First question to Henrik re-Knightsbridge University

Nice one again Gus!

 

Harps and the Irish

No doubt depending on circumstances we all harbour bigotry of sorts. My reference to the 'harp' was obviously, as commented by someone, a simple play on words. It was certainly not meant to be a derogatory remark, although no doubt by some it could be taken as such, if they really wanted to.

As for ethnicity, it is not a topic I spend much thought on at all. If I manage at times to insult someone by misusing a term, I'm always happy to apologise and review my use of the term. So, if my attempt at being funny in relation to Gus's 'harping on' has somehow ticked somebody off, you have my apologies, I know that the thinner of skin will bleed when scratched, and I never intended to scratch in the first place.

If it's any consolation I can state emphatically that the few Irish I have met were a total delight to share time with.

Acceptable?


Henrik

 

Bill Huffman gave us:

QUOTE
"
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by henrikfyrst
Most pleased to have delighted you. This saves me sending you my photo!

Let me re-visit the 'turn-key college' concept.

[...]

If I had a shoe-shop and this was all about shoes, there would be no problem, would there?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Henrik, I'll take you at your word that I could possibly be even more delighted with your photo.

Shoe shops are different. But to continue to use your analogy, let's say that a promise was made that a turn-key shoe shop was available for sale, including all required employees. I question whether or not such a promise could in fact be reasonably met.

The part of the KU turn-key offer that looks highly suspect to me is the list of adjunct professors. I also would like to point out a criticism that's potentially relevant to this discussion. I seem to recall a criticism of KU that a list of adjunct professors seems to be advertised that includes many people that have never actually worked for KU. This would seem to indicate the possibility of deception, if not dishonesty? Selling such a list as part of a turn-key operation would seem to be very encouraging to fraudulent behavior?"
UNQUOTE

Bill,

Most disappointing response on the issue of the photo, but I've never tried this on-line dating before, so don't know the correct moves yet!

On the aspect of adjunct faculty, it has been already cleared with relevant parties that they would make themselves available for additional assignments. Of course, were this not the case, we'd advertise for more. They are readily available. Please note that these people do not need to go to work in the morning and stay in the shop all day.

So, we're not selling a list (what the heck would be the point of that?) but including the availability of adjunct faculty in the extent it is required. It is entirely possible that takers would in fact be disinterested, and use existing contacts.

The discussion about people listed who don't work for us relates not to 'many people', but to a Dr Kannan. He does not work for us directly (although he could if called for), but is involved with the provision of courses for a collaborating institution in Malaysia. His listing is therefore as correct as the next person's. It just so happens that in Dr Kannan's field we're already well supplied with solid names, and have not had to call upon his assistance in this fashion.

Of course, Mark Israel and others from this side of the globe will be probably more than happy to tell you of their experience with tenured professors whose job it seemed very difficult if not impossible to define by even the keenest observer, as they never seemed to do anything but turn up at meals and potter about.

It is ironic that when we dispensed with displaying such a list this was seen as a dead give-away that KU was a mill. Now that it's there, some cannot wait to try and pick holes.

I hope this is of illumination, knowing how slippery and evasive I otherwise tend to be.


Henrik

 

Saturday Night Live

I just knew there was something missing from my life, and now I know it was the 'Church Lady' and other assorted nutters and critters. Unfortunately, I have been unable to take in this show since, oh, it must be the late 80es.

As for the 'ignorant slut', I can only assume there are other contributors of whom I am unaware who share my first name. Not outwith the realm of the possible. Or, if I recall correctly, in Homer's words: 'It's just a bit of slime, it's still good, it's still good.'

I guess if this is Gus's version of 'sarcasm' we just have differing interpretations, and I wish him the best of luck in polishing his skills.

Please do not take any offence on my behalf, it makes little difference overall.


Henrik

 

Re: Saturday Night Live

In the mid-1970s, the television program “60 Minutes” featured a weekly three-minute debate on topical issues between conservative James Kilpatrick and liberal Shana Alexander entitled ''Point-Counterpoint’ between conservative James Kilpatrick and liberal Shana Alexander. ''Saturday Night Live'''s newscast with Jane Curtin and Dan Aykroyd parodied this segment, and Dan would always open his argument with the catchprase, ''Jane, you ignorant slut.''

As Henrik’s verbosity sans substance increasingly took on the tone of “Point-Counterpoint” (SNL’s parody, not the original version) I thought the phrase (which is definitely part of Americana) was both approprate and humorous. For those of you who didn’t get the joke (try Googling ''Jane, you ignorant slut.'') I apologize.

And as to polishing my sarcasm skills, Henrik, how about this?

• Welcome to the forum!

 

Bill Huffman posted:

QUOTE
"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BillDayson
What legally empowers Knightsbridge to grant its degrees?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I believe that I owe everyone following this thread an apology for distracting Henrik from the better questions (like Bill's and Gus's). My only defense is that I really am enjoying Henrik's posts. Sorry again and I'm looking forward to Henrik's next gem. "
UNQUOTE

Bill,

Not so much distracted as trying to get a stack of paperwork off my desk so that I can justify all of this skipping off for visits to the aquarium and ice cream.

This thread is now so long that no doubt I have missed something 'up there', and so if anyone is wondering why I have not addressed something they've posted for my attention I would ask that they please try again.

As for Bill Dayson's question, and thank you for bringing this to my attention, KUs status is that of a self-validating, independent institution. The 'right to grant degrees' is not one that we need to apply for or be given by an external body. The rules are simply: If you are not interested in public funding, you can do what you please, and your success, or lack of same, will be up to how well the public receives what you have to offer.

I have been in touch with the Danish 'Evalueringsinstituttet' (www.eva.dk) who deal with evaluation of courses. It is pretty clear that funds and evaluation are closely related. Not only this, but once you're in the 'public basket', you lose every scrap of autonomy. I know, much as is the case with UK institutions, Danish higher education institutions have a sheen of autonomy, but essentially that's varnish. They are politically top-down managed in terms of funding as well as policies.

For a look at another Danish institution with no external approval, yet enjoying tremendous success, have a look at www.simi.dk.


Henrik

 

Interviewer: So, doctor, where did you study to become a psychiatrist?
Doctor: Texas
Interviewer: Ah, yes, the University of Texas.
Doctor: Not the university. I studied in Texas.
Interviewer: In Texas? Not at a university? How did you become a psychiatrist?
Doctor: I put my hand on a rock, looked up in the sky and said, "I AM A PSYCHIATRIST!"

Mel Brooks and Carl Reiner

 

I guess I'm just a Carpathian dullard, but I don't recall a personal attack made against me by Dr Hayes. I went back and looked, too.

 

OK, Dr. Quack, now see what you’ve done! You have our esteemed Uncle Janko feeling a bit distraught and neglected.

Don’t worry, Unk, I’m sure he’ll get to you eventually. Keep in mind that DegreeInfo has over 4000 members, and currently, the good doctor appears to be a bit obsessed with Rich and I. May I suggest asking him for a good recipe for NZ Brown Teal?

On the other hand, the fact that you requested a copy of his masterpiece might have given you a lifetime pass. Hmmm, I wonder if that would work for me.

 

Current incarnation? So, KU has now been incorporated in three different jurisdictions? (Why does that sound familiar?) The fact that they haven’t enrolled any students residing in Denmark is not surprising. As legitimate higher education is highly subsidized in Denmark, it appears that KU does not run the risk of enrolling anyone in their home country anytime soon. Henrik’s statement is a bit ambiguous, however. Did any students residing in Denmark enroll in a previous incarnation of KU in the belief it was a UK institution?

I appears that I might have to agree with you, Henrik. In your business model, degrees are just like shoes, nothing more, nothing less.

As no one else has answered Henrik’s plea, I will offer my suggestion. Being that there are simply too many parallels to ignore, my suggestion for KU’s new name is….

(drum roll, please)

• 
  
  KENNEDY-EASTERN UNIVERSITY!

Just think of the possibilities!

 

From the 2002 Eurydyce Database for Denmark

http://www.eurydice.org/Eurybase/Application/frameset.asp?country=DK&language=EN

2.6. Private Education

Denmark has a tradition of private schools which receive a substantial government subsidy. The legislation contains detailed provisions about the allocation of government subsidies but only very general provisions regarding the educational content. All that is demanded of private education at Folkeskole level for instance is that it measures up to that of the municipal schools. At the 'Folkeskole' level, private education caters for about 12% of the pupils, and at Gymnasiums / HF -courses, it caters for 4,5% of the pupils.

2.6.4. Private education at higher education level

There are no private institutions as such at this level

But the Danish Ministry of Education's webpage does kind of suggest the loophole in Danish law that Henrik is apparently trying to exploit:

Institutional recognition/accreditation procedures

Higher education institutions are publicly financed and State-regulated. The quality of higher education is assured by ministerial approval of new programmes and institutions, external examiners and an evaluation system. Although they have institutional autonomy, institutions must follow general regulations concerning teacher qualifications, award structures, study programmes and quality assurance.

While private institutions can operate without any approval, they must, however, abide by an accreditation procedure to make their students eligible for state study grants.

In Denmark the Danish Ministry of Education regulates almost all college sector higher education, whereas the university sector is a part of the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation.

http://eng.uvm.dk/factsheets/dvu.htm?menuid=2520

I tried doing a search for 'knightsbridge' at the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation website, and got this result:

Beklager, søgningen gav desværre ikke noget resultat!

Which I assume means no record found.

http://www.videnskabsministeriet.dk/cgi-bin/frontpage.cgi

My opinion of all this?

First, it seems possible that Denmark has no regulations at all governing private universities. At least that's Henrik's interpretation. Anyone can set themselves up as a "university" and start granting "degrees", so long as they decline state funding. This makes Wyoming regulation look positively draconian by comparison.

Since we know that Degree-mill operators follow Degreeinfo, expect to see a host of new Danish "private universities" appearing out of nowhere on the internet in a few months.

And secondly, this highlights the fact that the "European model" of university foundation and regulation seems to have little idea what to do with private universities. It's not even clear what the legal basis of a private university is. These countries haven't had the occasion to deal with private universities up until now, and their laws and procedures fail to adaquately address them.

 

Actually, Bill, the Danish Ministry of Science Technology and Innovation maintains an excellent English language Web site. They feature a good search function that allows you to search for Institutions as well as Legislative Material. The search engine for Legislative Materials searches by year for such items as Draft Bills, Bills, Acts, Regulations, and Draft Ministerial Orders. It can be found here. My searches did not yield any relevant information, therefore, at this time, I must concur with you that there appears to be an enormous loophole. In any event, I have written to the Ministry for clarification on this matter.

 

Gus Sainz seconded as follows:

QUOTE
"Actually, Bill, the Danish Ministry of Science Technology and Innovation maintains an excellent English language Web site. They feature a good search function that allows you to search for Institutions as well as Legislative Material. The search engine for Legislative Materials searches by year for such items as Draft Bills, Bills, Acts, Regulations, and Draft Ministerial Orders. It can be found here. My searches did not yield any relevant information, therefore, at this time, I must concur with you that there appears to be an enormous loophole. In any event, I have written to the Ministry for clarification on this matter."
UNQUOTE

Gus,

It is not a loophole.

There is no option for the external approval of private providers of higher education. Because they are provided without state funding. As such, they are considered similar to the courses the state universities may offer for a fee, for which there is also no external approval available. This is called 'the free market'.

As you will deduce from the above, approval is available only where state funding is involved. In no other connection.

The only area where the state has any interest in private education provision is where it relates to state funding.

I am sure the nice folks at the Ministry will be happy to share the same facts with you.

By the way. Your work on sarcasm still requires just that final touch. However, your attempt seems to support my dawning understanding that perhaps your 'I-alone-know' kingdom has no room for other opinions.


Henrik

 

Hi Gus: Thank you for your concern. I do feel neglected, but by the fairer sex. Since I am ugly, ill-tempered, and mostly broke, this is understandable. However, I am not distraught.
I may be very disorganized, but I am indeed traught. Yours, Janko

 

As it is not the result of ambiguity, perhaps you are right; it is not (technically) a loophole. Instead, it is a glaring omission. Either way, it does make it possible to evade a difficulty or obligation. Perhaps the reason Danish laws do not address private institutions is because it was unfathomable that anyone would pay out of their own pockets for a questionable education when a legitimate one was available for free. I am also aware that legislation exists making accreditation available for private institutions, and that this accreditation then renders the school’s students eligible for public funds. My questions to the Ministry were not concerning the facts that are readily available on their Web site; they were much more specific.

I have no interest in reopening the age-old debate concerning legal vs. legitimate. Supposing we stipulate its legality, how do we now determine KU’s legitimacy? For example, would a KU degree be deemed acceptable for a Danish civil service position that required such a degree?

You are making a common mistake; you are confusing quantity with quality. The reason I have not taken my use of sarcasm to what you consider the next level is by choice. Unlike you, I still wish to be able to turn it off when necessary. In other words, I choose to remain its master rather than its servant.

 

Gus persisted:

QUOTE
"Originally posted by henrikfyrst
Gus,

It is not a loophole.

There is no option for the external approval of private providers of higher education. Because they are provided without state funding. As such, they are considered similar to the courses the state universities may offer for a fee, for which there is also no external approval available. This is called 'the free market'.

As you will deduce from the above, approval is available only where state funding is involved. In no other connection.

The only area where the state has any interest in private education provision is where it relates to state funding.

I am sure the nice folks at the Ministry will be happy to share the same facts with you.
----------------------------------------------------------------


As it is not the result of ambiguity, perhaps you are right; it is not (technically) a loophole. Instead, it is a glaring omission. Either way, it does make it possible to evade a difficulty or obligation. Perhaps the reason Danish laws do not address private institutions is because it was unfathomable that anyone would pay out of their own pockets for a questionable education when a legitimate one was available for free. I am also aware that legislation exists making accreditation available for private institutions, and that this accreditation then renders the school’s students eligible for public funds. My questions to the Ministry were not concerning the facts that are readily available on their Web site; they were much more specific.

I have no interest in reopening the age-old debate concerning legal vs. legitimate. Supposing we stipulate its legality, how do we now determine KU’s legitimacy? For example, would a KU degree be deemed acceptable for a Danish civil service position that required such a degree?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by henrikfyrst
By the way. Your work on sarcasm still requires just that final touch. However, your attempt seems to support my dawning understanding that perhaps your 'I-alone-know' kingdom has no room for other opinions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are making a common mistake; you are confusing quantity with quality. The reason I have not taken my use of sarcasm to what you consider the next level is by choice. Unlike you, I still wish to be able to turn it off when necessary. In other words, I choose to remain its master rather than its servant."
UNQUOTE

Gus,

There is no perhaps about any of this. I can see that you do not want to accept that a sovereign state may have notions different to yours, but that's a fact. Every time I provide you with information contrary to your convictions, there must be either something wrong with the information, or the basis upon which the information came to be.

One would have thought that being subject to all that 'americana' would have by now opened your eyes to the concept of 'the free market'. We are not talking about a loophole, technical or otherwise, we are not talking about a 'glaring omission'. What we are talking about is a condition that does not rhyme with your ideology.

Whatever questions you asked of the Ministry, the answers you will receive will support what I have been telling you. The philosophy very much is to let the public decide for themselves what they wish to pursue. If you don't like that, that's just tough.

As for mistaking quality over quantity, you should understand that there cannot be a quality discussion before there is any content. In order to take anything to 'the next level', you first have to place it at some level. Slapstick isn't sarcasm.

This rather makes me wonder if the elements in my posts that you think is sarcasm, actually is. Maybe you have completely misread my posts.

Your posts addressed to me suggest that you're well ensconced in a particular mindset, and for some reason seem to think that I must be brought to agree with you. Even if you must employ insult and invective. This is not my understanding of a fruitful discussion. Perhaps it will help me to understand you, but I doubt if the opposite is the case.


Henrik

 

Dear Henrik,

1) You have suggested that one can assess the quality of a school by "legwork". Could you please give an example of "legwork" that would help a person assess the quality of Knightsbridge, and that would not require taking the word of Knightsbridge personnel for information?

2) Could you describe Knightsbridge's "self-validation" process? Who among your personnel assesses what, how do they decide if it's "valid", and what do they do about it if it's not?

 

Do you see how you habitually (and quite negatively) characterize the posts of others?

You are misrepresenting what I said. I don’t know whether you do this intentionally or if whether you have assumed such a defensive posture that you characterize everything as an attack. Perhaps you do this in hopes that people will stop asking questions, or forget that you haven’t answered the questions posed. (I do know that someone with nothing to hide wouldn’t do this). Please reread my post; I agreed with you that Danish laws are as you state. I employed the term ”perhaps” in relation to why Danish laws are as they are. I never stated whether I agreed with them or not. Please point out where I stated there was something wrong with the information or its provenance.

Right now, Henrik, no Danish legislators give a damn because no voters in Denmark are affected. As soon as a few degree mills open shop in Denmark to exploit the situation (I can see it already: Web sites proclaiming, “As per Danish law Schitzinger University has been granted the right to self-accredit!”), perhaps someone will take interest. As local consumers still probably won’t be affected (once again, who in their right mind would pay for lower quality when higher quality is available for free?), but sooner or later someone will come to the conclusion that a plethora of questionable “Danish” schools tarnishes the reputation of the legitimate ones.

You have no idea what I’ve asked the Ministry. For example, what do you think the Ministry would say if I asked them if a KU degree would be acceptable for a position within the Ministry that that required such a degree?

I have not misread your posts, but you are correct, perhaps some of what I’ve characterized as sarcasm, isn’t. However, this was intentional; to call it was it really is would be less diplomatic and lack decorum.

Thanks, Henrik, I really needed a laugh this morning. Convincing you of something? Why, Henrik, you flatter me; the thought never even crossed my mind.

Once again, you post nothing more than a lengthy personal attack. Do you think that by doing so everyone will forget the simple questions posed to you? Is it your intention to intimidate the members of this forum in the hopes that they will cease asking questions about the legitimacy of Knightsbridge University? If so, good luck.

 

“Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.”
—William Shakespeare

 

Reading Henrik's posts is akin to taking a very bitter pill. It’s nauseating.