First question to Henrik re-Knightsbridge University

HFK: 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,

As you are learning, to say anything positive, in any way concerning unaccredited schools, is to shout or shill. Silence is the only accepted method of being positive about unaccredited. Of course you can't be expected to be responsible for each and every unaccredited school, but only for KU. If you can be tied to the worst school in this area, it's expected you wouldn't be able to effect an escape. As you are light on your feet and have a nice jab you may just survive. I think the view on this forum from the advocates of approved schools, is that there is a level of value being offered by the unaccredited schools. Not all of the unaccredited schools are good, some are in fact bad, and barely better than degree mills, but we don't want the value of most to be ignored because of the deficits of the few. Nothing positive can be said for degree mills, they have nothing to offer, but many unaccredited schools offer something, sometimes little and sometimes much. It's up to each person considering an unaccredited program to learn about and either select or reject any school. It's an individual choice and responsibility.

 

Bill Dayson gave us:

QUOTE
">[...] 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."
UNQUOTE

Bill,

Thank you for that. I think now we're getting places, I was rather waiting for this. The image of yours truly having, in Bill Dayson's undying words 'danced around like a ballerina, posting tremendous amounts of verbiage', is as amusing as it was no doubt meant to be insulting. It's always nice to be confirmed in the fact that there is no quicker way to be insulted than to disagree with someone 'who knows'.

At least I can now expend my verbosity on deserving matters.

If I may take your last paragraph first, about pursuing accreditation. I concur that in some ways it could be considered a great idea. However, I feel it is a good idea at this stage to stick a peg in the ever-grinding wheel of 'accreditation', and ask you, and the forum at large:

1) Given its nature as a voluntary measure, given the difficulty and cost involved, given the potential restrictions and policy changes, do you really think that schools pursue accreditation for any other reason than to generate income streams?

I know that accreditation, the benevolent star you would all like to labour - and argue! - under, is supposedly concerned only with the purity of academic delivery and integrity. However, and do take your time to look closer at what accreditation entails, this is but a small portion.

2) Then look at how accredited institutions generate income, and try and correlate this to their being accredited. See a connection?

3) Finally, ask yourself: If accreditation were exclusively a process, voluntary at that, to standardise educational facilities, and there were absolutely no other benefits involved, how many schools would throw the sort of resources required at the process?

Higher education is a market-place. It is carved into some pretty straightforward segments. The largest of which is still the younger learner, coming from post-secondary schools. For them, accreditation can be reasonably seen as a consumer protection tool, albeit one acquired at a heck of a cost.

There is another segment, for 'mature students'. This in turn is cut up into a lot sub-segments, a small one of which is that of experienced career individuals who, for whatever reason, are not interested in nor care about a qualification with external approval. This, we serve. These people decide for themselves what has utility for them, and may not even share the same view on what constitutes 'utility'. There is not a question there of 'less utility than an RA degree', as the decision has already been made that an RA - or similar - degree is not required.

Now, consider this: We serve a tiny sliver of the global market for higher education. They're happy, and we're happy. If we were to pursue accreditation, we'd have to start off by quadrupling our fees, as well as probably find the sympathy of a pair of trousers with very deep pockets, as we'd have to hire full-time a number of people. When enquiring with AACSB - I believe, it's a while back - they required a minimum of 5 full-time faculty employed with the delivery of our MBA to consider even looking at us. Gradually, going through the process, we would remove ourselves from our niche, inching nearer and nearer one where already exist hundreds and thousands of providers, none of whom keen to give as much as a drop of blood.

Where are we most comfortable?

As an aside, I have noticed that loads of people here throw about GAAP as a yardstick. First of all, I am of the impression that the 'G' stands for 'Generally'. Secondly, I am of the impression that the term was coined to cover accrediting agencies, not schools or programmes. Perhaps John, if he is now with us, can confirm either way?


Henrik

 

James,

For the type of candidate that we cater to, external validation is of no consequence, they are much more inclined to following their own direction and take heed of their own findings.

The thing about external validation is that to an extent it frees the individual from the need to try and establish for themselves that some key ingredients - of their own articulation - are in place. That is why for younger learners it is a good idea. And for professions where licensure is a requirement I do think that external validation is essential.

Third party interest in validation is relevant where the third party is in some way directly involved with the candidate, e.g. as a sponsor. What they look for - at least with us - is that the course content and tutor/advisor are convincing.

Interest by parties not directly associated with candidates is only that, interest. They may have their views, and think what they like. If they do not like what is offered, there are thousands of accredited or similar institutions in the world. Why not just go elsewhere?

Indeed, your words are substantiated by the fact that we get a fair number of introductions by candidates and graduates.

Too hot to be sweating in here, summer's hit us, shall run off and take the family for ice cream.


Henrik

 

Dear Henrik,

Please don't listen to the kf5k fellow. He seems to have a strange agenda. It seems to have made you go into defensive mode. The only reason I was reluctant in referring to Denmark is that I was simply trusting my memory on a bit of information that is not very important to me and I was concerned about being incorrect.

Have fun,
Bill

 

Suppose that, for the moment, we accept your cynical premise. How you considered why accreditation might generate increased income streams? The public (consumers) have over the years become increasingly more aware of and demanding of value. Value is derived by dividing quality by cost. Quality is the degree to which something adheres or exceeds standards. Adherence to high standards leads to quality, which in turn increases value and therefore demand.

Yes. The connection, as outlined above, is simple. The higher the perceived value, the higher the demand. Value can be increased by two means—increasing the quality or lowering the cost. You seem to be advocating lowering the costs (in this case, the time, money, and effort necessary to earn a degree). I don’t have a problem with that, as from a business point of view, lowering costs is a legitimate means of increasing value. The issue is, however, how far can the quality be diminished before the product (the degree) no longer fits the description of what society expects it to be? In other words, how far can it deviate from the standard and still be legitimate?

The way you have framed this hypothetical question is self-serving and makes no sense. First, you would have us accept the premise that the only benefit of accreditation is standardization. Then you would also deny that there are any benefits to standardization except the standardization itself.

I disagree. I don’t believe that most of your students made the decision that an RA or similar degree was not required. Instead, I believe that the vast majority of your students fall into two categories—those that believe (for whatever reason) that a degree from Knightsbridge it equivalent to an RA or similar degree, and those that believe that they will be able to successfully deceive others that the degree is equivalent to an RA degree or similar.

Everything you said justifies your business model, but does absolutely nothing to bolster your institution’s academic credibility and legitimacy. From everything I’ve seen, Knightsbridge University’s business model is practically identical to Kennedy-Western’s business model.

 

You have never explained how you yourself distinguish between legitimate non-accredited universities and degree-mills. You have never given us reasons to believe that Knightsbridge is legitimate. You have yet to explain how prospective students and your graduates' employers can assure themselves of Knightsbridge's legitimacy, if they are not already familiar with your school.

I'm asking you for evidence.

While the range of possible evidence remains unbounded, and while evidence must then be interpreted and assigned weights, it remains absolutely crucial to making an informed decision.

If you have already told us what the inquiring party must do, would you please direct our attention to where you said it?

I'm simply asking you what kinds of evidence you believe might be useful in distiguishing legitimate non-accredited schools from mills, and in particular, what kind of evidence you can present to assure inquirers that Knightsbridge is not a degree mill.

The only substantive answer you have yet given to the questions directly above was to suggest that students and employers avoid non-accredited schools that claim spurious accreditation. While that's excellent advice, it doesn't help us distinguish legitimate non-accredited schools from mills, nor does it help us in deciding what Knightsbridge is.

I have put considerably more effort into defending legitimate non-accredited schools on this board than you have. To even suggest that I believe "not accredited = no good" is absurd.

What I do believe is that we need evidence in order to identify credible non-accredited schools. When the expected forms of external validation are absent, as is the case with non-accredited schools, evidence that can substitute for the missing validation is of crucial importance and the need for it simply can't be dismissed.

 

As I am not intimidated by accusations of “whirling up the dust” (not that Bill is), I guess I’ll ask the blunt questions. I hope that we’ll get straightforward answers.

Is Knightsbridge University still incorporated in Antigua and Barbuda, or is it now a new and different Denmark-based corporation?

Does Knightsbridge University enroll students residing in Denmark?

 

The words that you are attributing to me were written by Mark Israel.

If John Bear is going to be used as an authority, then I would simply ask John to answer the questions I put to you. In particular, I'd ask him to tell us what has caused his feelings about KU to go from quite negative to slightly positive.

 

This Bill is also confused about Knightsbridge's location.

Here's a listing on a U. of Toronto webpage, citing KU as a British prior learning institution.

http://fcis.oise.utoronto.ca/~plar/links/abroad/europe.html

Here's an unfavorable mention on a Japanese TESOL website, calling KU "a limited company in Torquay" whose degrees are a "sign of gullibility":

http://langue.hyper.chubu.ac.jp/jalt/pub/tlt/97/mar/distance.html

Here's a listing on a Torquay Devon 'local college' site:

http://www.locallife.co.uk/torbay/collegesandunis3.asp

So where is Knightsbridge, precisely? Was it previously located in Devon and more recently moved to Denmark? What Knightsbridge staff and facilities are currently located in Denmark, apart from the owner and his home?

(It's interesting how little unaccredited DL universities so often pick up and move from state to state and nation to nation.)

What is the legal source of Knightsbridge's degree granting authority?

 

Hi Henrik: I never said or implied that you were a shill or a screamer. I was referring to the children's chorus, composed of a handful of posters who accuse everybody else of prejudice and ignorance for failing to agree with them completely, and who like to resort to inane threats if anyone points out their snotty rhetoric. Janko

 

Gus,

I am going to have to be economical with my words here, having copied the entire post it runs to almost 10,000 characters, before I've even got a word in.

First up, an apology. 'Yanking your chain' in respect of Dr Kannan's PhD was in poor taste, and for that I am truly sorry. I was responding to what seemed in your posts to be a particular brand of indignance and j'accuse, none of which I could see a good reason for. My method of pay-back, however, was not acceptable. Surely, there must be something in the air around this forum!

I am not, as you state, 'admitting that foresaw a problem with the truth and chose instead a glib and circuitous answer'. I chose, deliberately, to rile you a bit. And it worked. However, I have realised that this is not the right place to play games of retaliation, it does not do any of us any favours.

Now, your points, very briefly, or as briefly as I can, seeing how you've come to love my prose:

1 - I do not know how many vice-chancellors of legitimate universities you correspond with, in my experience they can be as nasty and unpleasant as the rest of us. They are but humans.

I was definitely not aware that the application of sarcasm was yet another indicator that I be somehow involved with a degree mill! Just how do you figure that?

2 - It leaves me confounded that my responses to queries should leave you, or anyone else, dizzy. I shall be most happy, if you would care to re-post any such queries, to try and find a method of response that is less, erm, dizz-causing.

3 - As for this exchange:

QUOTE

Originally posted by henrikfyrst
What direct question is it again that I did not respond to?

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.
UNQUOTE

I had already answered these questions. Yet, you did not think so, and so I answered again, in a different format. As for Dr Kannan's doctorate, I was being direct in telling you that I could not tell you anything. Evasiveness is something else entirely.

4 - Simple questions/simple answers. I stand by my statement that just because you ask what you think is a simple question that does not entitle you to expect a simple answer, or indeed a response at all. If, for whatever reason, you are unable to decipher the response you get, you can but rephrase your question.

If 'the way answer' to you seems like evasion and subterfuge, you to me seem unable to understand what I tell you.

May I credit you with this sentence?:

"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."

When did I tell you that I was an educator? The academic work is removed from the administration completely, except in the sense that there is an overlap in various boards and committees. I am not in any way involved in the academic work here. Perhaps 'politician' is something too much of an odious description, but at times that is part of the job, too.

5 - Gus, I am not, falsely or otherwise, trying to characterise you as anything, let alone a harp. How am I to know if you're Irish? But you must acknowledge the apparent disharmony between you in one sentence saying that I try to make it seem as though you go on about 'a single issue', and in the immediately preceding sentence you say that I 'continually bring up a single point of [your] posts'.

6 - Yes, I can answer a single question without employing sarcasm. See? Can you ask a single question without raising an accusatory finger? I can almost hear you bluster from here.

7 - If, to you, the heart of the matter is that of self-validation in place of 'external oversight', I propose you take a long, hard look at why other institutions choose that 'external oversight' in the first place.

It is a voluntary step, and one taken for the sole purpose of maximising income streams.

If it is a problem to you that 'no one is exercising any oversight of KU', then perhaps I might suggest that for your future educational requirements you consider another institution? This is not sarcasm, but reality. If what we offer is not to your liking, you will go elsewhere. Oddly, this works for other people, too.

8 - The list of adjunct faculty does not mean that all of them are always working with one or more candidates. On just what you base this expectation I do not know.

It's pretty odd, this. Before, when for a long time we'd discontinued bringing a list of faculty at the site, we'd hear from time to time that having no list of faculty was a sure sign of a degree mill. Now that it is there, it's a sure sign of a degree mill.

Rest assured, the people listed, as well as those not listed, are there because they wish to be, they have provided the details for the list themselves, and they also know that Knightsbridge is not accredited or similar. If it makes no difference to them, why should it to you, given that you're not particularly interested in Knightsbridge in the first place?

9 - As for BREM and 'standards', I think we are at odds as to what a 'standard' is. In my view, that's a 'condition'.

Incidentally, I still haven't heard from BREM, but shall let you know as soon as there is communication.

10 - The current ownership of BREM or any other collaborating partner does not make one iota of difference, except to you, as you would like it to 'speak of' something.

Do you know who owns University of Phoenix from one day to the next?

The agreement is with the company, whoever owns it.

It is good for you that you know when the businesses with which you conduct your affairs change hands. However, while this may be of importance in your line of work, it is not terribly important here. Disagree if you will, but that's the case.

11: The full exchange was

QUOTE:

Originally posted by henrikfyrst
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.

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.
UNQUOTE..

Gus, none of the things you mention are in any way substantial. Not even taken as a whole. What we do not know today we can know soon enough. It does not count today who is the primus motor behind the delivery of any course, so long as the progression takes place in accordance with the agreement in place. It does not impinge one second on one person's involvement in a course in Malaysia that he is listed as faculty on our web-site. There is such a thing as 'adjunct professors', you know.

12 - Of course you have something against sarcasm. Anyone starting a sentence 'I am not a [fill in blank], but ….' is actually that. Or do you mean to say that you have nothing against sarcasm unless it falls in response to your barbs?

And again, you seem to think I've made the claim of being an educator. You even extrapolate that to say that you expect educators to be able to give honest and straightforward answers. We sure didn't attend the same schools.

And, if I may borrow from your back catalogue:

As for taking things personally, that depends on the size of Gus. If you're just Gus, how can you be expected to do anything else?

Best wishes for the evening,


Henrik

 

Mark Israel asked:

QUOTE
"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.""
UNQUOTE

Mark,

It is indeed. Most Danish is of Germanic origin.

The nearest I get to a 'Prinz' is the odd German biscuit. Heck, I ain't even King in my own house, it being full of women!


Henrik

 

Janko,

Sorry if I implied that you implied that I were a shill or screamer. Unintentional.

I am not quite used to this concept of exchanging comment yet being read by all and sundry, so I guess that in my response to you I was to some extent 'writing for the audience', as it were.

Will try and write directly to the recipient from now on.


Henrik

 

Bill Huffman wrote:

QUOTE
"Dear Henrik,

Please don't listen to the kf5k fellow. He seems to have a strange agenda. It seems to have made you go into defensive mode. The only reason I was reluctant in referring to Denmark is that I was simply trusting my memory on a bit of information that is not very important to me and I was concerned about being incorrect. "
UNQUOTE

Bill,

You're right about the defensive mode. Not usually my way at all, so I am a bit surprised with the way I'm responding. Perhaps it was John's agreeing that I'd be due a bit of verbal 'fun', as well as some of the earlier posts along the lines 'you just wait and see'.

Sorry to have distrusted your motivation. I can see how I was too harsh. This is definitely my last post for tonight, far too late and hot to be doing this.

Henrik

 

Henrik writes:

> The nearest I get to a 'Prinz' is the odd German biscuit.

Your Web page http://www.thembazone.com/mba/uk/mba394.htm does mention "royalty", though. (I know that's old text, but your Web page http://www.knightsbridgeuniversity.com/about.html still mentions "royalty".)

 

Hi Mark: This may be a really stupid question, but how did you get the umlauts into your post?

 

Hey Unk,
This probably won't help you a bit, and I don't know how Mark does get the umlauts on his posts, but from here it is easy. I bought a keyboard that has the letters w/umlauts on it and loaded Estonian as one of my languages. When I need it, I just change the language on my computer and the ü ö ä õ etc are there when I need them.

I bet you could put an "umlaut-friendly" language on your computer and find the appropriate letters (they obviously won't be marked on your keyboard). Example, when my computer is on English, the same keys that produced the letters above will display [;'] when pushed.


clint

 

umlauts

Here's a Web page "Can Your PC Speak German? Keyboard Help for Typing in German":
http://german.about.com/library/weekly/aa032398.htm

Since I don't use any single foreign language extensively, and I can't be bothered to memorize the ALT codes, I usually copy-paste special characters either from the Web (where I looked up the Magic Flute quotation that prompted your query) or from Microsoft Word (where I do "Insert Symbol").

For translation, I use http://www.systransoft.com. The translation usually requires hand-correction, but it does have enough of the vocabulary and diacritical marks to get me started.

 

Henrik,

If you have a moment, would you speak to some of the positive aspects that you see KU bringing to the distance learning student? How does an unaccredited school, in your view, add to the value of education?

Keep up the good work, I don't think a glove has landed on you yet.

 

Apology accepted, Henrik. I may ask some blunt questions, but I assure you my tone is not indignant; I save that for when my questions are given short thrift.

I don’t understand. Retaliation for what? And, as far as attempting to rile me, the line starts to your left.

I suggest you read the archives on AED, and familiarize yourself with the writings of Les Snell and others. As I previously mentioned, it’s not the use of sarcasm, but instead how it is employed (e.g., substituting it for straightforward answers when a truthful answer does not further your agenda).

This, of course, goes contrary to what most students learn in a lower-level communications course. I was not aware that the receiver bore the sole responsibility to ensure a message is understood. If this is so, let me just say this: Nabriah gojunda sidijh xi crap. Decipher that!

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’m sorry, but I can’t make any sense out of your statements. My point was that by you continually complaining about my original comments on the BREM matter, you implied that I had brought up the topic repeatedly, and thereby falsely giving the impression that I was harping on the issue.

No, I don’t see. If you had stopped at the first sentence, perhaps you could’ve made your point, but you couldn’t resist going on and negating it. And it’s not the questions that damn you, Henrik, it’s your answers (or lack thereof).

A similar argument could be made for the institutions that choose to “self-validate” instead of submitting to external oversight: They do so to maximize profit.

This only works for other people if they are properly informed of the nature of KU and how it compares to other options

My observation was that individuals who had never been involved with a student (nor in the employ of KU) are listed as full professors (not lecturers, mentors, adjuncts or assistant professors, mind you). This is unusual, to say the least.

You keep implying that if someone is not interested in attending KU, then his or her questions are irrelevant. I understand that your motivation in participating in this forum is to attract more students to your institution, but I must remind you that this is an information forum, and that any commercial use is a violation of the TOS. That is precisely why straightforward and honest answers are preferable to long, rambling, circuitous and evasive replies (however mellisonant you may think they are), as they cannot be misconstrued as a sales pitch.

You’re splitting hairs. Moreover, I could comment on the fact that you haven’t heard from them, but I won’t.

I guess will just have to disagree on how important the ethics, honesty and integrity of the individuals and organizations that represent your organization and its products are or should be.

Once again, we must agree to disagree. I believe that if you grant an individual or organization what essentially constitutes a franchise, the franchisor should definitely be concerned with what activities are taking place in their name (especially if, as we have seen, “conditions” are not being respected or met).

It appears that you are admitting that your answers have been neither straightforward nor honest.

But we are not discussing Gus, nor are we discussing Henrik, are we? I believe we were attempting to discuss Knightsbridge University.