First question to Henrik re-Knightsbridge University

It's interesting and perhaps revealing that Henrik seems to be equating market economics with the freedom to operate a degree-mill.

But this isn't a discussion of political theory. It's an inquiry into the legal status of Knightsbridge "University", and into how the status of 'university' is acquired in Denmark. Henrik asserts that anyone in Denmark is free to call themselves a "university" and to distribute "degrees", so long as they don't accept state funding.

That may or may not be true. But if it is, that means that Denmark has weaker university standards (precisely none) than do any of the places (Wyoming etc.) that are routinely criticised for their lax standards. That's very useful to know when we are considering a Danish university.

I think that the United States has more experience with private universities than does Denmark. We have several thousand of them, while Denmark seems to have had none in its long history (and according to Eurodice, still doesn't).

In the United States, those proposing to operate a degree-granting institution have to register it with their state. (Schools of religion may be an exception.) The various states enforce standards on their private universities as they see fit. Those standards range from minimal to strict. But even the most minimal far exceed what you say is true in Denmark.

That makes me think that this Danish loophole (assuming that it exists) is an unintentional omission. Given Denmark's proven solicitude for the welfare of its people in all other spheres, it's unlikely that they would have no interest in the quality of academic provision provided by Denmark's universities. Besides, if this hands-off policy was consciously intended to throw open the gates to any and all kinds of "private universities", no matter what they really are or what they are really doing, then where in the world is the rest of Denmark's private higher education sector?

 

Let me see if I've got this right. Denmark doesn't have private universities. The government doesn't approve private universities. Knightsbridge operates from Denmark without any legal basis.

Knightsbridge, it would seem, is not a university, regardless what it calls itself.

 

Henrik, why would the Eurydice Database on Education (linked to from the Danish Ministry of Education Web site) state the following?

• 
  2.6.4. Private education at higher education level
  There are no private institutions as such at this level.

 

Rich, I agree that the definition of a "university" should not be by self-proclamation. But do you really want the definition to include a "legal basis"?

I just looked up "university" in a couple of dictionaries. Merriam-Webster says "authorized to grant academic degrees" but doesn't say authorized by whom. Oxford (Canadian) doesn't even mention "authorized":

"an educational institution designed for instruction of students in many branches of advanced learning, conferring degrees in various faculties, and often embodying colleges and similar institutions"

I don't see why a "university" cannot operate either in defiance of a despotic regime, or in an anarchy.

 

Now Mark, why would you say that Denmark is in anarchy?

 

I've never said anything rude about anybody! Least of all my 'Uncle'. Uncle read my manual, made constructive comments and is a friend for life.
Dr Duck

 

Hey, Unk! It looks like I was right; you got a lifetime pass!

 

So Henrik, were you going to address some of those questions that weren't answered? Should I collect them together for you?

BTW, over in another thread, someone made a kind of joke (?) that you were also posting as someone else on this board. Please don't do that because the admins watch that very closely and seem to ban people that do that. I would be saddened to not be blessed by your silly little jokes any longer.

 

Dear BillDayson,
sorry to say so, but that´s not true at all and far too overgeneralised.
There is no "European model" at all yet,
each European country has its own laws.
Maybe (/hopefully) there will be at least EU wide laws in the near(er) future, but so far, it´s still totally different countries.
Besides, your statement is not even true at all - I know for sure at least about Germany, England (/GB), Holland and Austria, that there it is not even allowed to call yourself "University" unless you´re not officially state approved, neither to grant any degrees at all - that´s totally illegal...
(just my 2 cents...)

Trigger

 

Okay, I thought I'd bump this thread again.

I reread the whole thread! There were some questions unanswered but not so many as I thought. (Good job Henrik!) Here's my collection.

________________________________________________
Bill Dayson asks,

1. 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?

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

3. You draw a distinction between degree mills and legitimate non-accredited schools. So, how are you distinguishing between them?

4. More generally, when a graduate presents a degree earned at a non-accredited institution to a third party, how might that third party go about making the necessary determination?

Gus Sainz asked,

5. As you are purportedly purveying education, I used the term educator out of respect. Thank you for the correction. If, however, as you claim, you are “not in any way involved in the academic work,” who, then, is providing or is responsible for the oversight and “self-validation?”
_________________________________________________

I suspect that Henrik will reasonably argue that he already answered 1-4 to the best of his ability. I would be interested in an answer to Gus's question at least. At the risk of inflaming some of my fellow degreeInfo members and sending this thread off-topic, I note that the infamous degree mill known as Kennedy-Western apparently claims to be self-validating (at least according to RJT). They hire an RA professor once a year to do this validation. I suspect that the self-validating done by KU is not nearly as "demanding" as this though or at least, not as expensive.

Since I reread the whole thread I have to punish everyone else for my masochism by giving my overall assessment of the thread.

First, I wish to thank Henrik for being brave and showing up in the first place. I have really been entertained by his posts and believe that he has presented himself quite well. It has been fun having an unaccredited school owner posting, oops I mean vice-chancellor.

Second, I really don't think that KU has been helped by Henrik's participation. I think the questions have been asked that could potentially give outsiders like us some insight into KU as an academic institution but unfortunately none of those questions have really produced any information. For example, if I could get a list of all the dissertations and then randomly select a few to be read, it might be very enlighting. Unfortunately unlike all the real schools that I know of, KU doesn't have a listing of their dissertions. Another example, Bill's Google footprint test produced a very blank picture of KU. That was not very comforting either.

I have to agree with Mark that the most convincing (to me) bit of information that puts KU in any positive light is John Bear's rather off handed comment. If that comment was based entirely on how delightful Henrik's writing is then it is understandable but really not anything that can be taken to the bank.

In closing, I must point out that the MIGS degree mill exposure was due in large part to Gus. I'm hoping that some interesting information may come from Gus's inquiry.

 

My questions have always been these:

Two general questions:

1. Henrik makes a distinction between degree mills and legitimate non-accredited. I want to know how he personally makes that distinction.

2. I want to know how individuals who aren't personally acquainted with a non-accredited school can assure themselves of its legitimacy.

The same two questions directed specifically at Knightsbridge:

3. What reasons can Henrik, Knightsbridge's proprietor, give us to assure us that Knightsbridge isn't a degree mill?

4. How can a prospective student or an employer, in other words someone who doesn't already know Knightsbridge, verify Knightsbridge's legitimacy?

If Bill Huffman thinks that Henrik has already answered these questions, then perhaps Bill might be so kind as to give us a synopsis of what those answers were, and/or point us to where Henrik's answers might be found.

 

OK, here is Henrik's answer:

"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."

If I may be allowed to paraphrase his second sentence: Considering schools in general, Henrik thinks that a 2-state system ("mill" or "not mill") does not describe reality very well, because schools lie in a continuum of quality. So, a better question than "How can we determine if School X a mill?" is "How can we assess the quality of School X?" Once we have assessed where a school lies in the continuum of quality, we can where we wish draw the line in the continuum below which any school is a mill.

Considering Knightsbridge University in particular, Henrik claims that, so far from being a mill, it is better than the Danish public universities: "Although registered for corporate purposes in Denmark, we are not part of the formal Danish higher education system. [...] We strive to offer high quality programmes to high calibre candidates, and this goal does not sit well with a political history with a focus on egalitarianism."
(http://www.knightsbridgeuniversity.com/about.html)

How can we know this for ourselves? "Legwork, acquired insight and common sense", says Henrik. But Bill Dayson and Gus are at a loss to see what such "legwork" is possible. Hence the question I asked of Henrik above:

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?

 

I guess that I disagree with Bill H. in that I consider that reply of Henrik's to be evasive, and not really an answer at all.

Here's how I interpreted it:

The first sentence tells us that distinguishing legitimate non-accredited schools from mills takes "legwork", "insight" and "common sense". Presumably that means that an inquirer needs to exert an effort to acquire the necessary information and needs to exercise wisdom in interpreting it. My response is obvious: what kind of information should we be looking for, where might it be acquired, and what kind of weights should we put on it?

The second sentence tells us that because there is no formal definition of a mill, Henrik is unwilling to share with us how he thinks "legwork", "insight" and "common sense" might best be employed.

So, bottom line, is that we have been given no information at all, and are no better off than we were before Henrik "answered" the question.

I certainly would agree with that 'continuum thesis' myself, and would have no problem if Henrik embraced it.

I agree with that. I disagree that rephrasing the question in that way justifies refusal to answer it. And I'd point out that Henrik uses the 'legitimate/mill' distinction hmself, so it obviously has some meaning for him.

I'll happily second that.

I should say that I'm not entirely at a loss in seeing how such "legwork" is possible. I think that in some cases we can distinguish legitimate non-accredited schools from mills. That's the point of my using the "Google test" and of my postings about non-accredited schools that I like on the other forum. I'm quite willing to embrace a legitimate non-accredited university if I am given convincing reason why I should.

The fact that there is no formally defined set of necessary and sufficient conditions, that the realm of possible evidence is essentially unbounded, and that people have some freedom to decide what weight to give whatever evidence presents itself, doesn't imply as Henrik seems to suggest, that no evidence is necessary or can be provided.

If that were the case, then there would be no occasion to exercise "legwork","insight" or "common sense".

 

Hi Bill,

I believe that your questions to Henrik were fair. I also believe that Henrik did as good of a job trying to answer your questions as he could. I agree with you that his answers seemed evasive. On the other hand I believe that from his perspective, he's already answered them the best he can. I guess rereading my post I threw in that "reasonably" word.

"I suspect that Henrik will reasonably argue that he already answered 1-4 to the best of his ability."

Since I must admit that your questions are always fair, it must mean that your question to me is also fair. Now, I don't pretend to be as good at evasive answers as I might like to be, so I won't even try.

So in not answering I'll say two things.

1. I did put your questions on the unanswered list.

2. I'll just say that Mark did probably a better job than I could in explaining it and I'll also say that contrary to what might be assumed by reading my posts, I sometimes want to pretend to be a good guy. You know, just to confuse people.

 

Well, it certainly appears that the RA Extremists have succeeded in eliminating/discouraging Henrik from further posting. It was, of course, quite apparent that when Dr Bear suggested that Henrik be given the chance to discuss his unaccredited university he stood little chance of discussing anything that was contrary to what the 1/2 dozen DegreeInfo RA Extremists believed.
All very sad, as Henrik provided the opportunity to show quite conclusively that many so called 'non-accredited' degrees can be of real value to individuals - and in many cases to society in general - and to the expansion of knowledge.
Dr Duck

 

What an illogical and unfair characterization. First, regional accreditation had nothing to do with the discussion. Second, no one tried to eliminate or discourage Henrik from posting, quite the contrary. The truth is, although we encouraged him to post, all we were left with was a veritable plethora of hooey, gobbledygook, and unanswered questions. The bottom line is that Henrik stopped posting here because his answers were doing Knightsbridge University more harm than good. It’s that simple.

Personally, I find your self-serving egotistical viewpoint a bit tiresome. Has it ever crossed your mind that, regardless of what is in your best interests, 'non-accredited' degrees do not have real value, and cause much more harm than good to society? Henrik made it clear that he wasn’t here to defend all unaccredited schools; he was here to discuss Knightsbridge University. Moreover, even if he had succeeded in convincing others that Knightsbridge was a legitimate institution, how would that change the fact, Dr. Quack, that your degree was issued by a blatant degree mill? That’s what I don’t get about you degree mill apologists. You seem to think that there is safety in numbers and as long as one mill or unaccredited school is deemed to have any value, all others are automatically (or is that magically?) rendered legitimate.

I believe Henrik’s motivation to post here was both to attract prospective students and have Knightsbridge’s materials (Web site, etc.) scrutinized by DegreeInfo members in hopes of receiving suggestions that would make them appear more legitimate and less ”millish.” (He failed in the first goal but somewhat succeeded in the second.) If an individual as eloquent as Henrik cannot present a, honest, credible, straightforward and persuasive argument in favor of his own unaccredited institution, perhaps the value really isn’t there. What is certain, however, is that the same suave sales pitch that may be successful with naïve prospective students does not (and did not) pass muster here on DegreeInfo.

Enjoy your ice cream, Henrik.

 

I was always taught that one of the keys to successful DL teaching was to write/instruct as precisely and as briefly as possible. But as usual Gus has waffled on in his usual arrogant manner - writing 50 words when ten will do!
Gus, please read all the drival you have hammered Henrik (and myself) with in the thread.
I never said that RA was part of this thread. But what has been quite obvious, however, is that the rampant RA Extremists (around six of you) have been the people who have ensured Henrik's early departure. (Hopefully he will read this and start again as soon as he's finished eating his icecream)
I think I'll enrol with Knightsbridge and see if I can become a double Dr Duck.
Dr Duck

 

QUOTE]Originally posted by Gus Sainz

Personally, I find your self-serving egotistical viewpoint a bit tiresome. Has it ever crossed your mind that, regardless of what is in your best interests, 'non-accredited' degrees do not have real value, and cause much more harm than good to society? Henrik made it clear that he wasn’t here to defend all unaccredited schools; he was here to discuss Knightsbridge University. Moreover, even if he had succeeded in convincing others that Knightsbridge was a legitimate institution, how would that change the fact, Dr. Quack, that your degree was issued by a blatant degree mill? That’s what I don’t get about you degree mill apologists. You seem to think that there is safety in numbers and as long as one mill or unaccredited school is deemed to have any value, all others are automatically (or is that magically?) rendered legitimate.

I believe Henrik’s motivation to post here was both to attract prospective students and have Knightsbridge’s materials (Web site, etc.) scrutinized by DegreeInfo members in hopes of receiving suggestions that would make them appear more legitimate and less ”millish.” (He failed in the first goal but somewhat succeeded in the second.) If an individual as eloquent as Henrik cannot present a, honest, credible, straightforward and persuasive argument in favor of his own unaccredited institution, perhaps the value really isn’t there. What is certain, however, is that the same suave sales pitch that may be successful with naïve prospective students does not (and did not) pass muster here on DegreeInfo.

Enjoy your ice cream, Henrik. [/QUOTE]

Gus:

What is your educational background? I would like to know because you say where your degree is from reflects on a person’s character and ethics. I think in turn that person’s actions should reflect on their educational background. The way you treat others IMO reflects poorly on wherever you have been educated. I have never met a professional, or academic that has to constantly insult people to make a point the way you do (except maybe James Carvill). I would really like to know if it makes you feel better to do this?

 

I’m sorry my writing is not to you liking, and I am sorry it is obviously beyond your comprehension. First, you accuse me of not being brief enough, and then you accuse me waffling. These terms are somewhat contradictory. (Waffling, contrary to your usage, actually means to hold back in uncertainty or unwillingness.)

As for your accusation of arrogance, nothing in my post was self-aggrandizing, quite the contrary. If anything, I minimized the importance or role anyone on DegreeInfo played in Henrik’s departure. If, on the other hand, I am being accused of arrogance simply due to my eloquence, then I believe that says much more about you than me.

Why don’t you simply point out what you disagree with and why (if you can, of course). You have yet to post an informative or helpful message on this forum. A while back, I challenged you to provide a single solitary example, and you have yet to do so.

Here you are, once again, accusing what you call “rampant RA Extremists” for Henrik’s departure. RA means regional accreditation. You are the only one making RA part of this thread. Moreover, I think it’s insulting to Henrik to say that a few questions drove him off this board. I think he is old and mature and smart enough to do what he thinks is in his best interest. Contrary to your claims, he may not have left at all; he may simply have taken his family on holiday, for all you know.

Why don’t you do the math:

• 2 X 0 =

 

Gus, My dictionary (Readers Digest Oxford) defines 'waffle' as - 'aimless, meaningless, missleading, or ignornant talk or writing'.
In 'kiwi' land it means mindless pontification that is invariably backed up by a particular individuals complete lack of knowledge on a particlar subject.
Both definitions sum up my thoughts very nicely in respect of your comments.
I suggest that you again read some of my 140 + posts. You might learn something, although I doubt it.
But I am looking forward to reading your waffle in respect of plcscott's request for your background/education/experience in the real world.
Whilst I would never think it, most serious DegreeInfo members would be surprised if you had any qualifications. And if you ram the RA BS down our throats it will simply show that RA is not what you believe it to be, and is perhaps simply some sort of fantasy in your mind?
Dr Duck