Heriot-Watt, Royal Holloway and Imperial College

The issue is clarity and honesty in describing where one's degree was earned.

A particular campus/college can certainly be specified *IF* the student actually attended that unit, even if the attendence was geographically remote.

But if the student never applied to that unit (but applied to a separate program administered by the central university administration instead), never went through the unit's highly selective admissions procedure (but entered an open admissions program instead), never interacted with any faculty and/or students from the particular unit, was never counted in that unit's statistics nor acknowledged by them as being one of the unit's students, then I wonder if it's ethical for the student to suggest to employers that he or she is a graduate of that unit.

If the central administration of the University of California administered and operated that system's DL programs, then writing "University of California" for one of their DL degrees without specifying a particular campus would be appropriate. It probably wouldn't be appropriate to tell people that you attended UC Berkeley, simply because Berkeley staff composed some of your exams.

On the other hand, if your application is accepted by the individual campus, if you are acknowledged by that campus as being one of its students, and if you earn a degree from that campus (or technically, a UC degree specifying that campus), then I have no problem at all in your saying you got your degree from them. UC Irvine's new DL CJ masters is clearly an Irvine degree.

 

I think most people who do the hiring and firing at F100 firms know the difference between an MBA from London Business School and one from U of L External. This is sort of like the difference between an MBA from the University of Texas - McCombs School of Business and UT World Campus MBA. Both are based in Austin...both have very different degrees.

 

I thought I would revive this interesting thread, based on some new information (link below). First, with all due respect to Prof. Kennedy and Mr. Potgieter, it is quite common for those who have earned Uol degrees (internally) to refer to those degrees as from "University of London", rather than mentioning the individual college/institute where earned.

Witness the CV of the most recent Nobel Prize winner in medicine as evidence.

http://www.nobel.se/medicine/laureates/2003/mansfield-cv.html

Moreover, I have seen dozens of CV's on faculty pages that note something like, "PhD (London)".

(Yes, if you search the web, including Dr. Mansfield’s faculty page at Nottingham, you will see that he earned his degrees at Queen Mary College of Univ. of London. Nevertheless, the point remains.)

What IS rare is to refer to the University of London as London University, as Prof. Kennedy persists in doing. Perhaps this is a colloquialism in the UK, but it is not correct.

For external students, it's interesting that there are two very much opposing views on this thread.

On the one hand, we have Prof. Kennedy and Mr. Potgieter saying that just listing "University of London" on a resume is very bad practice - with Potgieter adding, for effect, that he would throw any such resume in the trash (careful, you may be throwing away the resume of a Nobel Prize winner - also very bad practice!). Is the implication, then, that an external student should also list the supporting college in all cases?

On the other hand, Bill Dayson says it would be dishonest to list, say, LSE, on one's resume unless one were an internal student there. Would the same hold if one’s supporting college was less prestigious than LSE? It should, in principle, but I doubt that most would get as worked up about it.

So we have a classic double-bind. I suspect that Kennedy and Potgieter are referring mainly to experience with internal degrees. If one were to adopt Dayson’s criteria, could one list the college of ANY DL degree on one’s resume, since in most cases DL students don't go through the same admissions process, interaction with fellow students etc.?

Admittedly, the Univ. of London clouds the issue somewhat. They denote external degrees as being earned “externally” on diplomas, yet they also cite university statutes that say external students are held to the same academic standards as internal students. If you visit the LSE site, for example, they skirt the issue by saying that ALL students, whether internal or external, are University of London students. As such, all degrees are University of London degrees, whether internal or external.

I don’t have any easy answers. I only wish to point out that this is a complicated issue, and the idea that UoL degree earners are intentionally being dishonest, or that they deserve to have their resumes thrown in the trash, is an EXTREME over-reaction. It also indicates a very incomplete understanding of the issues at hand.

 

Professor Kennedy,

A question a bit removed from your last post, if I may. Do you consider the EBS MBA to be a good choice for someone (such as myself) who holds an undergraduate business degree? This may sound initially like a stupid question (and yes, there is such a thing), but I have often heard it said that the MBA repeats in large part what is learned in an undergraduate business program.

It is a rare opportunity to be able to ask a professor rather than an admissions officer a quesion such as this.

(Note: I am presently pursuing a DL LLB, but MBA was on my mind and is hopefully still in my future).

Thank you.

 

Heriot-Watt is a top-notch program. They are currently on an upwards spiral (i.e. the program was successful which gave them significant dollars to reinvest in information technology and new courses which will make the program even better).

Heriot-Watt has started a DBA program and rumor has it that they will soon be offered specialized MSc degrees (i.e. you will be able to parlay some of your MBA studies into, say, a MSc in Finance).

A MBA from Imperial College - UoL would definetly have more cachet however, as has been noted, you are not studying at the IC but through the external program (which will be noted on your degree). Unlike Heriot-Watt who does not differentiate a degree based on mode of study, the UoL does. Regardless of discussions regarding resume presentation, this does discount the degree somewhat.

Personally, all being equal I would go with Imperial College - UoL for the resume. However all is seldom equal and it is possible that Heriot-Watt may be a more suitable program for you. If that is the case, I would choose Heriot-Watt without reservation.

 

Hi Tom 57

It is quite common in UK academe to give the short name of a British University, though of course we try to remember to give its full name where there might be confusion, or in official correspondence. No British academic would doubt that referring to London University, Oxford University, Cambridge University, Glasgow University, Nottingham University, Aberdeen University, St Andrews University, Leeds University, Durham University, Cardiff University, and so on and on, referred other than to the "University of the respective places".

I must say, however, I consistently see references to Harvard, Stanford, Chicago, Carnegie-Mellon, Kellog, Duke and so on and on, often without even the word 'university' either before or after it.

How anyone can make an issue out this I cannot imagine unless he or he is relatively new to academe and unduly sensitive.

In the UK we are sufficiently wise to the distinction between the constituent colleges of the University of London or the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford, to know that a degree from, say, Queen Mary, or LSE (should I have spelled it out?) or UCL, LBS, Imperial and Kings are somewhat more impressive than one from Royal Holloway, Goldsmiths or Wye.

I certainly would never toss any application in the bin on such spurious grounds (Mr Potgeiter can speak for himself) but if not specified before the interview it would certainly be asked at during it.

From my experience, LBS, er sorry, London Business School, graduates always declare 'LBS' (you spell it out) as the source of their degree not University of London, whereas RH, Wye, SOAS, and Goldsmiths always use 'UoL'. I understand the citizens of the city of Los Angeles call it 'LA' and I have not yet heard anybody from New York call it the 'City of New York'.

Are you sure this is a major issue between people who use these shortened versions all the time with each other and have done for many years - in my case 32? What's the beef? As an occasional visiting lecturer at LBS I have nothing but praise for our premier UK (nay, European) Business School and nobody there chastises me for calling it 'LBS' - perhaps because they have more important things on their minds.

 

Hi Tom 57

It is quite common in UK academe to give the short name of a British University, though of course we try to remember to give its full name where there might be confusion, or in official correspondence. No British academic would doubt that referring to London University, Oxford University, Cambridge University, Glasgow University, Nottingham University, Aberdeen University, St Andrews University, Leeds University, Durham University, Cardiff University, and so on and on, referred other than to the "University of the respective places".

I must say, however, I consistently see references to Harvard, Stanford, Chicago, Carnegie-Mellon, Kellog, Duke and so on and on, often without even the word 'university' either before or after it.

How anyone can make an issue out this I cannot imagine unless he or he is relatively new to academe and unduly sensitive.

In the UK we are sufficiently wise to the distinction between the constituent colleges of the University of London or the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford, to know that a degree from, say, Queen Mary, or LSE (should I have spelled it out?) or UCL, LBS, Imperial and Kings are somewhat more impressive than one from Royal Holloway, Goldsmiths or Wye.

I certainly would never toss any application in the bin on such spurious grounds (Mr Potgeiter can speak for himself) but if not specified before the interview it would certainly be asked at during it.

From my experience, LBS, er sorry, London Business School, graduates always declare 'LBS' (you spell it out) as the source of their degree not University of London, whereas RH, Wye, SOAS, and Goldsmiths always use 'UoL'. I understand the citizens of the city of Los Angeles call it 'LA' and I have not yet heard anybody from New York call it the 'City of New York'.

Are you sure this is a major issue between people who use these shortened versions all the time with each other and have done for many years - in my case 32? What's the beef? As an occasional visiting lecturer at LBS I have nothing but praise for our premier UK (nay, European) Business School and nobody there chastises me for calling it 'LBS' - perhaps because they have more important things on their minds.

 

Prof. Kennedy,

I don't think I'm being overly sensitive, just as I don't think you are trying to be overly patronizing and condescending in your response (though I wouldn’t bet my house on such a belief). My point about “London University” vs. “University of London” is secondary, though judging from your response, I’m wondering who might be “unduly sensitive.”

The point of my post, which perhaps has been lost in the shuffle, is that the issue of how one lists one’s credential is considerably more murky when one is talking about the External program. It seems as though your conclusions based on 32 years of experience are primarily directed towards traditional, internal students. True?

I agree that most internal students would naturally list the name of the constituent college on a resume. By omitting it, they would certainly be leaving themselves open to an obvious question. In that vein, my resume lists the University of California at Berkeley, not the more general, and ultimately perplexing, University of California. Just as those in the UK want to make the distinction between Goldsmiths and LBS, I suppose I want to make the distinction between Berkeley and Riverside, as it is an important distinction to some. (BTW, I do know LBS. I’m sure we are both aware of the Tyson connection between LBS and UCB.)

My point is that, for the External program, the “University of London” by itself, is probably correct. It is a University of London degree, and if one is to go along with Bill Dayson, it might be incorrect, or at least misleading, to list the constituent college. I roped you into the thread because of your insistence (or perhaps, implication) that anyone who does not list the constituent college has something to hide:

“I have never heard anybody use 'London University', either in speech, mail or their resume, unless they came from a lower level college, but they always use the top level college name if they went to one and it is understood as to why they do so.”

As this is a site devoted to DL, I’m not sure of the relevance of your observation in this thread. Adding to your view is that of Potgieter, who seems to feel “University of London” is dead wrong (and deserving of the trash). Again, I assume he is talking about those who have attended the internal program, and it doesn’t begin to address the issue related to the External program.

It is not uncommon to see “University of London” listed without mention of the individual college. You have corroborated this in your latest post by claiming that it is common practice in UK academe. However, the contrapositive of your quote above would mean that anyone who does not list the individual college means that he/she attended a lower level college (and the corollary to this, I assume, is that they want to hide this fact.).

Is it clear to you why Sir Peter Mansfield’s CV lists “PhD Physics, University of London”? Is he trying to hide something? Is it for brevity? Laziness? A Colloquialism? Is Queen Mary a “lower level college” that embarrasses him? So my point is that there are probably lots of reasons for listing “University of London” by itself, and that not all of them are suggestive of some ulterior motive. You seem to want to make it an immediate statement about the relative status of one’s degree in the realm of UK academe. This view may have some currency in the UK, but it is relatively meaningless in the US.

I suspect that much of the problem in this discussion is that you and Potgieter have generously applied internal student criteria to an external student question.

 

Tom wrote: "What IS rare is to refer to the University of London as London University, as Prof. Kennedy persists in doing. Perhaps this is a colloquialism in the UK, but it is not correct."

It was to this overly 'fussy' remark that I directed my rebuttal. I read in the daily paper this morning that the 'American government ..." did something. I regard it as overly fussy in common discourse to insist that the newspaper write this "correctly" as: "The government of the United States of America ..." Hence your non-issue of what is the "correct" way to name universities.

EBS is a distance learning School par excellence, but you should remember that the faculties of distance learning universities are resident on campus. Outside my window just now, the University football team is training; the phone has just rang from the University administration with a query about a student (DL); the mail from the rest of the University has just arrived and my car to take me home is parked outside in a University car park. In short, all DL staff are campus minded.

When I cross town and meet colleagues from Edinburgh, sorry, the University of Edinburgh, and we chat about the usual gossip, we talk as members of our respective campuses and our MBA students, mine DL and theirs on campus.

How Queen Mary College got into this discussion I am not sure but it is a fine top drawer college of London University. When I was a PhD student, its economics department was headed by Professor Maurice Peston (Later Lord Peston), whose stature in academe could not be questioned, nor would graduates be questioned from his deparment as to their bona fides.

It is London University's policy to award external students with different certificates to its campus students (many of its external students became highly distinguished professors, like my former teacher, Ken Alexander - later Lord Alexander) and it is London U's problem that this practice appears to downgrade its own degrees.

I only made the point that people from the 'lesser' constituent colleges (though London's PR insist that all of its colleges are of the same standard, a view not shared by anybody in academe I know of) feel the need to quote their degree from London University and not their colleges, and people from the 'greater' colleges seldom, if ever, refer to their degree as a London degree but always from the college they attended. Graduates of the DL MBA from Imperial College will undoubtedly refer to having done their MBA at Imperial.

I did not invent the 'rules', 'coloquial' or otherwise, and I claim no knowledge of what Californians call their universities, nor would I dream of telling them (or anyone else) what is the 'correct' way to do so. I am surprised that someone is bothering to tell me how to speak "correctly" of universities in the UK and its graduates.

To leave us both happy, I will state I agree with you absolutely.
I will also check this evening how my wife refers to her alma mater: "LSE" or the "University of London". I have a sneaking suspicion of which way she will express it.

 

Tom wrote: "What IS rare is to refer to the University of London as London University, as Prof. Kennedy persists in doing. Perhaps this is a colloquialism in the UK, but it is not correct."

It was to this overly 'fussy' remark that I directed my rebuttal. I read in the daily paper this morning that the 'American government ..." did something. I regard it as overly fussy in common discourse to insist that the newspaper write this "correctly" as: "The government of the United States of America ..." Hence your non-issue of what is the "correct" way to name universities.

EBS is a distance learning School par excellence, but you should remember that the faculties of distance learning universities are resident on campus. Outside my window just now, the University football team is training; the phone has just rang from the University administration with a query about a student (DL); the mail from the rest of the University has just arrived and my car to take me home is parked outside in a University car park. In short, all DL staff are campus minded.

When I cross town and meet colleagues from Edinburgh, sorry, the University of Edinburgh, and we chat about the usual gossip, we talk as members of our respective campuses and our MBA students, mine DL and theirs on campus.

How Queen Mary College got into this discussion I am not sure but it is a fine top drawer college of London University. When I was a PhD student, its economics department was headed by Professor Maurice Peston (Later Lord Peston), whose stature in academe could not be questioned, nor would graduates be questioned from his deparment as to their bona fides.

It is London University's policy to award external students with different certificates to its campus students (many of its external students became highly distinguished professors, like my former teacher, Ken Alexander - later Lord Alexander) and it is London U's problem that this practice appears to downgrade its own degrees.

I only made the point that people from the 'lesser' constituent colleges (though London's PR insist that all of its colleges are of the same standard, a view not shared by anybody in academe I know of) feel the need to quote their degree from London University and not their colleges, and people from the 'greater' colleges seldom, if ever, refer to their degree as a London degree but always from the college they attended. Graduates of the DL MBA from Imperial College will undoubtedly refer to having done their MBA at Imperial.

I did not invent the 'rules', 'coloquial' or otherwise, and I claim no knowledge of what Californians call their universities, nor would I dream of telling them (or anyone else) what is the 'correct' way to do so. I am surprised that someone is bothering to tell me how to speak "correctly" of universities in the UK and its graduates.

To leave us both happy, I will state I agree with you absolutely.
I will also check this evening how my wife refers to her alma mater: "LSE" or the "University of London". I have a sneaking suspicion of which way she will express it.

 

Professor:

I will admit to being overly fussy about nomenclature, and for that I apologize. I would also hope that you decide to cease extending my argument into the realm of the absurd – such as suggesting that I might insist that we all refer to the US government as “The government of the United States of America.” Your point is clear, and you don’t need to keep making it. It comes off as more snide than erudite.

My beef (and I’ll try not to belabor this, as even I am getting sick of writing about it) is with the quick rush to judgment by you and others on this thread about what someone may or may not be intending by the way in which he refers to his degree. I am glad that you appear to find it acceptable for an External student to refer to the individual college. Nevertheless, others on this thread (and other threads) seem to feel that this is tantamount to fraud. I only wish to point out that there is a rational view that lies somewhere in between, and that no matter which way a degree-holder goes, there is likely to be a camp on the other side that disagrees with his decision – hence my reference to a double-bind.

I appreciate your knowledge and background of the inner-workings of UK academe. However, not all of your conclusions would carry the same weight in the States, and so your insistence about what is done and what is not done, and what is really meant by each of those, seems to me a view that is necessarily circumscribed. The relative statuses of UK universities would be lost on most Americans, the average of which would be hard pressed to name a UK university beyond Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, and perhaps LBS. (Before I start another uproar, let me be clear that this is not meant as a commentary on British universities, but perhaps more a comment on the average American. Nevertheless, it’s an important consideration because, like it or not, the average is what you bump into most of the time.)

Queen Mary College entered the discussion because it is the institution attended by Nobelist Mansfield. If I am to believe your earlier comments, then I must assume that because his CV in various instances refers only to the University of London, that this must be indicative of some calculated effort to conceal his shady past? Of course, this is absurd, and that is my point. Moreover, statements and opinions that are absolute in nature usually have some element of the absurd in them as well, as issues are rarely that black and white. Your statement that graduates of RH, Wye, SOAS, and Goldsmiths “always” refer to UoL rather than mention their college by name is emblematic. One must ask whether you really have access to the entire graduate population of those colleges, or whether you are making an inference based on a very unscientific sample. Of course, it’s the latter, but you write as if you want everyone to believe the former.

Again, I apologize for any excessive nitpickiness. I certainly did not mean to tell you or anyone else how to refer to your own institutions. It’s ironic, though, that one could interpret your earlier comments as telling UoL degree holders what is acceptable when referring to their degrees, and I believe that position has been adequately called into question, if not dismantled.

 

Professor Kennedy,

A few posts back I asked for an opinion about appropriateness of the EBS MBA for an undergraduate business degree holder. I realize that in all likelihood my post was missed because of an issue of post ordering. I have often been told that a MBA repeats about 80% of the content of an undergraduate business degree. If you had a minute to give some thoughts it would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

 

For a short while a few years ago, I dated a professor from a small liberal arts college in the Puget Sound area. She, a holder of a BBA, MS and PhD in finance, taught in both the undergraduate and graduate business schools.

Her opinion was that an MBA program was best for someone like me, a non-business graduate who wished higher-level business training. She felt that anyone with a BBA would have been taught almost all the content of a MBA. Thus, she discouraged her BBA students from going on to get a MBA, unless they really wanted the MBA letters after their name. She qualified her opinion that a BBA could possibly find some benefit in a specialized MBA program, such as finance, international trade, banking or the like.

I will be interested to hear the opinion of the academics on the board on this issue as well.

Regards,

Michael Lloyd
Mill Creek, Washington USA

 

For a short while a few years ago, I dated a professor from a small liberal arts college in the Puget Sound area. She, a holder of a BBA, MS and PhD in finance, taught in both the undergraduate and graduate business schools.

Her opinion was that an MBA program was best for someone like me, a non-business graduate who wished higher-level business training. She felt that anyone with a BBA would have been taught almost all the content of a MBA. Thus, she discouraged her BBA students from going on to get a MBA, unless they really wanted the MBA letters after their name. She qualified her opinion that a BBA could possibly find some benefit in a specialized MBA program, such as finance, international trade, banking or the like.

I will be interested to hear the opinion of the academics on the board on this issue as well.

Regards,

Michael Lloyd
Mill Creek, Washington USA

 

For a short while a few years ago, I dated a professor from a small liberal arts college in the Puget Sound area. She, a holder of a BBA, MS and PhD in finance, taught in both the undergraduate and graduate business schools.

Her opinion was that an MBA program was best for someone like me, a non-business graduate who wished higher-level business training. She felt that anyone with a BBA would have been taught almost all the content of a MBA. Thus, she discouraged her BBA students from going on to get a MBA, unless they really wanted the MBA letters after their name. She qualified her opinion that a BBA could possibly find some benefit in a specialized MBA program, such as finance, international trade, banking or the like.

I will be interested to hear the opinion of the academics on the board on this issue as well.

Regards,

Michael Lloyd
Mill Creek, Washington USA

 

For a short while a few years ago, I dated a professor from a small liberal arts college in the Puget Sound area. She, a holder of a BBA, MS and PhD in finance, taught in both the undergraduate and graduate business schools.

Her opinion was that an MBA program was best for someone like me, a non-business graduate who wished higher-level business training. She felt that anyone with a BBA would have been taught almost all the content of a MBA. Thus, she discouraged her BBA students from going on to get a MBA, unless they really wanted the MBA letters after their name. She qualified her opinion that a BBA could possibly find some benefit in a specialized MBA program, such as finance, international trade, banking or the like.

I will be interested to hear the opinion of the academics on the board on this issue as well.

Regards,

Michael Lloyd
Mill Creek, Washington USA

 

For a short while a few years ago, I dated a professor from a small liberal arts college in the Puget Sound area. She, a holder of a BBA, MS and PhD in finance, taught in both the undergraduate and graduate business schools.

Her opinion was that an MBA program was best for someone like me, a non-business graduate who wished higher-level business training. She felt that anyone with a BBA would have been taught almost all the content of a MBA. Thus, she discouraged her BBA students from going on to get a MBA, unless they really wanted the MBA letters after their name. She qualified her opinion that a BBA could possibly find some benefit in a specialized MBA program, such as finance, international trade, banking or the like.

I will be interested to hear the opinion of the academics on the board on this issue as well.

Regards,

Michael Lloyd
Mill Creek, Washington USA

 

Novemberdude and Michael:

Apologies for missing your question. I hope not to be controversial but let me attempt an answer. The MBA degree is often associated with myths with which I have argued endlessly with other academics who hold different views.

The MBA is classed as a Masters degree, post-graduate in level, from which some people make the erroneous conclusion that it consists of materials post-bachelor level in all subjects. This could not possibly be true if you think about it, especially in the context of the Master level programmes at MSc level, which are post-graduate level in single subjects.

For example, a MSc in Economics is definitely post-bachelor level in the single subject of Economics. Likewise, MSc degrees in Finance, Psychology, Sociology, Mathematics and so on are post-bachelor level in single subjects. The key marker is the words ‘in single subjects’.

A MBA normally covers at least seven single subjects, not one. To be post-bachelor level it would be an astonishing feat to reach this standard across seven core subjects (Economics, Finance, Marketing, Org Behaviour, Accounting, Project Management and Strategic Planning, say). Electives tend to draw on several elective subjects. Specialist MBAs tend to move towards MSc level in a single special subject but because of the other subjects contained alongside them they cannot be said to reach that standard.

MBAs are generalist degrees that cover multiple subjects at intermediate bachelor level in each subject. It is not the depth so much as the breadth that gives them the Masters level designation. You have to reach a certain standard in all seven core subjects, plus two electives, NOT seven post-bachelor level subjects, which would be unattainable except for a small minority of students.

Your question is whether a bachelor in commerce or business covers 80 per cent of a MBA. Only superficially to the academic equivalent of smart Asses who think they know everything but actually know very little. Most bachelor degrees do not require real world business experience and the big difference is the business experience component of the MBA ,which introduces application and evaluation into the knowledge base.

Much intermediate bachelor single subject degrees bring in topics of no value whatsoever into their syllabii. For example, in economics, 'indifference curves' and 'welfare theories' have no value to business managers and in MBA economics classes are poor value and should be avoided.

To be worthy of specialist value MBA classes in Finance go beyond intermediate level and into the practicalities of managing trading, derivatives, etc., from a business point of view. In this case Michael's friend is right. But for the rest of ehr remarks it depends on how the person is tested. Choice of questiosn feature strongly in undergraduate degree but not in reputable MBA final exams - for these you have to know a lot more and have to be able to apply it to practical scenarios. To have been 'taught' the same syllabus is not the same as demonstrating competence across the board in nine subjects, closed book, no choice of questions, and so on, with prior business experience.

Recently, a group of recent business bachelor graduates in a centre all failed their first MBA exams in a subject covered in their bachelor degree. We investigated and found them all without business experience, aged 21-22. They were advised to quit the programme and come back in a few years, or go and find a 'soft' MBA, but not ours.

 

Why is my single reply showing up as multiple posts? How odd.

Regards,

Michael Lloyd
Mill Creek, Washington USA

 

Why is my single reply showing up as multiple posts? How odd?

Regards,

Michael Lloyd
Mill Creek, Washington USA