First question to Henrik re-Knightsbridge University

Well, I read Dr Hayes' dissertation. I make no argument on behalf of the institution which awarded his doctorate. He was kind enough to send his dissertation to me when I expressed curiosity about the possibility of doing real doctoral-level work even at a dubious institution. I would not care to say that the level of Dr Hayes' work is normative for that institution. I would, however, say that it is comparable to many decent RA dissertations which I have read, that it appears to have advanced knowledge in its field, that it shows doctoral-level research in its field, and that it bids fair to enjoy genuine practical usefulness in game management and conservation.

Was reading this a waste of time? As a Gnesio-Lutheran cleric, Antipodean ducks are not my usual purview. Silly me, I thought the damn thing was interesting in two ways: it was informative about an imperiled species, and it illustrated an (exceptional) instance of a worthwile dissertation coming from an institution which is neither RA, NA, foreign-equivalent, nor CA-approved.

Is that a rara avis? Assuredly. A waste of time? Assuredly not.

 

No, I don’t assume a lot. That’s why I use terms such as perhaps, may, might, ask a lot of questions, and provide links to sources. Perhaps a few appropriate “fluff” courses and you’ll be able to differentiate between inquiries, speculations, and assumptions. I posted a link for the curriculum for your professed degree, and commented on the required courses. I pointed out that the current curriculum did not include any “fluff’ courses, and even acknowledged that the courses you may have taken could have been different. If you successfully substituted other courses for those listed, it only goes to prove the flexibility built in to most programs and that the student actually has a choice and some say in the matter.

But you don’t have to pay to study something that has nothing to do with your vocation, and no one is forcing you to do so. You have a choice. If you choose not to take the additional required courses, however, you end up with a vocational degree (as you have done). There’s nothing wrong with that. If, however, you want to ignore or distort the rules and requirements so that instead of a vocational degree you are granted a Bachelors degree, then you have to find a degree mill willing to do so (as you have also done).

The difference is that Dr. Hayes (or don’t you acknowledge his unaccredited doctorate?) wouldn’t be granting me a degree nor is his manual required reading in a legitimate program of study I have elected to pursue. Moreover, the offerings of most universities that fulfill their humanities requirements and electives are vast. If you don’t like poetry or Van Gogh, there are numerous other courses to choose. Moreover, many schools differentiate between a B.A. and a B.S. A B.S. typically requires more courses in the major and fewer of what you call “fluff” courses. Therefore, what you profess to want already exists. If, on the other hand (and as your educational choices suggest), what you want is fewer courses and requirements, then what you are wishing for is that society deem a substandard education (and degree) equivalent to a legitimate one.

Lastly, I couldn’t help but notice that you did not answer the question. What are all these “fluff’ courses you are continually complaining that you had to take? You seem to be acting like a child who, before even tasting his food, declares that he or she doesn’t like it.

 

So, what's left?

 

Gus Sainz wrote:

> I don’t understand your continual crusade against what you
> term “fluff” courses. It is precisely these courses that define the
> difference between an institution of higher learning and a
> vocational school.

Are you saying that most British universities (including Oxford, Cambridge, and London) are not institutions of higher learning???

 

I do not want an easy degree program, or a substandard degree program. I have said on many occasions that I would like to see the fluff programs substituted by programs that would relate to your major.

The fluff courses IMO are the courses that are humanities requirements. When LIT is a requirement you have the choices of certain literature courses. The reason I had the music course is because I had the choice of a music, art, or a philosophy course. (A lot of choice that was) I simply say plug the electrical engineering student into a heat transfer course instead of the philosophy course. When he goes to design a HVAC control system he will understand the refrigeration cycle. Aristotle is something he can learn about elsewhere if he wants to.

As for your food analogy I typically eat most anything, but I do not think I should try pig brains to determine whether I like it or not. I already know that I probably will not would you? Same with the music course, and I like many different kinds of music. . I have my choice of music, and nothing remotely similar was studied in that course.

We obviously just disagree, but I will continue to voice my opinion even if I am the lone wolf in the night. As usual I may be wrong, but you are always right. Isn't that the way it works here?

Scott

 

fmhayes:

I did not realize you had a Phd., so I apologize for addressing you as Mr. Hayes.

Sincerely,

Scott

 

I don't usually answer a question with another question, but are you saying these institutions don't offer courses in the Humanities?

From Oxford’s Web site:

• The Humanities Division is the largest in Oxford in terms of staff and student numbers. Oxford's contribution to the Humanities over the past eight centuries is unrivalled anywhere in the world, and the University remains at the forefront of Humanities research internationally.

 

Of course Oxford et al. offer courses in arts subjects, but science students don't take them. If you go to Oxford to "read" (="major in") Physics, you take courses in Physics and Mathematics and precious little else.

 

Gus:

Keep in mind before you go down this road. Fluff is my term for courses unrelated to your major or vocation. Fluff would be an Art major taking calculus, or physics.

Scott

 

Uncle,
You have succinctly summarised the point I was attempting to get across. Bravo and thanks.
"Duck Boy' in 'paradise' - there were over thirty mallards and four NZ Grey ducks on the lawn at 7 o'clock this morning. The duck season is over - they are happy and know nothing about DegreeInfo!

 

Call me dense, but I don’t get it. Perhaps you, Dr. Hayes, could succinctly summarize the point you have been trying (for quite some time now) to get the members of this forum to understand. Most have been willing to stipulate that your masterpiece is a fine piece of work. What’s the point?

 

This has already been covered ad nauseum. The reason many Humanities courses are not required in a British undergraduate degree is that these courses have already been covered at the “high school” level. Perhaps that is why their standard Bachelors degree is three years instead of four. Your statements, in no way, refute my previous arguments. I still maintain that legitimate Humanities offerings are what differentiate vocational schools from legitimate higher education programs. If the Humanities requirements have previously been fulfilled, this only bolsters my arguments instead of negating them. What evidence do you have to the contrary?

 

Am I to deduce from this lengthy diatribe that you took exactly one course that you would characterize as “fluff?” You claim that you did not want an easy or substandard degree program, but that is exactly what you chose when you decided to go to Kennedy-Western University. Moreover, given a choice of Art, Philosophy, or Music Appreciation, you once again chose the easiest course. So, without actually taking any courses that most educators feel are essential to creating a well-rounded educated individual, you feel compelled and qualified to criticize years (if not centuries) of informed opinion.

As to the pig brains, I believe you are being very insensitive to pigs. As Garrison Keillor put it, “How would you feel if you gave up your life for people and they didn't care about your mind, they only wanted your butt?”

 

Gus Sainz wrote:

> The reason many Humanities courses are not required in a
> British undergraduate degree is that these courses have
> already been covered at the “high school” level.

But they haven't.

> What evidence do you have to the contrary?

What evidence? Since England is where I went to "senior school" (= "high school"), it's just possible I know what I'm talking about.

We spent our last two years ("lower 6th form" and "upper 6th form") cramming for 'A'-levels, exams administered by university boards which would determine our university admissions. 3 was a typical number of 'A'-levels to take. A pupil who wanted to "read" Mathematics or Physics at university would typically take 'A'-levels in "Mathematics", "Extra Mathematics", and "Physics", and study nothing else at all for the last two years of senior school.

I actually chose to do my 'A'-levels in Maths, Physics, and Latin; but this was considered highly unusual. People would ask me "What are you going to do with that combination?" I would reply "Read Newton in the original." But I never did.

 

Once again, is it not up to the student to determine what constitutes appropriate requirements for a school to grant a degree in a particular major. Legitimate schools (in sharp contrast to your alma mater) publish the requirements for a degree. If you disagree, you are under no obligation to enroll. Courses that you may consider to be unrelated to your major or vocation may be part of the degree requirements at most legitimate universities. If a school takes a holistic view and determines that an individual must demonstrate that they have received a well-rounded education before he or she is granted a degree, it may be because that is exactly what society expects.

Although each degree, each institution, and each major may have different requirements, for the most part, legitimate higher education institutions agree, much more than they disagree, as to the requirements. For example, I am not familiar with any university with an Art major that requires Calculus or Physics, but I may be wrong.

Like I said, there is nothing wrong with a vocational degree. There is, however, something very wrong with someone trying to pass one off as a legitimate, undergraduate degree with all that society expects that implies. A medical assistant is not a doctor, a paralegal is not an attorney and an electronic technician is not an electrical engineer.

 

Does this mean that a high school graduate from the US cannot attend a university in England ? Would a US student have to take extra classes?

 

Nothing else? Good luck getting into a top school.

Among Oxford’s admission requirements:

For Physics and Philosophy, Physics and Mathematics A-levels are required and an Arts Subject and Further Mathematics A-levels are considered “helpful.”

For Medicine, Chemistry with either Maths or Biology or Physics A-levels are required and Humanities subject A-levels are considered “helpful.”

For Law, GCSE Mathematics A-levels are recommended and Arts or Science subjects or a combination of both A-levels are considered “helpful."

However, I do not completely disagree with you, Mark. In many ways the British system pigeonholes students at a much earlier age.

 

The point is Gus that DegreeInfo is, I assume (no doubt incorrectly), supposed to be a 'DL degree' discussion forum. Part of this earlier thinking was that some members might like to hear about a DL dissertation from an unaccredited institution. And I'm sure that in some members were pleased to read about my experiences. Others only poured scorn on my work.
By the way I looked up the definition of 'eclectic' and one dictionary confirmed my understanding of a 'eclectic mind' - a person who has difficult determining what he/she believes in and one that frequently changes his/her thought patterns to suit the situation prevaling at a particular time!
Anyhow this thread has now completely lost its direction - and no doubt Henrik as well?
Must get back to the construction of my new brown teal aviary.
'Duck Boy' in 'paradise'.

 

Gus Sainz wrote:

> Nothing else? Good luck getting into a top school.

I was at an elite boarding-school: the Perse School in the city of Cambridge. Most of my classmates went on to either Oxford or Cambridge. I went on to Cornell.

My science classmates did 'A'-levels in Maths, Physics, and Chemistry; or Maths, Extra Maths, and Physics. My classics classmates did Latin, Greek, and Ancient History.

Now why exactly were you rolling your eyes at me?

> Among Oxford’s admission requirements:
> For Physics and Philosophy, Physics and Mathematics A-levels
> are required and an Arts Subject and Further Mathematics
> A-levels are considered “helpful.”

Physics AND PHILOSOPHY. Yes, I heard of that option. (Someone suggested it to me). But I don't know anyone who went for it. Why didn't you quote the requirements for the much commoner subject, plain "Physics"?

I'm relating to you what I actually experienced. I find it strange that you seem to think you can refute it based purely on what you can find on the Web.

 

Not just on any site on the Web, Mark, but on the entrance requirements Web page for Oxford. However, I do not intend to rehash the old and tired arguments on either side of the breadth versus depth debate. If you are so inclined, do a search of the archives of this forum. Suffice to say that I believe that if Humanities are never a part of an individual’s studies (at whatever level you choose), then there are significant gaps in their education.