John Bear introduces Henrik Fyrst Kristensen of Knightsbridge University

I've been writing about Knightsbridge University (and its predecessor) for many years. My feelings about KU have gone from quite negative to slightly positive, largely as a result of years of charming, intelligent, funny, and helpful communications from KU's proprietor, Henrik Fyrst Kristensen.

Henrik has been lurking here for quite a while. Last week, he asked me if I thought it was a good idea for him to plunge in and begin posting messages. I thought that an articulate spokesperson for a school that on one hand is on the Oregon list, and on the other seems to be doing a lot of things right in its and his native Denmark, could be a valuable addition. I also said it was pretty certain he would suffer abuse here. And I offered to "introduce" him, as it were, to the forum, hence this message.

This was, in part, his response to me.
--------------------------------------------------------
Dear John

Thank you for responding so swiftly, and with such encouragement. As a direct result of your promise of punishment(!) I have just registered myself at DegreeInfo.com, and expect to soon receive further details on how to make first post.

If you should feel compelled, I would be delighted if you would be able to hint that perhaps someone from 'somewhat over there' is likely to throw in a couple of remarks now and again. Indeed, do let the forum know whom to expect._I assume that I would simply open by inviting questions and comments on all things related to Knightsbridge University and/or how we/I see what/who we are, stand for and do. Shall try and steer clear of major emotional outbursts and lengthy tirades or apologia. Now, what other contributors might do, I can only guess, but I at least take comfort from the fact that if I have promised to behave when registering, so will the others. It's up to the moderator(s), then, just how feisty things get.

As for the good Levicoff, it was my impression, which I feel certain I received from a site related to DegreeInfo.com, that he has pretty much withdrawn from the frying pan (a result of which apparently being that the overall heat is somewhat reduced). Even if he should care to add his particular brand of invective to the recipe, I feel reasonably secure_in my ability to stomach the final result.

Now, what are the odds that between your introduction and my first post, someone is going to start off on 'see, he's not biting, he's too scared' etc, not realising the time difference? The overlap is pretty solid, by the time the first US contributors start joining, I'm closing the office here. So what I see in the morning is what you and compatriots offered up the day before. At least then I won't get caught up in one those inane 'did not/did too' ping-pong matches one often sees at these places.

Henrik
---------------------------------------------------------

You're on you own now, kiddo.

 

Henrik:

Welcome. Do not fret over OR, their approach is to outlaw all unaccredited colleges, including US Legal State Approved schools, such as CA Approved schools. They want the school to submit their progrms for review before approving; I find this insulting, especially when State Approved schools are fully meeting the requirements of the state in which they gain conferrment authority, like CA.

 

And, as we all know the state approval process is quite rigorous. I've heard tell that they expect schools to actually exist and have human beings who work there.

I believe the primary requirement is the willingness to buy the first round at the local pub (at least that used to work with my approval process back when I was single).



Tom Nixon

 

I'm sure that Mr. Kristensen is very charming and I welcome him.

Unfortunately, his charm is irrelevant when trying to evaluate the academic credibility or even the legality of his personal university.

I have already expressed my skepticism about this:

http://forums.degreeinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8554

But I've been known to be wrong occasionally and am quite capable of changing my mind.

So I invite Mr. Kristensen to make his best case. I won't flame him, but I probably will argue with him.

 

The most important requirement is a P.O. box to collect the checks.

I have no comment on Mr. Kristensen, or his school. But I do wish Levicoff was here, just to watch the slaughter.

 

Why not Henrik Fyrst Kristensen ?

I have never heard of Knightsbridge University or Henrik Fyrst Kristensen, though I gather from John's comments he runs a less than accredited 'university'.

I appreciate that Bill may be impatient with this and and Levicoff may put the boot in, but I am less worried about the "Henrik Fyrst Kristensens" of the world than I am about the fully accredited universities around the world that are debasing the currency of sound, credible and properly attested education, many of which some of our esteemd co-contributors to this Board have passed through, or are passing through, en route to academic credibility.

I refer to the dumbing down on academic standards, or the diluting of the value of the attestation of fitness implied in an accredited university degree and the apparent indfference to this process now rampant, apparently, and tolerated by members of degreeinfo. The slightest sign of an 'unaccredited school' and the knives are out - mine too - but the contamination of accredited programmes seems to atract no similar anger.

An enquiry here for an accredited university that allows unproctored (in UK speak: uninvigilated) exams far from attracting concerns as to why people's answers are accepted with no evidence that either they sat the exam without technical support, open books, or help from friendly advisors sitting next to them, is followed by helpful advice from Members and Senior Members (!) as to where to avoid the elementary precautions against academic fraud, which in DL could reach epidemic proportions (and judging from India is rampant now).

Could anybody tell me the difference between fraud on a large scale in DL from accredited universities and whatever 'sins' Mr Henrik Fyrst Kristensen might commit with his, presumably, dubious Knightsbridge 'University', or much worse (on the John Bear richter scale of degree mill attrocities) from the worst degree mills?

Until these issues are treated seriously, I cannot see why others of Henrik Fyrst Kristensen's ilk do not join the Board - they are only a little way ahead of where some of you seem to be drifting, shadowed not to far behind where the really nasty degree mill scams are trailing this caravan to the cemetery of standars.

 

I believe that being a "Senior Member" only requires posting 100 or more times. All 100 posts could be in defense of degree mills, and the poster would still get the "Senior Member" designation.

 

Professor Kennedy wrote:

> An enquiry here for an accredited university that allows
> unproctored (in UK speak: uninvigilated) exams far from
> attracting concerns as to why people's answers are accepted
> with no evidence that either they sat the exam without
> technical support, open books, or help from friendly advisors
> sitting next to them,

I have expressed such concern. I recently wrote: "There are many distance learning courses with no proctored exams, and I'm concerned about that." (http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ba2unh%2431d%241%40news.fas.harvard.edu)

> is followed by helpful advice from Members and Senior
> Members (!) as to where to avoid the elementary precautions
> against academic fraud,

Do you think it's the students' responsibility to refuse to enroll in accredited courses that don't have proctored exams?

I don't think so. I think it's professors who should lobby their representatives on the accrediting bodies not to renew the accreditation of schools with inadequate requirements for proctoring.

> Could anybody tell me the difference between fraud on a
> large scale in DL from accredited universities and [...] the
> worst degree mills?

Yes. One difference is that it is a student's responsibility not to enroll in a degree mill. So as far as advising students goes, I think our knives are in the right place.

 

self-validation

Henrik Fyrst Kristensen wrote:

> I assume that I would simply open by inviting questions and
> comments on all things related to Knightsbridge University

Welcome, Henrik! Any friend of Dr Bear's can't be all bad.

So you're inviting questions. I think some valid concerns were raised in the thread that Bill has already linked to, and I'd like to see you address those.

I'd particular like to see you defend the description of Knightsbridge as a "self-validating institution". If it's OK to validate oneself, then why should a prospective student pursue a Knightsbridge degree (which would be "Knightsbridge validation") rather than just award a degree to himself (which would be "self-validation")?

 

Re: self-validation

Excellent point that applies to all unaccredited schools.

Oh, and before RJT begins to rant, a license from Wyoming is self validation.

 

Re: Why not Henrik Fyrst Kristensen ?

That's all one sentence!

I thought that your charge sounded pretty serious, so I went over and read the thread.

First of all, it was largely about the problems involved in finding a suitable proctor. Those kind of difficulties in the mechanics of taking a course may not be of any particular interest to professors like yourself, but they are of great interest to students. Degreeinfo isn't a faculty club.

Second, there was no hint of fraud that I could see. The discussion revolved around finding a convenient proctor and about courses that use online exams, assign papers and employ other kinds of alternative assignments. You may argue about those methodologies if you like, but imputing fraudulent motives to the people on that thread is insulting.

Third, there was no hint of your own participation. If you think the things that were said there discredit Degreeinfo, then why didn't you say anything? You are a Degreeinfo "senior member" yourself, if you hadn't noticed.

That's really good hyperbole.

Unfortunately, it seems like a pretty rickety piece of inference:

If some students seek solutions to the difficulty of finding suitable proctors, that implies fraudulent intent?

If some students express frauduent intent, that implies that Degreeinfo and/or accredited DL are corrupt?

If Degreeinfo and/or accredited DL are corrupt, that implies that degree-mills should not be questioned?

Right.

 

SET UP YOUR OWN COLLEGE

http://www.knightsbridgeuniversity.com/turnkey.html

Henrik,

Welcome.

Has anyone taken the opportunity to acquire their own college?

Does the turn-key entrepreneur get to name the college?

Are these turn-key colleges completely independent or are they part of the Knightsbridge University System, so to speak?

 

Inferences, what inferences?

Bill

I implied no fraudulent intent on the enquirer and am quite aware of the circumstances which prompted the question - the difficulty in finding a proctor. It is not the enquirer who is the cause of the circumstances that can lead to fraud in DL exam procedures; it is the accredited institution.

That was my point, and the fact that contributors to this Board, Members (less than 100 messages) and Senior Members (over 100 messages) - which, in both cases requires some presence on the Board and the reading of other messages, enough at least to get more than a passing familiarity with the concerns of the contributors - piled in with 'helpful' suggestions of where such proctorless arrangements can be found from accredited institutions.

That this is taken to mean I implied the person in question has fraudulent intent is interesting - another example of the "message sent is not the one received?"

I did not wish to 'join in' and confuse the example - that would have been like a heavy handed attack on the questioner, who has the virtue of a short time on the Board and was raising what was for them a legitimate problem - an accredited institution not taking its responsibilities as a provider seriously by providing the appropriate facility for their DL exams to be properly and securely taken.

I assert that the 'pick your own proctor' facility is open to fraud. That many students, faced with this opportunity, do not exploit it is a testament to the moral health of the majority of DL students; that it is necessary for them to exercise their moral sense shows the careless stance of accredited institutions when faced with moral hazzards, which they cannot be bothered to circumvent either because it 'costs' too much or they do not care. If they cannot afford a secure DL exam regime they should stay out of the business because they risk discrediting those who put the credibility of the system before revenue.

I can assure you, Bill, that the 'mechanics' of taking courses are of great interest to me (I certainly would not leave it to a 'faculty club' to decide upon these things), which (since you mention it and not for the purpose of 'advertising') is why we spend over one million pounds a year providing up to 350 exam centres, with independent invigilators, for up to 20,000 examinees in four exam Diets. Accredited institutions, which skimp on secure examination processes, risk in their behaviour a narrowing of the supposed differences between them and degree mills. I hope we can agree on that!

Your response to these concerns is itself a 'pretty piece of inference' - admirable polemic, but empty of content - and I stand by my sentence that sums the actual inference of my message:

"Until these issues are treated seriously, I cannot see why others of Henrik Fyrst Kristensen's ilk do not join the Board - they are only a little way ahead of where some of you seem to be drifting, shadowed not to far behind where the really nasty degree mill scams are trailing this caravan to the cemetery of standards."

As for 'long', i.e., complex, 'sentences'; I assume most people on this Board, faculty and doctoral or bachelor degree students, are literate. We are not exchanging 'text' messages by mobile phones.

 

See, Mr. Kristensen? We're all one big happy family over here; you have nothing to worry about.


Cheers,

 

Re: Inferences, what inferences?

You may have long-standing concerns about educational fraud. You may have chosen this thread as an occasion to vent. Unfortunately, we can only respond to what you actually wrote, and that was a full-frontal flame directed at Degreeinfo.

I don't have a clue what your intention was, but the product was over the top.

Again the overstatement.

Are you seriously suggesting that universities that assign papers to be written out of class don't belong in higher education? That things like on-line examinations, ongoing class assignments, discussion, projects and participation shouldn't be considered in assigning grades? That every methodology that differs from Heriot-Watt's brings discredit upon distance learning?

Frankly, I'm not convinced that proctored examinations are the only, or even the best, way of assessing student performance.

All of this stuff is actually an excellent topic for an interesting discussion, but it's probably off-topic for this thread. So I'd suggest starting a new thread. I don't think that exam proctors have anything at all to do with Mr. Kristensen.

 

A whole lot of commotion going on here for someone who hasn't even posted yet

 

Bob C: "A whole lot of commotion going on here for someone who hasn't even posted yet."
----------------

He says he has tried, but seems unable to. I am quite sure he is not on Norfolk Island (from where the now-retired Chancellor of Greenwich University is still unable to post here, in spite of my best efforts to persuade the people of DegreeInfo to allow him to).

 

Bill

A conversation can start of on one topic and drift into another. That's life, never neat and tidy, nor pre-determined. Mr Kistensen is introduced to the Board, apologetically by the rightly esteemed John (we call it in Scotland. 'throwing your hat through door before stepping in').

People began to take cautious stances, already oozing close to being sanctimonious. I stepped in, drawing attention to the varied failings of some contributors to degreeinfo who, in my view, acquiesce in risking the future of DL by their tolerance (in extreme cases, their enthusiastic endorsement), of assessment practices that are totally unsuited to DL and, when exploited by the morally challenged, of which on a global scale there are too many, is a scandal waiting to happen and which, in turn, will discredit DL. You call this 'flaming' - handly but non-relevant word for a viewpoint (like 'reductionist' in philosophy).

You write: "That things like on-line examinations, ongoing class assignments, discussion, projects and participation shouldn't be considered in assigning grades?"

Yes Bill, but in what circumstances should these alternative exam regimes apply? This is a DL Board and they certainly do not apply in DL conditions. Indeed, there is a case, given recent scandals across the globe (the whole world is not contained within the boundaries of the USA) that they must be heavily circumscribed in campus programmes, not wildly adopted by accredited universities, slavishly adopting them without thought for circumstances in which they are inappropriate.

You write: "Frankly, I'm not convinced that proctored examinations are the only, or even the best, way of assessing student performance."

Neither am I, in general. I work on campus too. But that is not the question posed by DL. What may not be the 'only' or even the 'best' means of assessing student performance is not relevant to the problem of off-campus assessment of performance where the potential for fraud (work submitted for assessment that was not prepared by the students whose name is on the material submitted) is wide open. When 80 per cent of the assignments recently submitted by students for assessment (and duly assessed and graded at passing standards) was subsequently found to have been sourced off the Internet, I would hope (silly me) that warning bells would ring in every person involved in DL.

If we have a clash of interests here between you and me, OK, say so. I am not seeking a degree by DL; I work in an institution dedicated to DL and I feel some responsibility, beyond financial, for the future of DL. I am not about to slip into the crowd with a newly minted DL degree, hoping that what is going to happen doesn't happen.

Anyway, having said my piece and accepting that you and others do not agree with me, I will give it a rest. Mutter, mutter.....

 

Promotion of academic fraud ---No!!!

Prof. Kennedy:

You seem to be missing something about assessments in American (U.S) higher education. Most are based on the continuous assessment model. Up to 60% of the total score may be apportioned to assignments, term papers, tests, quizzes, class participation, etc, while the remaining 40% may be shared by mid-term and final exams. The percentage of the score allocated to final exam usually varies from one school to another (and from one professor to another). I strongly believe that the advantages of the continuous assessment model by far outweigh its demerits and I also believe that you understand that no system is without flaws.
The British system on the other has been based on tough exam regimes. Like the American system, the British system has its flaws. Exam is not the only true test of knowledge. In higher education, final examination should be just one of the assessment methods. Exams should be combined with other assessment methods to truly test what students have imbibed. A tough exam regime is good but is not perfect. There are people who score very high in exams because they have the ability to memorize and regurgitate. Some of these people do not retain what they have learned for more than one week. Is that a true test of knowledge? I don’t think so.
I am a product of the two systems and I think that each system has it flaws. It will tantamount to an effort in futility to continue to stress that tough exam regimes are better than the continuous assessment model. Also, I do not believe that continuous assessment model promotes academic fraud.

 

I second Ike on this. The continuous assessment model used in the States is a completely different animal from the UK "papers"-based approach, so I would not be surprised to see a U.S. regular defend the former and a UK regular defend the latter. I think you're both committed to educational quality and both strenuously oppose academic fraud; what we're dealing with here is a difference in educational philosophy, not a difference in educational ethics.


Cheers,