a reply. These are, of course, just my opinions."

And what mindless drivel your opinions are: Show me, and the rest of the readership here, just where you have found the link between external approval and legitimacy.

What you 'believe' has absolute nothing whatever to do with what you can assert. If anyone is being 'betrayed' by anything it is you by your lack of knowledge of the complete picture of the provision of higher education in Denmark.

GUS: What, precisely, is unfounded? You seem to have a problem with everything I say. None of it is to your liking or suits your purposes, so you characterize it all as unfounded. How convenient. It all rings true to me. Tell me what, specifically, it is that you want me to corroborate."

Why, obviously, all of it. Or did you think that you'd be able to treat that as sort of a buffet?

GUS: Let's see. You admitted that no Danish students are enrolled in Knightsbridge, so local consumers aren’t affected. It's logical to think it is ludicrous for an individual to pay for lower quality when he or she can have high quality for free, just as it is to hold the opinion that questionable schools tarnish the reputation of legitimate ones. Which opinions of mine do you believe have absolutely no basis in fact?"

'Admitted'? Twist, spin, twist. There are numerous nationalities not represented in the student body. This I admit.

It is pretty clear that you have no idea of the quality of instruction offered by Knightsbridge, or any of the other institutions offering fee-paying higher education without external approval in Denmark. So, whatever you think is 'logical to think', it is logical to think so only if you are biased. And you are.

Again, show me the link between external approval and legitimacy.

GUS: Are you saying that in order for the exchange to be productive I have to blindly believe everything you say? That may be productive for you, but what about me (or others)? Don’t take it personally, Henrik. I’m not saying you can’t earn my trust, but nothing you have said or done on this forum has moved you in that direction. Moreover, keep in mind that as the owner of a (at best, unaccredited, at worst, degree mill) school you have an obvious agenda."

There you go again with your nonsense. What would I want with your trust? Anyway, in spite of your claims, it is pretty obvious that you are fully entrenched in your complete distrust, not a condition I can see ever changing.

As for your continuous digs at the integrity of Knightsbridge, why not substantiate these, instead of just throwing them about willy-nilly? Oh, I know, so far all you have is the lack of a list of research documents archived. Major stuff.

GUS: I choose to protect the public from the owners and promoters of schools that are, at best, unaccredited, and at worst, degree mills."

That's an excellent choice. Why not cover some ground in each case before you start questioning their standing? What other means of protection do you apply, apart from behaving uproariously at the presence of 'someone like me' here?

I certainly hope 'the public' knows how to value your efforts. If at times they choose to not heed your advice, don't take it personally.

GUS: Are you aware of how ironic it is for you to ask me what qualifies me to assess quality standards when all we have as proof of your institution's quality or legitimacy is your word?

What qualifies you to assess quality standards? What standards do you employ? How do you ensure your institution adheres to those standards? How can a prospective student or the members of this forum first become aware of what the standards are and then verify whether they are being met? Legitimate external approval usually fulfills these functions. What do you offer in its stead? "

Ironic, you say. Would you know, that's really the first time you've showed any interest in theses issues. Funny that I had to bring them to your attention for you to think they were interesting.


Henrik

 

Gus,

In case you missed the post:

"Is that really the best you can do now?

You're not playing victim, I hope, in order to gain sympathy?

Does the information I have posted in any way contradict what I have said before?

Does the information I have posted in any way contradict what you have said before?

Did I say at any time that the first quote was made prior to mine contacting UMI the second time? Did I at any time indicate how often I have communicated with UMI? Does the sequence or timing of communications between myself and UMI in any way detract from the information provided?

So, the only point remaining, Gus, is this: Do you also this time refuse to believe the veracity of what I have posted?"



Henrik

 

The point of this thread is that unaccredited dissertations do not result in a legitimate doctorate, Dr. Hayes. No one has ever disputed the possibility that such a dissertation may have some kind of value. It’s just that unaccredited dissertations do not result in a real doctorate. Moreover, you are the only arguing the point that unaccredited dissertations have value. No one else has bothered to either argue this with you or post anything in support of your obvious assertion. In any event, the originator of this thread has already chimed in to disagree with your assessment

No there isn’t. Those who hold these fraudulent credentials fall into two camps—those who were screwed (and trust me, contrary to your ludicrous assertion, they really didn’t want to be ripped-off), and those who use their degrees to screw others. Then again, there might be a miniscule percentage of those that are simply too old, too stupid or too senile to tell the difference.

Are we talking about the same Greenwich? Are we occupying the same dimensions of time and space? Perhaps not.

I don’t disagree. So, what’s your excuse for getting a degree from one of the most blatant degree mills on the planet?

Well, well, well… It’s seems like you are the one who is truly exhibiting obsessive behavior. Go ahead, Dr. Quack, assume what you will.

 

The UK certainly had distance learning decades before any American school which is why I am pursuing my LL.M. from the University of London.

Thing is, what makes this degree valuable is that the world recognizes the University of London as a rock-solid institution. No one, NO ONE, can legitimately raise questions about the quality of the program or the level of expertise I must demonstrate to complete the program.

Were it not for the recognition the world pays UOL, however, the degree would be meaningless.

 

Henrik, Regarding your apparent lack of knowledge on the way that libraries and institutions of higher education actually work, let me provide a quote from a book.

Get the Facts on Anyone", second edition, by Dennis King, published 1998 Barnes & Noble Books says

"A congressional study has estimated that upward of 500,000 Americans have obtained false academic and/or professional credentials from diploma mills, credential brokers, and other suppliers of instant status." pg. 176

"Checking Out Subject's Thesis or Dissertation
All universities will have in their library stacks the master's theses and doctoral dissertations of graduate students who obtained degrees at that school. ... [snip the rest of this paragraph and the next paragraph of details about getting the information from the libraries]

If you cannot visit subject's college library, you can still easily find out details about his or her dissertation. ... [snip middle of paragraph about how to use the different indexes that cover all the schools]
These indexes will indicate if subject indeed has the doctorate he or she claims to have." pg. 181-182

It appears that "All universities" does not include Knightsbridge. It appears that based on this one criteria that KU is part of the category spoken about in the first sentence quoted. "diploma mills, credential brokers, and other suppliers of instant status".



The connection between external approval and legitimacy is called accreditation within the USA. Within your country, it is an unknown legally. From the point of view of being a member of the greater academic community, it seems clear that KU does not participate. (Bill Dayson's Google search, for example.)



You claimed at one point, IIRC, to do your own assessment. I believe that requesting more detail is one of Mark's "Polite Questions" to you. I've already expressed a guess that K-W self assessment is likely more rigorous than your own.


Cheers,
Bill

 

I'm glad that you are above using personal invective, Henik. People might think that you were 'victimizing' our poor Gus.

You know perfectly well what the connection between external approval and legitimacy is.

A university degree is a certification that a graduate's education met the accepted standard. In order for that certification to be publicly meaningful among colleagues, employers and clients, individuals not personally familiar with the university that granted the degree need some reason to trust that it the standards were actually met.

You yourself have made a distinction between "legitimate unaccredited" universities and mills.

So how is that 'legitimacy' defined? What signs permit outsiders to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate non-accredited schools? How may outsiders verify the class in which a particular mystery "university" correctly belongs?

We can depend entirely on a "university's" own claims. But that's a foolish choice, since many of those "universities" are intentionally misleading. We can evaluate every graduate's work ourselves. But even if that were practical, it would make their possession of a degree superfluous.

Or we can depend on the opinions of the relevant educational and professional communities.

That's the link between external approval and legitimacy.

Then stop blowing smoke and give us some reason to have confidence in "the quality of instruction offered by Knightsbridge", or for that matter, by any of the other "institutions offering fee-paying higher education without external approval in Denmark".

The mere fact that Knightsbridge is (supposedly) located in Denmark adds nothing to its reputation if Denmark has no authority over it. It could just as easily be Liberian.

We are not going to accept all non-accredited "universities" a-priori, without evidence. Even you don't do that.

If a "university" does not have trusted parties outside it verifying its standard and its credibility, then what alternative method do you propose that we use to establish those things?

You, Henrik, are Knightsbridge's owner and proprietor. You introduced yourself to us as a representative of non-accredited schools.

It is your responsibility to provide the needed information, not ours. If you are unable or unwilling to provide convincing and verifiable evidence of Knightsbridge's academic legitimacy, we are certainly justified in our suspicions that it is probably substandard.

If the majority of non-accredited schools are substandard, then it's rational to suspect (defeasibly, of course) that any randomly selected nonaccredited school is probably substandard as well.

It's not our responsibility to trust Knightsbridge blindly, it is your responsibility to earn our trust.

You avoid licensing. You avoid accreditation. You produce no visible scholarship. You appear to have no scholarly or professional recognition. The standard university listings for Denmark don't include you. You move your school from country to country.

But you come in here and expect us to accept your toy "university" blindly, merely on your personal authority, based only on our faith in your word.

That's why I mentioned your countryman Soren Kierkegaard. I'm not prepared to take the leap and become a "knight of faith" in favor of your Knightsbridge, no matter how absurd you make it seem.

You need to present convincing evidence in its behalf that's visible and verifiable by outsiders.

 

Listen, Henrik, if you are not going to bother reading my posts, please don’t respond. I never said you said the documents weren’t available to the public. I said they weren’t. I said that because they are not. If I am wrong, please tell me were I can access a list of dissertations from Knightsbridge University and the procedure for ordering one.

As I already stated (when I have to repeat myself, my opinion of the intelligence of the person I’m communicating with diminishes rapidly), the exorbitant requirement that the author of a dissertation make you aware of it’s existence and supply you with its exact title negates the both the spirit and the exact the definition of “making available to the public.” Moreover, what do you mean by “with proper reason?” Who decides that?

Didn’t I tell you I wasn't going to be duped by the sly and coy crap anymore? I won’t make the same mistake again.

The point was that a list forms the basis for availability. Knightsbridge University does not maintain a public list, therefore Knightsbridge University does not make their dissertations available to the public. This is one of the signs of a degree mill, by the way.

Why, Henrik, it appears you are becoming uncharacteristically unglued. What do you mean it doesn’t matter what I “base my assertions on?” Of course it does. I will grant you, however, that since I based my assertions on your own comments, you may be amply justified in questioning the honesty and integrity of my corroborating evidence.

You issued a challenge and I accepted. The caveat was that if you did not or could not supply a simple list of those organizations that maintain legitimate databases and accept unaccredited dissertations my assertion would stand. Put up or shut up; stop spinning and whining.

First, when you “borrow” exact phraseology without attribution and lead others to believe it is your own opinion and conclusion, that is ample evidence of manipulation. Second, reread your post (the one that consisted only of questions); your slyness and coyness alone is sufficient to render what you say suspect.

I’m sorry, Henrik. Everyone thinks they have a sense of humor; but not everyone really has a sense of humor. What can I say? Moreover, how much backbone do you want me to exhibit? I have already stated (in response to your question) that my purpose here is to protect the public from those who own and promote grossly substandard schools and degree mills. How personal do you want me to get?

You’re whining again.

Can’t stop, can you?

 

I guess you just don’t know who you are dealing with, Henrik. Let me show you how it is done. On September 12, 2003 at approximately 11:15 AM EST I spoke with Jerrie Gray in the Dissertation Department at UMI. I asked her why UMI accepted dissertations from accredited schools but not unaccredited schools. She responded that unaccredited schools did not meet their standards. She went on to say that UMI did not set the standards for each individual dissertation, but to ensure that UMI's quality standards were adhered to, they only accepted dissertations from accredited schools. She also mentioned that they used to have a Research Abstract program for unaccredited dissertations, but they did not consider them to be dissertations in the usual sense and the program was discontinued. I then asked if they did not accept dissertations from unaccredited schools due to resource or manpower considerations. Here’s what she said:

• ”It’s not an issue of manpower, it’s a question of standards.”

I asked her if I could quote her on that on a public forum. She replied:

• ”Sure. It’s definitely not an issue of manpower.”

There you have it. See, Henrik? This is how it should be done. When you resort to subterfuge evasion, spin, slyness and coyness, anything you post is rendered suspect. So tell me, Henrik, who’s conclusion was wrong? Oh, and by the way, Ms. Gray can be reached at 1-734-761-4700 extension 7020.

Do you realize how funny it sounds to hear you state that you believe the Danish authorities would consider an enquiry about Knightsbridge University to be without any importance or merit?

You're kidding, right? Once again, Henrik, I do believe you are becoming unglued. You must not care about making a complete fool of yourself on a public forum. Does the word standards mean anything to you at all?

Only something with a callous disregard for truth and integrity would make such a statement.

You have yet to prove that Knightsbridge University is part of the higher education system in Denmark. You once compared your business to a shoe shop. How are we to tell whether Knightsbridge is more akin to a shoe shop than to a real university?

Your intellectual dishonesty appears to know no bounds, Henrik.

Admitted! I stand by my statement. In response to my query, on 07-21-2003 you wrote:

• ”Ku has not in its current incarnation enrolled students residing in Denmark.”

I guess that twist and spin must be you (or maybe squirm is more like it).

I freely admit that I have no idea of the quality of instruction offered by Knightsbridge, however, that’s the whole point. Perhaps the only person in the entire world that has any idea of the quality of education offered by Knightsbridge University is Henrik Fyrst, and he ain’t talking. Well, he is talking, but he ain’t saying much.

You can’t be serious. Statements like this one risk destroying what little credibility you have left on this forum.

Considering that the only way to engender trust is to develop a proven track record of honesty and integrity, the fact that you don’t believe the condition will change speaks volumes.

The most damning evidence of Knightsbridge’s lack of integrity and legitimacy are your own comments and behavior on this forum.

Without any form external oversight the burden of proof as to legitimacy falls upon the institution. I am trying to ascertain the legitimacy of Knightsbridge University by asking specific questions of the owner. He has proven to be evasive and (dare I say it?) downright sleazy in his replies.

I don’t mind; not everyone qualifies for Mensa, either.

You’re kidding, right? I can’t tell anymore. I know you are a newbie, Henrik, but do a little research before embarrassing yourself so thoroughly on a public forum.

Moreover, I noticed you, once again, only posted false accusations wrong conclusions, and unfounded assertions (in addition to your usual spin and whine). Since this is a distance education discussion forum, why didn’t you bother answering any of the legitimate questions posed to you? Here they are again.

What qualifies you to assess quality standards?
What standards do you employ?
How do you ensure your institution adheres to those standards?
How can a prospective student or the members of this forum first become aware of what the standards are and then verify whether they are being met?

Legitimate external approval usually fulfills these functions. What do you offer in its stead?

 

BillH, I've just re-read all 117 posts on this topic. Throughout these posts there has been numerous posts about - Quality educational material, quality dissertations, best dissertations, quality level of dissertations, adding to existing knowledge, review and judgement by peers, contribution to a specialised area of knowledge, availablity of dissertations, what contribution does the dissertation add to the knowledge of manking, does it make a significant advancement of knowledge, etc. All this adds up to whether a dissertation is of any VALUE, whether it was completed through a unaccredited university or otherwise. Only in the last few posts was 'legitimacy' mentioned - brought up by members who firmly believe that a unaccredited dissertation can have no value. And if there is no 'value' to the author there is no purpose in pursuing a degree at any level.
Many posts have promoted the philosophy that QUALITY dissertations do come from unaccredited universities.
In regard to my brown teal dissertation, a number of posts on this have already appeared about this and I don't want to bore/nauseate Gus by repeating these. But in these discussions I have offered to email interested members a copy of the ten page TCU Thesis and Dissertation requirements.
Also Bill, as far as I am aware you have not read either the TCU requirements or my dissertation, or the resultant publication. Hence your totally subjective opinion on these matters is, I feel, quite irrelevant!
Dr Antatidae

 

Toilet paper has value.