First question to Henrik re-Knightsbridge University

Gus wrote:

"Originally posted by uncle janko
I liked your response to the BREM business.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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."

Gus,

Whitewash? I believe I said that I completely concur that the site in question is unacceptable. There is no excuse for leaving the impression that KU was a UK institution. Indeed, it has been expressly forbidden.

I have written BREM on the subject, and expect to hear from him shortly. I have no direct control over the site, so cannot force the issue in terms of actually having someone change the content. Change it must, however, and BREM have been told this in no uncertain terms.

Give a guy a break, how many hours was it since this was discussed here?!


Henrik

 

Bill Dayson wrote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by henrikfyrst
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://forums.degreeinfo.com/showth...s=&postid=79638"

Bill,

Didn't I ask for 20? Haven't you a copy of the 'International Handbook of Universities'?

Either way, I think I've adequately addressed the issue of 'footprint' elsewhere, haven't seen your comment on that.

John Bear's comment is interesting. Perhaps a big footprint sometimes points to a monster. In this context, a Yeti, maybe?

I don't agree with your assertion that the 'footprint measurement' speaks anything, and certainly not volumes, about the integrity or probity or credibility of anything.


Henrik

 

Dear Henrik,

I fear your attempts to explain the value of the unaccredited school is a lost cause, but must admit you do it with skill, and wisdom. Most of the questions you face aren't being expressed to find facts, but instead are part of a fact finding mission to gather more ammo against what you do. The goal posts will always be moved just a little too much to be attained. The decisions have been made, and these questions are to prove KU as of no/little value. The thought expressed here is most often one of, prove to me, show me, when in fact it should be the reverse. Come to a subject, listen to what is said, what can be discovered, and then decide what is good or bad about it. Here you are guilty until proven innocent, by kicking the ball between the moving goal posts, a difficult assignment. I chose to use an unaccredited school, knowing full well the good and negative aspects of the subject. It was a decision that I was positive about at the time, and remain in that same mood. I wouldn't hesitate to take the same action again. The degree has been satisfactory, and useful to me. It met my expectations, and was a positive experience, and was my decision alone to make. Henrik, good luck with your explanation about KU, though I doubt it falls on many open ears, or minds.
James

 

Henrik writes:

> 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.

An excellent point. Pehaps you could be doing more to try to educate the public on this?

Your Web page http://www.knightsbridgeuniversity.com/about.html says: "Knightsbridge University is a private, self-validating institution. [...] We do, however, collaborate closely with a range of other institutions around the world, and can thus usually find an outlet for those potential candidates who would rather pursue a qualification that comes with some kind of rubber-stamp recognition."

You do not use the words "accredited", "unaccredited", or "chartered" anywhere on the page. Your "self-validating" seems to be a rather flattering euphemism for "unaccredited", and your "rubber-stamp" seems to be a rather contemptuous spin on "accredited".

Might it not better serve to educate the public if you had a headline like "WARNING: Knightsbridge University is not accredited or government-chartered. Here is why you might be better off with a degree from an institution that is"?

 

Sorry Henrik for the too obscure joke. At least it was recognized as a joke though. BJU is Bob Jones University and is probably the most well known and respected unaccredited school in the country, if not the world. They are extremely right wing (conservative) which is unusual for an academic institution. Well anyway the President of the USA has spoken there and it was rather controversial, more because of BJU's political leanings than being unaccredited.

BTW, it is perfectly okay with me for you not to get my jokes since I really tell them primarily for my own amusement.

 

Yes, in the sense that your statements attempted to gloss over failings and defects. You never answered my questions concerning the fact that the guy running BREM appears to be much more than just an agent for Knightsbridge. Is Dr. Kevin R.N. Kannan, the Managing Director of BREM the same individual listed as a professor in Knightsbridge’s Department of Management? Is his doctorate from Knightsbridge University? Did he design the curriculum for the MBA program (or perhaps a special one for BREM)? Was he the sole lecturer for all the courses in the BREM MBA program?

Since my original statements, I don’t believe I have made any comments concerning the fact that the misleading information is still on BREM’s Web site. However, you might be surprised at how quickly some schools change their Web sites after having been discussed here on DegreeInfo.

 

In other words, the standard, quality and credibility of Knightsbride and its degrees are none of our concern.

You seem to be suggesting that possible degree-mills are nobody's business unless the inquirer happens to be the proprietor, the customer or the person that the customer is trying to to influence.

I would argue that society in general acquires an interest in misleading, substandard and sometimes fraudulent qualifications as soon as people try to pass them.

I'm certainly not suggesting that Knightsbridge is a degree-mill. I am saying that we currently don't know what it is.

We need some way to distinguish the legitimate non-accredited schools from the mills, and these procedures and determinations are definitely the public's business.

 

James,

What surprises me most is that I seem to be assumed to have skipped along here to champion the cause of all 'unaccreditedness'. Perhaps this is just a result of there being no other voice here representing such a body. I do get the feeling already of vultures having circled hungrily through seven skinny years just waiting for a plump one like me to come along.

Has this place really been such a desert?

Or maybe the motive is to keep me from the other threads by keeping me entrenched in this one!

In all discussions, of course, we come to a point where they have said their piece and I mine, and we agree to disagree. With a bit of luck and another couple of hundred posts hopefully we shall reach such a position.

At least I can find comfort in the fact that having lurked here a bit I had a pretty good idea what I'd get from whom, and that prediction certainly has come true. And the moving of the goalposts was the first thing I expected to see. Some will not be happy either way until there is some form of accreditation to brag about. And even then they'll probably have reservations. See also the multiple threads on Phoenix.

One element of worry links to your comment that the decisions have been made. If this is true, why do people insist on dragging the horse round the block demanding it convince them to like it? Where's the point in that?

And thank you for the words of support (at least that's how I choose to interpret them!), you will be remembered if not in prayers then in slightly less esoteric context.


Henrik

 

Mark Israel posted:

QUOTE:
> 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.

An excellent point. Pehaps you could be doing more to try to educate the public on this?"
UNQUOTE

Mark,

I am sure that someone of your insight and knowledge on the topic would serve the public far more efficaciously than someone of my limited intellect and moral calibre.

Barbs aside, we do. Every day. Just a few minutes ago, in fact, I advised an enquirer as to why she would be better off pursuing an award with a recognised institution, and where she go and look for one. And offered to help in the search, if she would be good enough to let me know what she wanted to study.

As for the public wholesale that's a different matter, there's simply a limit to what we can do on that count.

MI: Your Web page http://www.knightsbridgeuniversity.com/about.html says: "Knightsbridge University is a private, self-validating institution. [...] We do, however, collaborate closely with a range of other institutions around the world, and can thus usually find an outlet for those potential candidates who would rather pursue a qualification that comes with some kind of rubber-stamp recognition."

HFK: Thank you for reminding me.

MI: You do not use the words "accredited", "unaccredited", or "chartered" anywhere on the page. Your "self-validating" seems to be a rather flattering euphemism for "unaccredited", and your "rubber-stamp" seems to be a rather contemptuous spin on "accredited".

HFK: The reason I do not use any of the terms you mention is that these are not the only such terms in use around the globe, and to get them all in there would take some doing.

'Self-validating' avoids using the word 'accredited' as this does not have the same meaning to everyone. It may surprise you that we have no particular interest in the US market at all, and that nothing on our site has been written with US readers in mind (as far as I can off-hand recall, that is).

There's no flattery in the term, it accurately describes a condition.

As for 'rubber-stamp', that is used as a catch-all for every conceiveable form of external approval. Of which there are quite a number. I have no contempt at all for any of these, if you would allow me to exempt those instances where organisations set up their own bodies to accredit (or whatever they call it) themselves.

Rubber-stamp is not intended to be negatively laden. If we were to re-write our site every time someone thinks a particular word has a negative slant, we could be doing nothing else, nor could, in a similar situation, the people behind the Pillsbury Doughboy.

If you have a better word I could use, I'd be most happy to consider it.

MI: Might it not better serve to educate the public if you had a headline like "WARNING: Knightsbridge University is not accredited or government-chartered. Here is why you might be better off with a degree from an institution that is"?

HFK: Nope. The vast majority of the people we correspond with that have visited our site have completely understood this point. They are not looking for a programme/institution with external approval. Why would we want to tell them that they'd be better off going elsewhere?

Those not belonging to the vast majority are largely kiddies, who are gently guided in other and more appropriate directions.

The somewhat odd thing is that when we devoted masses of space to talk about different types of external approval, we were forever spending time discussing this with people. Now that we've reduced the level of information on the topic, hardly noone has any doubts.


Henrik

 

Gus wrote:

QUOTE
"Originally posted by henrikfyrst
Whitewash?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Yes, in the sense that your statements attempted to gloss over failings and defects. You never answered my questions concerning the fact that the guy running BREM appears to be much more than just an agent for Knightsbridge. Is Dr. Kevin R.N. Kannan, the Managing Director of BREM the same individual listed as a professor in Knightsbridge’s Department of Management? Is his doctorate from Knightsbridge University? Did he design the curriculum for the MBA program (or perhaps a special one for BREM)? Was he the sole lecturer for all the courses in the BREM MBA program? "
UNQUOTE

Gus,

For fear of appearing to have only the one expression:

Gloss over?

What I wrote was:

"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."

Does that sound like glossing over to you?

I am sorry that I missed your questions in my dismay at what you said first off. Of course, I might have just found myself innoculates with whatever strange germ it is that infuses this board. It is certainly pretty clear that while some expect me to jump to attention at their slightest call, they do not quite seem to want to respond to the very clear questions I post to them. Is that a common tactic 'round here?

As for the role of Dr Kannan, I can confirm that, last I was made privy, he is the proprietor of BREM. Of course, as with all other companies, the company is the legal 'person' with which agreements are entered into.

It is my understanding that Dr Kannan is still very much involved in the delivery of at least some of the courses offered by BREM.

The basis for the BREM MBA is originally the KU MBA, with local amendments and additions.

I am not at liberty to discuss Dr Kannan's credentials nor their origin, I would recommend that you contact him directly for this.

Did I skip anything?

QUOTE
"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by henrikfyrst
Give a guy a break, how many hours was it since this was discussed here?!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Since my original statements, I don’t believe I have made any comments concerning the fact that the misleading information is still on BREM’s Web site. However, you might be surprised at how quickly some schools change their Web sites after having been discussed here on DegreeInfo. "
UNQUOTE

What I was referring to was the time gone between you telling me about it and you responding to the good Janko on the same issue.

If people lurking here are quick about changing their sites in reaction to what's said here, you're doing something, whatever it is.

Now, a warm drink beckons, 'till later.


Henrik

 

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

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?

If I say something that other people find doubtful based on their own experience, they would be fools to accept my word based only on my personal authority. They would be well advised to question me and to get the reasons for what I'm saying.

Why should I respond? In order to convince them that I'm right.

Does that 'you' refer to me, to your applicants or to the wider community?

The reason that I use the word "like" is that I consider the evaluation of universities to be more akin to aesthetics than to algorithms. As you suggest, there's an element of individual taste involved. That's particularly true with non-accredited schools.

I think that a Ph.D. in Religious Studies from my state-approved Hsi Lai example would probably be most appropriate for a Buddhist monk who anticipates using his degree in a Buddhist sectarian context. It would be less appropriate for an individual seeking conventional academic employment, though with Hsi Lai's candidacy at WASC, this is in the process of changing. It would be least appropriate for a person whose interest in religion runs to the ministry in a conservative evangelical Christian denomination.

So in deciding whether a non-accredited school is valuable, it is necessary to consider what motivations prospective students have for studying there, and what uses they anticipate for their degrees.

But obviously, things are not entirely individual and subjective. It's also necessary to consider what the relevant communities think. Even if a Hsi Lai University Ph.D. diploma is going to be employed in temples and wats by by Buddhist bhikkus, it's still important to know what the Buddhists expect in a university degree and whether the particular degree that's being presented to them actually meets those expectations.

This is precisely why I consider student motivations and third party perceptions to be imporant.

 

Henrik,
Your interpretation is correct. We are few, but a very vocal minority. You will receive assistance periodically to defray a bit of the heat, but it appears you do yourself proud. Interesting to hear from this side of the unaccredited position. How does it feel to be at a meal, and then, as it turns out, you are the main course?

 

Yes.

Yes. You do an admirable job of waxing poetic on philosophical questions, but have difficulty answering direct questions. You seem incapable of simple yes or no answers.

What prompted my initial observation was your comment that the Malaysian students knew exactly the status of Knightsbridge University. I pointed out that they were being severely misled. All you stated was that BREM was under instructions not to mislead. That’s it.

Wait a minute. That’s not it, is it? What you stated was that BREM was under instructions to “make the same effort” as you do not mislead. So I guess it’s a mater of interpretation.

The fact remains that the relationship between BREM and KU appaers to goes deeper than that of an agent and institution (glossed over), the owner of BREM is in your employ as a faculty member (glossed over), KU failed to adequately oversee that standards were adhered to (glossed over), and students may have been defrauded (glossed over).

No, as you can see, I respond to every honest and direct question posed to me. What is a common tactic around here, however, is for an individual, when he or she believes truthful answers do not serve his or her purposes, to complain about the questions, moving goalposts, or that no answer would ever be satisfactory.

That, of course, does not absolve you or Dr. Kannan of any responsibility.

Do you mean you don’t know for certain the extent of Dr. Kannan’s involvement (with KU or BREM)?

Did Dr. Kannan develop the curriculum for KU’s MBA? Is he the sole lecturer for the KU MBA or the BREM version of the KU MBA? These are simple questions.

This is very disconcerting. Are you saying that you cannot, or will not, divulge the credentials of a listed faculty member? This is not the kind of behavior one would expect from a legitimate institution.

One last question. KU’s Web site list you as the Vice-Chancellor. Who is the Chancellor?

In my post to Unk I never mentioned that the misleading information was still on BREM’s Web site; I simply expressed my dissatisfaction with your reply.

We like to believe we are performing a public service.

Lastly, if you really want to be taken a bit more seriously, I might suggest curtailing the sarcasm in your replies to genuine concerns.

 

When accreditation is missing, it can help to legitimize a school to observe that it is receiving recognition.

Absence of a footprint isn't proof that a school is a mill, just as lack of accreditation isn't proof. But both absences do seem to substantially increase the probability that a school is substandard.

The classic degree-mill signature is for a school to exist on the internet offering doctoral degrees in multiple subjects, but with little or no interaction with or response by the scholarly, professional or specialist communities.

 

Hi Henrik:

The Carpathian peasant will try to clear some rocks out of this field.

Do not let the children's chorus deceive you. This forum is not unanimously "RA or nothing," not by a long shot. However, when rude, crude, researchless arguers for obvious mills and for the worst grotesqueries among unaccredited schools claim that only prejudice prevents everyone else from uncritically accepting their fanciful claims, then many people get testy. I can't blame 'em.

So, as an exponent of one unaccredited school, the field before you is littered with the rocks left by others.

After some have been fooled by MIGS; sued by other mills; tracked the peregrinations of really bad unaccredited schools from jurisdiction to jurisdiction; researched school after school to try to solve a personal academic injustice--and found most to be mills or just plain bad jokes (c'est moi); contended with whitewashers of Taylorite accreditation; tried to give worthwhile information to seekers and deflect cruel disinformation, and put up with screams and threats (!) from the more resentment-driven posters, it is not surprising that many are deeply dubious about you and your university upon the basis of unaccredited status.

As you have seen, there IS a range of opinion. There might be also, possibly, a tendency to make you the representative of all unaccredited schools. That's because, unlike with accredited (or CA-approved, in my opinion) schools, there is no general, overarching benchmark of quality control--whatever the problems with that benchmark might be.

So, anyone who tries to advocate or explain an unaccredited school has what is perhaps an unfair burden: inheriting the horrors of some really bad and fraudulent schools and an unavoidable association with shills and screamers.

Judging from Dr Bear's comments about you and the stylishness of your own comments, I think you can handle the strong criticism with which you will meet.

How many you will persuade, well, that is in the lap of the gods.

Best wishes, Janko

 

Dobra Oncle Janko,

Please don't keep your feelings bottled up inside...you'll make yourself sick. And then where would we be?

Your fan,

Dave A

 

Dobra Oncle Janko,

Please don't keep your feelings bottled up inside...you'll make yourself sick. And then where would we be?

Your fan,

Dave A

 

Dobra Oncle Janko,

Please don't keep your feelings bottled up inside...you'll make yourself sick. And then where would we be?

Your fan,

Dave A

 

Okie dokie, Dave.

One other thing. "Fact finding mission to gather ammo against what [HFK does]"? See, Henrik, this is what I meant by the Kinderchor and its (SD-style) squeals of resentment. I just love it when people know what my motives are for a given post; God knows I don't always! I have had aspersions cast upon me because I have not blindly accepted the claims of some of the worst unaccredited shams and rackets. Fine. Those who claim persecution on this board either have failed to read or to understand what I have posted about unaccredited schools. Those who claim that, save for their embattled troop of songsters, there is unanimity in rejecting all unaccredited schools tout court just don't read or else they just don't care what others actually say. The welcome to you, Henrik, is sincere and the welcome (with or without agreement) stands.

 

Bill Huffman wrote:

QUOTE
"Sorry Henrik for the too obscure joke. At least it was recognized as a joke though. BJU is Bob Jones University and is probably the most well known and respected unaccredited school in the country, if not the world. They are extremely right wing (conservative) which is unusual for an academic institution. Well anyway the President of the USA has spoken there and it was rather controversial, more because of BJU's political leanings than being unaccredited.

BTW, it is perfectly okay with me for you not to get my jokes since I really tell them primarily for my own amusement. "
UNQUOTE

Bill,

Thank you for clarifying this. I do recall having seen mention of this at some point, probably here. All of this right-wing/left-wing talk makes sense only within a local setting. I am sure that our Conservative Party ape decidedly rose-tinted compared even with the most radical of your Democrats. But it does seem a reasonable expectation that whatever the overall inclination of the nation, the institutions of higher education tend to be somewhat closer to Marx.

The saying here is : If you're not a socialist when you're 18, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative when you're 40, you have no brain.

What that makes of those actually throwing their votes at Dubya I am not so sure. When first seeing him do his stage-dance in the run-up to the elections I applied my trusty old 'Would I buy a used car from that man'-test, and decided against.

The telling of jokes for one's own amusement is surely the whole purpose? Why else would people go to the length of thinking them up in the first place? Being 'the funny guy' is to some large extent a quest for social validation. 'Everybody likes a bit of light relief. So I've specialised in stealing table lamps.'


Henrik