First question to Henrik re-Knightsbridge University

Bill Dayson posted:

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

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

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

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

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

Bill,

That is not exactly what I meant. Nor, I think, what I said. I meant to say that in a situation such as you outlined, the meeting of the holder of any degree and another party, it is not our place to be privy to proceedings. Nor to cast judgement related to decisions.

BD: 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.

HFK: If you think that I 'seem to be suggesting' anything, I must have been not very clear at all. And I was not aware that I was talking at all about 'possible degree-mills'. Or that you were. You were discussing a hypothetical situation where 'a graduate attempts to use a degree'. You did not specify that this was a graduate of a degree-mill. Perhaps I was confused by your having first talked about Knightsbridge.

BD: 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.

HFK: I agree. Society in general. Hence my earlier point that you seemed to be confusing 'Bill Dayson' with 'the public at large'. Mind, as you're still talking about 'misleading, substandard and … fradulent qualifications' I cannot see the relevance to Knightsbridge, and I was of the impression that this was what we were discussing.

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

HFK: Again, 'Bill Dayson' and 'we' are not the same thing. You're the one who keeps running 'degree-mill' and 'Knightsbridge' in the same paragraphs, sentences even, I have not met, even here, a massive cry of 'what the dickens is that creature?'. And I certainly do not meet with it in daily work.

BD: 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.

HFK: Here I'm happy to join the 'we' part. As said earlier, I do think that the public is pretty savvy in putting their own sets of two and two together. I am aware that contributors to this site and earlier at a.e.d. have put forth a list of possible warning signs. Most of the points - and I should add that I've not actually viewed this list for some time, but seem to recall it being at the DegreeInfo homepage, so will scoot over for a squis - seemed to me at the time by themselves not necessarily much to go by, but several of the points together could help form an impression.

Personally, I think the main pointer would be that of accreditation claimed from a body that does not in itself have any kind of standing at all, whether linked to government or industry. Such a claim can only serve to feed off the fact that while millions have heard of accreditation (and it's always, as far as I have seen, 'accreditation' which is referred to) but have little or no real idea what that is. I am finding it very hard to see such 'affiliation' as being anything less than controversial at best, and deliberately deceitful at worst.


Henrik

 

Bill Dayson posted:
QUOTE
"Originally posted by henrikfyrst
BD : How would you suggest that we distinguish between degree-mills and legitimate non-accredited schools?

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

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

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

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

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

HFK: Bill, not to alarm you, but that was the question I answered above. Do re-read as required. Or you could refer to other of my posts.

BD: 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?

HFK: They could, for example, apply the same methods recommended above. Or they could try to not automatically expect that any qualification from anywhere will inherently and without question make the individual the right person for whatever it is that is required from that person. You will note that I am being pretty loose with my parameters, this because the hypothetical situation you're describing is not very specific.

QUOTE
"HFK: If I were to make the statement 'I see no reason to consider Bill Dayson credible' I am implying that I see reason to consider him less than credible. Is it your duty to convince me that you're credible? I think not. Why should you? "
UNQUOTE

BD: 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.

HFK: Of course they would be fools to accept your word. What they then choose to do, however, is entirely up to them. Perhaps they simply disagree and let that be that.

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

HFK: Ah, Bill, now you're getting places. Are we having a discussion here about who's right about something? What statement is it that I have made that you disagree with? Do you see what I mean? You have been throwing heaven knows how long posts at me with speculation and hypothecation, but you're not actually telling me what it is you want to know, what your particular positions are, or what is you think I represent that in your eyes is no good.

If you would tell me these things, I will decide if I have already addressed your points, or more is required.

So far you tell me that you (or should that be 'we') don't know enough to make up your mind as to what to think of Knightsbridge. So ask some constructive questions and get some information. Then make up your mind. Really, it does not make my day if I can retire tonight thinking 'Hooray, I got Bill Dayson on my side'.

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

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

HFK: It could be just because I wrote it, but I am pretty sure that 9 out of 10 reading this (I'm being kind with the margin) will realise that the above paragraph is addressed squarely to you (for those last 10%, that's Bill Dayson I mean).

BD: 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.

HFK: I'm quite happy for you to use the word 'like'. Just don't take me to task over using 'dislike' as a descriptor for the opposite.

It is interesting that you now profess to considering ' the evaluation of universities to be more akin to aesthetics than to algorithms'. Does this mean that in fact you do not think there's a clear-cut results sheet, and that every person must weigh up their own objectives against what is available, and draw their own conclusions?


Henrik

 

James,

Glad I got it right.

As for the meal and main course analogy, I did expect all sorts of going on here, but cannibalism was not one of them. 'We're having the Unaccredited's for dinner tonight, dear!'

I have no problem with there being another side to the matter, quite the opposite. If only 'the other side' did not think they've uncovered the Holy Grail and that theirs is the only 'right' position. Fundamentalist Accreditationalists Unite!

If I start flagging or seem overwhelmed, send in a posse!


Henrik

 

Gus,

You're in the paint business, aren't you. 'Whitewash'. 'Gloss over'. 'Waxing'.

If telling you that BREM have been told that the site in question must be changed is waxing over 'philosophical questions', I must say that you're putting a lot more in my words than I intended. Perhaps that novel in my desk drawer should be sent for review after all.

What direct question is it again that I did not respond to? It is a common error to think that seemingly simple questions should always have simple answers, be they of the 'yes' or 'no' category, or in other ways less than complicated. If you ask a question, you are not entitled to demand that the response be in a particular format. In fact, you are not even entitled to a response, but if interested should take heed of what you receive back. Chastising the respondent for the nature of the response is hardly conducive to communication.

Let me be as direct as I can with you, without allowing my pre-teen daughter's tetchiness to somehow invade my private space:

I told you that I agreed on your observation in respect of the site. The text there could give the impression that KU was a UK institution. In the worst case, it could even make some think that KU had UK recognition. I promised to investigate and return. Until I do so, what the heck more do you expect me to add?

My comment that the Malaysian students were aware of the status of KU was based on best belief. Now I possibly believe differently, and will be able to 'wax' even further on this - as soon as I have a response from BREM. Will I be permitted to say here that you did not 'point out' that students were 'severely misled', you have at the maximum raised the concern that they could have. Let us get some facts before you throw accusations about, okay?

What I told you was that BREM were under instructions how to present the agreement. If you must pick nits then at least understand that this is detailed business and requires both a good eye and skill.

GUS: 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).

HFK: You've sure got me there. Let me see now:

The relationship between BREM and KU is this deep: They run programmes locally, based on ours with additions of a local character. This leads to KU awards. This is a problem for you because?

The owner of BREM in KU employ is: Incorrect. Dr Kannan has never been assigned any candidates directly from KU. This does not preclude him from being part of the adjunct faculty. We have dozens of people on the faculty who have never been assigned candidates. Incidentally, these people are not in our employ unless actually assigned candidates. Are you familiar with the 'adjunct faculty' concept?

KU failed to adequately oversee that standards were adhered to: Gus, what standards? Nobody here has yet shown a hint of interest in standards. All you're interested in is finding something mucky to throw at me. You found something not acceptable, I agree it is not acceptable, and promised to do something about it. I even thanked you for telling me.

Students may have been defrauded: See also above. What more do you want from me today? In theory I've had time to fly to Malaysia and beat a confession out of Dr Kannan, but really, be realistic for a moment, will you? I know you've got the bit between your teeth now, but, 'whoa, Nellie'.


GUS: 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.

HFK: Gus, would any answer ever be satisfactory? What goalpost did I move, never mind plural such? There is nothing that I did not answer truthfully. If you still think that every question has a perfectly straightforward yes/no answer, there is no way I am ever going to be able to assist you.

Originally posted by henrikfyrst
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

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

HFK: Thank you for LAW101. That was quick. What I wanted to say -well, I understood it - was that I am not sure if Dr Kannan is the de facto owner of BREM at this moment. That is why I kept referring to BREM. I can see how my desire for accuracy can be your attempt at shirking responsibility.


Originally posted by henrikfyrst
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.

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

HFK: That's a lot of question in one sentence. We were talking about course delivery. You suddenly expand that quite a lot. I am not aware how involved Dr Kannan currently is with the delivery of courses. But it is my understanding that he is 'very much' so.

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

GUS: 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.

HFK: They sure are. Albeit not the questions you asked before, the questions that I answered. Goalposts, anyone?

Dr Kannan did not develop our MBA.
He is not a tutor for KU.
I do not know (as I may have waxed above) the extent to which he is involved in the delivery in Malaysia.


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

GUS: 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.
HFK: Gus, I was yanking your chain. I have this problem with predictability that I sometimes have to see my expectations come true. Call it silly, juvenile, what you will. It's my way of avoiding having to vent my spleen in less palatable ways. I can confirm that Dr Kannan has a KU PhD.


Originally posted by henrikfyrst
Did I skip anything?

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

HFK: The position is vacant. I am rather thinking of inviting George W Bush for dinner - or light supper - and offer him the position. The remuneration package is not tremendously attractive, though, it is after all just a figure-head position with no real power. Thank you, Bill, for the inspiration.

Originally posted by henrikfyrst
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.

GUS: 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.

HFK: And I simply tried to understand just which other reply you expected me to conjure up before having any feed-back to, well, feed back. Apparently I have been unfair to you in suggesting that you could perhaps have just a teeny tiny bit of patience. I won't make the mistake again.

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

GUS: We like to believe we are performing a public service.

HFK: I can imagine.

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

HFK: I have no problem with genuine concerns. I sometimes have a problem with the way concerns are brought to market. I sometimes have a problem, it would appear, in distinguishing between genuine concerns and let's-get-this-guy posts. Maybe I'm just taking this too personally.

I might suggest to you that if you wish for me to take your genuine concerns seriously and not respond with sarcasm you avoid the knives-are-out tactics. That's two suggestions, then, care to meet somewhere in the middle? Or is it only Gus who is allowed to be sensitive about this sort of thing?


Henrik

 

Bill Dayson wrote:

QUOTE
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.

Bill, 'do seem', is that sufficiently solid for you to cast your vote? Or did you already cast your vote, and are now looking for a way to rationalise it?

A blurred picture of Bigfoot doesn't prove he exists. A footprint of Bigfoot doesn't prove he exists. But both together do seem to substantially increase the probability that he exists.

Compare statements and conclude.

Bill also shared:

QUOTE
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.
UNQUOTE

Is that THE 'classic degree-mill signature'? If so, why do you keep asking me to distinguish between mills and good unaccredited schools, you already have the answer ready?

Just how does an entity 'exist on the internet'? Is the presence of a website your only requirement? And how do you infer from your 'footprint' theory that there is 'little or no interaction' etc.? It 'does seem' to me to be a bit weak around the edges.


Henrik

 

As an educated man you no doubt appreciate the need for accuracy in the use of language. Words mean what they mean. We can't use them variously and then say, in effect, "Oh, that's my own personal meaning for that word."
OED states clearly the meaning of the term "rubber stamp." It states, "to endorse or approve uncritically, to pass routinely or automatically." I do not believe that you can provide a definition from a verifiable source (sorry, I don't own a copy of every dictionary in the world, it'll have to be online) that is not "negatively laden." It seems to me, considering that you clearly have command of the English language, that this is not a mistake but is, rather, a cheap shot at accreditation. If, on the other hand, you are genuinely willing to consider another term . . .
If you're looking for a term that will describe "every conceivable form of external approval," I'd like to suggest you use the term "external approval." As you now know the real meaning of the term "rubber stamp," you will doubtlessly modify this section of your web site (unless, of course, you really want to take that cheap shot).
Jack

 

Rubber stamp has negative connotations in most instances. It would seem to in this instance as well? It means that it is just a rubber stamp so why worry about it. It is belittling the act of accreditation. In the USA and the UK I believe that would be considered deception. However, I grant that it could have different connotations in Denmark (or where ever KU is actually located). It may not indicate any special inspection or adhering to any standard may be true but, it would also be true that if KU had it then the degrees would have much more utility.

BTW Henrik, a question came up in a thread in the Accredited vs. Unaccredited section. Has any accredited academic institution ever asked for a copy of one of your dissertations? If so approximatley how often? Along the same vein, are your dissertations normally published in UMI or some other referencable location? Thanks

 

I was talking about Knightsbridge, as well as about any other school whose legitimacy and standard are questionable. Based on its lack of accreditation and on the fact that it seems to have very little participation in or recognition by the academic and professional communities, there is a very real possibility that Knightsbridge is a degree mill.

I'm asking you how third parties can satisfy themselves that it is not.

Are you suggesting that those non-accredited schools that don't claim spurious accreditation "from a body that does not in itself have any kind of standing, whether linked to government or industry", are probably legitimate?

If so, that's an extremely weak form of legitimacy. So weak as to be meaningless, since it's entirely possible for an utterly substandard school to clearly say that it's unaccredited. In fact, the "prestigious non-accredited universities" that we are periodically spammed with say precisely that.

 

You have danced around like a ballerina, posting tremendous amounts of verbiage, but you have yet to explain how you yourself distinguish between "legitimate non-accredited" universities and mills.

Fine, except that you have yet to recommend any methods, except to avoid spurious accreditation claims.

 

Bill Dayson wrote:

>[...] there is a very real possibility that Knightsbridge is
> a degree mill.

I am confident that Knightsbridge University is not a mill.

Why? Because John Bear is no fool, John Bear is doing research for his book on mills, and John Bear's "feelings about KU have gone from quite negative to slightly positive".

Note that "not a mill" is a much weaker assertion than "RA/GAAP standard or higher".

I think it's fairly evident that unaccredited degrees (including Knightsbridge degrees) intrinsically have less utility than RA/GAAP degrees.

Whether all Knightsbridge degrees are RA/GAAP standard or higher, and whether all students who choose to enroll at Knightsbridge are fully aware of the lower utility, are matters on which I shall reserve judgement, rather than take Henrik's word for the answers.

Henrik wrote:

> Some will not be happy either way until there is some form
> of accreditation to brag about.

When asked what he thought about Western civilization, Gandhi replied, "I think it would be a very good idea." If asked what I thought about Knightsbridge's pursuing accreditation, I would reply similarly. Accreditors have the resources to evaluate academic standards. I don't.

 

Henrik,

It's obvious that the main interest involved with the quality of learning resides with the student & school. It is their responsibility to ensure that a quality flow of ideas & information go back and forth. It's this flow of ideas that determines whether the school / student relationship is sound. The main arbiters of quality resides with the school & the student. Also a second group having an interest in this student / school connection, any person or group to whom the degree might be presented as proof of knowledge or skills. Next in line would be official groups or government committees with the responsibility of determining if some established guidelines have been met, and lastly comes we amateurs. We, using our own biased views attempt to prove or refute the quality of the student / school relationship using whatever information we choose. We amateurs, while certainly having the right to opinions & to express them, do in no way have the right to push ourselves before the first three groups, 1-student/school 2- Employers or other directly involved schools 3- Agencies assigned to judge quality.
We as amateurs do this as an interest/hobby for our own enjoyment. To see ourselves as going beyond this point is to make too much about too little. We have shifting guidelines & no set rules. Our opinions are just that, opinions. They carry no weight in law and represent no moral authority. The student/school relationship is the primary element involved in quality learning. They must each satisfy the needs of the other for quality education to have occured. The satisfaction of others is of a lesser importance.

 

There again is that unique brand of sarcasm that is so incongruous in a vice-chancellor of a legitimate university. You may not be aware of it, but the more you employ it, the more you come across as the owner of a degree mill.

You now say BREM has been told they must change their Web site. That is not what you said originally. My comments, however, did not pertain exclusively to your answers to my posts. You will find (and it is quite appropriate) for anyone on this forum to respond to any post. My comments addressed the fact that your answers to the queries of the members of this forum (not just mine) leave me dizzy.

The ones you are now answering because I pointed out that your evasion made you look bad, such as the provenance of Dr. Kannan’s doctorate.

I am not demanding anything. I simply pointed out that evasion and subterfuge, and the way you answer questions (or don’t), speaks volumes. Politicians are usually the ones adept at giving lengthy, plausible, and even truthful answers without really saying anything. We don’t expect that from educators.

You continually bring up a single point of my posts. You have now brought it up many more times than I have. Why are you trying to falsely characterize me as harping on a single issue?

Are you capable of answering a single question without employing sarcasm? Did I say they were misled, or did I say that they may have been misled? Reread my posts.

You don’t get it, do you? This is not nitpicking; instead, it goes straight to the heart of the matter. Your sole claim to legitimacy is that, instead of any external oversight, you “self-validate.” It seems your good eye needs glasses and your skills are lacking.

This is a problem to me because just as no one is exercising any oversight of KU, KU does not appear to be exercising any oversight over BREM.

I am very familiar with the concept of adjunct faculty. I am also familiar the degree mill tactic of listing individuals as faculty members who have never been assigned students or have never actually been employed by the institution. Listing these individuals as faculty (not to mention as full Professors) is troubling, to say the least.

The standards that you have already acknowledged BREM should have adhered to but didn’t.

Right. Don’t put words in my mouth. See above.

I never said you moved goalposts. Reread my post. I said that it is a common tactic to complain about moving goalposts, and you have done so repeatedly. However, you have a point; truthful and straightforward are not synonymous. However, the two terms are also not mutually exclusive. Your answers may be truthful, but they certainly aren’t straightforward (and in many cases they don’t even address the question).

This speaks to the issue of proper oversight. In my business, I have thousands of businesses as customers, and several hundred vendors. I would be remiss if I did not know if or when a business had changed hands.

Once again, this speaks to the issue of oversight and “self-validation.” Let’s see. You are freely admitting that you are not aware of the extent of the involvement of an individual who is listed a professor (not adjunct faculty, but a full professor) on your Web site, is offering students a KU degree, is (or maybe isn’t) teaching courses in a program that leads to a KU degree, and is (or maybe isn’t) the owner of one of your business agents that markets KU. This does not inspire a whole lot of confidence.

Are you complaining about moving goalposts again? Have you considered the fact that the goalposts may only appear to be moving because you continue to change the game you are playing? No one is moving any goalposts. It’s just that your posts, rather than provide answers, raise additional questions.

Don’t you think that if he is not a tutor for KU he shouldn’t be listed on your Web site as a professor? How many other listed faculty members aren’t really educators for KU?

What? Is all of this some kind of joke to you? If so, then the inescapable conclusion is that Knightsbridge University is a joke, and an unpalatable one at that. You are admitting that you foresaw a problem with the truth and chose instead a glib and circuitous answer instead in order to “yank my chain.” I don’t call that silly or juvenile; I call that dishonest.

I have nothing against sarcasm, Henrik, in the proper context it can be quite humorous. However, I do not expect a person who claims to be an educator to substitute it for honest and straightforward answers when concerns about the legitimacy of his or her institution are raised.

As for you taking all of this personally, that depends on the size of Knightsbridge; if it is a one-man operation, how can you be expected to do anything else?

 

That's fine. No one argues that a good education can be had at some unaccredited schools. But which? The benefit of accreditation is that the education community has applied and verified standards that communicate to all about the quality of the educational process.

Beyond that, an education is one thing, but a degree is quite another. It is a designation not just for the student, but for employers and the general public. It represents something. As such, if it comes from an unrecognized source, it represents nothing on its own. Then we have to fall back on Bill Dayson's paradigm--it is incumbent on the unaccredited school to establish its credibility--and the credibility of the degrees it issues.

An education and a degree are two separate things.

 

Number 3 doesn't apply when agencies assigned to judge quality are being avoided. So...

How would you recommend that prospective students evaluate non-accredited universities before they enroll?

What would you suggest that an employer do when presented with a degree from a non-accredited university that he or she isn't familiar with?

 

I agree. Caveat Emptor. While we are at it, it’s no one’s business whether an airplane is certified by the FAA. If the manufacturer says it flies, and passengers are willing to risk their lives, that should be sufficient quality control. It is also no one’s business whether the FDA inspects the meat I buy from the butcher. That’s between me, the butcher and the hospital emergency room. Speaking of hospital emergency rooms, it’s no one’s business where my doctor went to school or whether he is licensed or not. If I want someone to remove my appendix, that’s solely between me and my “doctor.” In fact, maybe I’ll have my butcher do it.

 

"Fyrst"

Henrik, do you happen to know if your name "Fyrst" is a cognate of the German word Fürst, as in the following line from Mozart's opera Die Zauberflöte ("The Magic Flute")?

"Mein Vater ist Fürst, der über viele Länder und Menschen herrscht; darum nennt man mich Prinz."

 

Janko,

Aboot dem rocks (imagine the Outer Hebridean twang).

It is clear that this is not an 'RA or Die' forum, agreed. It should by now also be clear that I am not an 'Unaccredited is the only right thing' advocate. For a defined group of students, and in terms of numbers this is still the biggest, I would always recommend a school/programme with whatever form of external approval exists locally. But for other groups/segments, such approval may not be of consequence, and so they should be able to consider alternatives. It's all horses-for-courses, really.

It is equally clear that the lack of other named and identifiable representatives of our segment has me pegged as the resident target for whatever points of logic, arguments, barbs or downright testiness people may harbour. Hopefully, as we progress, proponents of all of these positions will acknowledge that such a thing as a 'proper, unaccredited university' is possible. If not, however, that is hardly a massive loss, those who can appreciate what we offer is what they want. I would emphasise here that I do most definitely not speak on behalf of anything else than Knightsbridge, so 'we' is not 'unaccredited institutions united', but KU only.

To the best of my conviction I am not doing any 'shilling' or 'screaming'. First of all, you all know who I am. Second, I have already made it clear that I quite agree that external approval is the best choice for defined groups. Third, I don't think I'm guilty of 'banging the drum'. Lastly, I am of the impression that the readership of this forum is so narrow that no amount of shilling would raise much of an eyebrow anywhere else than here. As for screaming, that's just so not cool.


Henrik

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by henrikfyrst
...snip...
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.
...snip...
[/B]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And Jack Tracey Wrote:

QUOTE
As an educated man you no doubt appreciate the need for accuracy in the use of language. Words mean what they mean. We can't use them variously and then say, in effect, "Oh, that's my own personal meaning for that word."
OED states clearly the meaning of the term "rubber stamp." It states, "to endorse or approve uncritically, to pass routinely or automatically." I do not believe that you can provide a definition from a verifiable source (sorry, I don't own a copy of every dictionary in the world, it'll have to be online) that is not "negatively laden." It seems to me, considering that you clearly have command of the English language, that this is not a mistake but is, rather, a cheap shot at accreditation. If, on the other hand, you are genuinely willing to consider another term . . .
If you're looking for a term that will describe "every conceivable form of external approval," I'd like to suggest you use the term "external approval." As you now know the real meaning of the term "rubber stamp," you will doubtlessly modify this section of your web site (unless, of course, you really want to take that cheap shot).
UNQUOTE

Jack,

Having written the bit about the rubber stamp, I thought I'd look it up. And although there is in fact support for my version (two definitions, in fact), there are other definitions that do have a more negative slant than intended. I still stand by my statement that it is not meant to be 'negatively laden', and it is certainly not in the context of our web-site intended as a disparaging descriptor.


In light of this finding I'll have the phrase changed, and I agree with your suggestion. 'External approval' is pretty much the phrase I always use, anyway. Expect this to come into effect within a couple of days.


Henrik

 

Bill Huffman opined:

QUOTE
"Rubber stamp has negative connotations in most instances. It would seem to in this instance as well? It means that it is just a rubber stamp so why worry about it. It is belittling the act of accreditation. In the USA and the UK I believe that would be considered deception. However, I grant that it could have different connotations in Denmark (or where ever KU is actually located). It may not indicate any special inspection or adhering to any standard may be true but, it would also be true that if KU had it then the degrees would have much more utility.

BTW Henrik, a question came up in a thread in the Accredited vs. Unaccredited section. Has any accredited academic institution ever asked for a copy of one of your dissertations? If so approximatley how often? Along the same vein, are your dissertations normally published in UMI or some other referencable location? Thanks"
UNQUOTE

Bill,

On the issue of 'rubber stamp', see also my response to Jack Tracey (that would be a tremendous name for a Marlowian detective, by the way).

You are quite right that in a Danish context the rubber stamp has a slightly different meaning, however, the text of the site is not in Danish, and so care must be taken to avoid giving the wrong impression. I'll say it again, the intention you imply was not present, ever. Just why it should be I cannot fathom. I can see absolutely no reason why we would 'belittle' anything, particularly in a sentence where it is stated that if what we offer is not considered suitable we will be happy to try and find an alternative. It makes very little sense to me.

I do admire the stealth with which you manage to include the notion that perhaps Knightsbridge is not in Denmark. Any circumstance will do for you to whirl up the dust, won't it? You ring me the night before, and I'll join you for beer at the airport.

As for dissertations/theses and UMI, the answer is as no doubt you expected: They are not published there. Or anywhere else.

Over time I'd say I've seen about a handful of requests for loan of theses by other institutions, and a bit more than that from industry. Nothing much, nor would I expect this, as the only source of knowledge outside parties would have of the existence of the document would be from the author.

I do hope this will be of tremendous assistance to you.


Henrik

 

Bill Dayson wrote:

Originally posted by henrikfyrst
BD: 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.

HFK: If you think that I 'seem to be suggesting' anything, I must have been not very clear at all. And I was not aware that I was talking at all about 'possible degree-mills'. Or that you were. You were discussing a hypothetical situation where 'a graduate attempts to use a degree'. You did not specify that this was a graduate of a degree-mill. Perhaps I was confused by your having first talked about Knightsbridge.

BD: I was talking about Knightsbridge, as well as about any other school whose legitimacy and standard are questionable. Based on its lack of accreditation and on the fact that it seems to have very little participation in or recognition by the academic and professional communities, there is a very real possibility that Knightsbridge is a degree mill.

I'm asking you how third parties can satisfy themselves that it is not.

HFK: Bill, we're going round the houses here. I am sure I've already addressed your points. The fact that you keep re-posting your queries does not leave them any less responded to.

You keep asking me for a yardstick to measure something which is not tangible. Yet, by your own admission, such a yardstick does not exist. Why, then, do you keep insisting that I must provide you with one?

I have said more than once what the enquiring party need do. I've also told you that in my experience they know what to do, and apply that knowledge. I've also told you that for a very large number of people the best bet is a programme with external approval.

You, on the other hand, seem to be implying that because I cannot give you a definitive measuring tool, you must consider all un-accredited institutions 'possible degree mills'. And so I said, in effect: 'By all means do that. And let others do the same. They do a good job. And then, when they've done their due diligence, don't go all googly-eyed just because some dare to make decisions that do not tally with your bias'.

Also from that exchange, we have:

BD: 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.

HFK: Here I'm happy to join the 'we' part. As said earlier, I do think that the public is pretty savvy in putting their own sets of two and two together. I am aware that contributors to this site and earlier at a.e.d. have put forth a list of possible warning signs. Most of the points - and I should add that I've not actually viewed this list for some time, but seem to recall it being at the DegreeInfo homepage, so will scoot over for a squis - seemed to me at the time by themselves not necessarily much to go by, but several of the points together could help form an impression.

Personally, I think the main pointer would be that of accreditation claimed from a body that does not in itself have any kind of standing at all, whether linked to government or industry. Such a claim can only serve to feed off the fact that while millions have heard of accreditation (and it's always, as far as I have seen, 'accreditation' which is referred to) but have little or no real idea what that is. I am finding it very hard to see such 'affiliation' as being anything less than controversial at best, and deliberately deceitful at worst.

And Bill added:

QUOTE
"Are you suggesting that those non-accredited schools that don't claim spurious accreditation "from a body that does not in itself have any kind of standing, whether linked to government or industry", are probably legitimate?

If so, that's an extremely weak form of legitimacy. So weak as to be meaningless, since it's entirely possible for an utterly substandard school to clearly say that it's unaccredited. In fact, the "prestigious non-accredited universities" that we are periodically spammed with say precisely that."
UNQUOTE

Bill, you play a mean game of Twister, don't you? If you will ask for something, and you then get something, is it entirely impossible for you to then relate to that something in its own context, or must you run it through your 'how can I use this against him' apparatus?

This all goes to what I've said before: You will keep pulling, pushing and tugging until you get to a place where you can outright say 'Not accredited = no good'. No matter how many questions you post to me, they will be rhetorical, and no matter how many times I respond, you will not take my response as anything but a defence of something you've already decided cannot be defended.

Here, you have posted me a question. I've answered. Immediately you throw back a question, without caring at all to consider the content of my response. I can see that you quite like it, but I find it a little bit difficult to communicate with you in this way.

If you want me to tell you that Knightsbridge is not accredited, you're wasting everbody's time.

If you want me to tell you that Knightsbridge is the only real choice for everyone, you're wasting everybody's time.

If you want me to tell you that Knightsbridge, because it does not enjoy external approval, is not allowed a place in the marketplace that is higher education, you're wasting my time.

What is it that you are trying to say?!! Without the 'does seem', 'suggests' and various little games of not saying much but implying a whole lot, please!

As it is I get the impression of someone peeling at the edges of wallpaper hoping to the get a glimpse of what's underneath, hoping at heart to find something less than pleasant while showing to the world the face of the concerned benefactor.



Henrik