Knightsbridge U. Part of Immigration Scheme

How about Rosencrantz-Guildenstern Institute of Being and Nothingness?

Hey FWD: Isn't it Knightsinghamfordwickglenshire, not Knightsinghamfordshire?
Or is that just after the merger?

 

Uncle:

Perhaps one merger too many!

 

Y'all aren't gonna' believe this...

Let me see if I can help. Lerner's first paragraph:

• Now this is very typical dealing in immigrant communities and not only Russian. Wile I'm not supporting any bogus schools etc, Just like with mills some people know exactly what they do and why wile others are ignorant about recognition issues and don't have access to internet or other available resources to validate this things. Yes a call to Danish embassy may help.

is, I believe, about Vostok, not Knightsbridge. He's saying that, as a Russian immigrant, he's heard of such places; and that more than just Russian immigrants use them to gain sometimes illegal entry into other countries. He adds that he's not trying to appear partial to bogus schools or the services (like Vostok) which use them, but he's saying it's true that some people who use places like Vostok (and the bogus universities it utilizes) know exactly what they're doing and are, therefore, just as bad as Vostok; but there are also people who don't know as much about accreditation as we do around here who are routinely duped by the likes of Vostok (and Kinghtsbridge). These people, he's saying, may not have access to the Internet and the kinds of resources that we have so that they can really check out the Vostoks and Knightsbridges of the world. Lastly, in that paragraph, he's acknowledging that a call to the Danish embassy (to check things out) may help... but might not, either.

His second paragraph:

• I wonder if this business run by an attorney that is trying to make extra buk by bending or exploding legal loopholes.

seems to refer to the common practice of immigration attorneys making a few extra bucks by attracting Russian immigrants through work visa programs bolstered by bogus credentials such as those from Knightsbridge; and he seems to be wondering if Vostok might be such an operation.

His third paragraph:

• I don't know match about the Knitbridge but this smells bad and implicates them in unethical posibly criminal practices.

acknowledges that Lerner doesn't know much about Knightsbridge, but that Vostok sure seems to him like an unethical and possibly illegal operation... a gut feeling on his part that probably has a lot to do with similar places he saw when he was in Russia... most of them not on the up and up.

Yakov Smirnoff may be yesterday's news in today's hip, young comedy world; and he may be a conservative (as are many US immigrants who escaped a communist regime) who likes to have his picture taken with George Bush and other Republican notables whom I despise; but he is a deeply spiritual and sensitive man who is truly humbled by his luck at having become an American citizen, who is easily moved to tears at the sight of the Statute of Liberty, and who was struck with nearly unbearable grief by 9/11. Smirnoff is a true patriot, as in love with this great nation as anyone born here... maybe more. And though his show (in his theater in Branson, Missouri) is a bit hokey, probably tries a bit too hard, and tends, now, to attract mostly senior citizens, those who give it an honest chance and who allow themselves to be immersed in the story he tells will find themselves -- sometimes to their surprise -- being moved from laughter to tears and back again... and enjoying every minute. Russian Americans could do worse than having Yakov Smirnoff -- ridiculous as he may seem to some -- as their mascot. The now-artificial thickness of his Russian accent is part of his gig... and I don't see a problem with that.

No one here has been more critical of Lerner in the past than have I. The very thread to which you linked us, Tom, in another post here is but one of the several places that I severely criticised Lerner in a manner not terribly dissimilar to that which you have just exhibited. Back then, Lerner had a subtly sneaky way of introducing bogus entities or ways of doing things and, by so doing, misled readers. There were several of us who had his number... and didn't hesitate to point it out to anyone who'd listen. We can argue about it all day long but, the fact is, we really were right about what Lerner was trying to pull back then.

There were members here, at the time, who felt that our staying on top of Lerner and not letting him get away with anything in the way that we did was overboard, unfair, unnecessary. Sadly, most of those who felt that way weren't really bothering to go research his body of posts and to notice how he played his game. Some of them are "peace at all costs" types, so even if they agreed with us that Lerner was disingenuous, they still didn't like how we put our knee on his chest and wouldn't let up. But others didn't understand -- and probably still don't -- what he was really doing. So when they witnessed us giving Lerner extreme "what-for," they were horrified; and it later helped earn me being called, by Bill Dayson in a thread a while back about the new moderators, one of DI's most abusive posters... an assessment which hurt me deeply. I know we were right about Lerner back then. I'm still not completely sure I trust him... and I said so, in that same thread where Bill's words so hurt me.

But since then, something strange and wonderful has happened. Lerner has changed... or so his more recent posts would seem to suggest. Actually, he may not have changed so much as he may have just decided to let his better nature start guiding his posts here... a better nature that I always felt was in there somewhere, but just couldn't find a way to draw out.

Indeed, Lerner has some bad habits with regard to copying-and-pasting things into posts without explaining why or what we're supposed to get from it; and he forgets to differentiate his words, in his posts, from those whose words he copied-and-pasted and whom, therefore, he's quoting. So it can get confusing. But I've been keeping on him about it as politely, yet firmly, as I can...

...and, bygod, he's getting better... much better!

For the past couple of months we've seen a nearly completely new Lerner. By and large, he seems to now be on the side of the angels when it comes to diploma mills and those who seem to support or promote them... as can clearly be seen by what he's posted in this very thread. He's also trying to follow my posting format and methodology suggestions... which I admit were sometimes, in the past, somewhat roughly, impatiently and a bit hysterically made by me.

By the by, Lerner's becoming -- has already become, actually -- a most likable citizen of DegreeInfo... one whom, I've been thinking of late, probably deserves a break. Yes... you read it right.

So, when I came here and read your posting, Tom -- a posting, by the way, that I believe was made with good intentions, but was inappropriate because you didn't know that Lerner wasn't necessarily the enemy anymore -- I suddenly realized how some of my earlier critics must have felt when they witnessed me taking Lerner to task. That same horror that they must have felt, I felt... and it wasn't a good feeling.

I'm very big on the notion of redemption, Tom... the power to change that its mere possibility can have on a man who might have thought such redemption had slipped beyond his grasp; and whose bad behavior prior to realizing its new possibility may actually have been little more than the acting-out of his profound anguish on its account.

Lerner, in my opinion, deserves to be treated like the person whom his body of posts here suggest him to be. Those posts, by my reckoning, now suggest him to be a man in search of DegreeInfo redemption... and so, bygod, I want him to find it.

Until Lerner shows himself to be like he was before, the words of his new posts -- such as we can see in this very thread, for example -- should be taken at face value... er... you know... those that we can understand, at any rate. It's time we lifted our collective knee up off his chest. If he relapses, then we'll deal with that then. But, for now, he deserves the benefit of the doubt... and I, for one, am going to give it to him.

The fact that Lerner's username is misspelled, yet he usually signs posts spelling it right, has always been vexing. Even he has lamented it from time to time, as I recall. So, if he would like his username changed from "Lerner" to "Learner," he may PM me and I'll see to it that it's done.

 

"This is what they say"

Quote - extract
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[CROSSPOST FROM OTHER FORUM REMOVED BY MODERATOR]

Henrik Fyrst
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End quote.

They didn't like this post and who is Henrik? Is he the owner?

 

A Dane with no holes would have to be very hungry.

 

Then he can feast on the bullroar egregiously carried like a bucket of bilge by Lerner from the Crabb forum over to here.

If Lerner doesn't like the TOS-violating attack on Douglas, he should say so. Despite repeated admonitions, he doesn't make clear that he's quoting, or whom. All I can assume is that he wants to repeat the attack on Douglas and then do his "poor innocent" spiel when called on it.

And if Lerner doesn't know who Henrik Fyrst Kristensen is after hanging around both here and elsewhere, well, gee, I just dunno...

 

Henrik is the owner of the diploma mill under discussion.

 

Re: CROSSPOST FROM OTHER FORUM

Thanks, Lerner, for your attempt at bringing some additional balance to this discussion by presenting Henrik Fryst's words, posted in another forum, about this thread, posted here. However, if we want to read, here, entire (or substantially all) of his posts from another forum, then we all know how to go over there and do so... or he can come here and make said posts himself.

If he can't do that because he's been banned from here, then that's the price he pays for not being able to play by DegreeInfo's rules back when he had the chance. They're not that hard to follow. If he and/or his institution needs defending here, but he can't do so because he was banned, then he should have anticipated, before he up and got himself banned (if that's, in fact, what happened to him), that that might become a problem someday.

If you want to come here and tell us, in your own words, that he (or anyone else, for that matter) said a certain thing or two over in some other forurm or place... well... I suppose, if not overdone, that that would be okay. But please don't become the mouthpiece here for people who have either been banned or, if they haven't, are perfectly capable of coming here themselves and making their own points.

I should add that this does not mean that no one should ever substantially quote something here that someone wrote or said elsewhere. In fact, we do it here all the time. But this situation, in particular, is obvious. Fryst owns the Knightsbridge diploma mill, and Knightsbridge is being beaten up here pretty good... and deservedly so, I might add. Fryst is also a member of a competing forum whose members routinely try to scathe this forum because most of them have been thrown out of here; and that forum is where those who get thrown out of here typically go to die... or fade away... or whatever it is they do. Importing posts from that place into this place kinda' defeats that whole throwing out thing... ya' know?

So let's not do it, shall we? They, in that other forum, already humiliate themselves by spending most of their time commenting on things we say here, instead of thinking-up their own stuff to talk about. Let's not us go down that perilous road, too.

 

I tried to delete all the name calling and other disrespectfull
refrenses to Dr. Douglass.

If it was a court of law than Mr. Henric would be represented by professional, I'm not an attorney, but its only fair to the readers
represent bouth sides. This is simply a metter of justice.
I did a poor job doing this.

Learner

 

Thanks for that. Your good intentions are duly noted, and appreciated.

But it's not a court of law, is it. It's a private forum where the owner gets to decide what kind of stuff he won't permit to be posted here. Entire (or at least substantial parts of) posts -- or even any appreciable amount of quoting from posts -- from other fora aren't welcome here... at least not under circumstances like these. I'm sure you understand... or at least I hope you do. I'm trying to help you understand, in case you don't.

And I've already addressed the only means by which that can happen here... or, if he's been banned, then the means by which it won't. In either case, it's not yours to do. If that was not clear to you by what I wrote in my post on the previous page, then I hope it is now.

All the same, it will have to do. No more, please.

 

There are exceptions to every rule but a good rule is, IMO, to avoid cross-posting forums. Each forum has its own tenor and each thread its own context.

 

Then simply provide some burdens of proof that are legitmate and not hearsay or opinion.

Learner

 

Rich's summary of the legal standing of Knightsbridge matches what Knightsbridge say themselves on their website - not illegal to issue degrees from a private university in Denmark as there are no laws governing private universities in Denmark.

This situation appears to have been confirmed by a government officer associated with higher education in Denmark, according to the contents of a letter posted on the Knightsbridge website.

 

This thread may seem like a lot of quibbling over technicalities, but the outcome arguably has actual consequences for Knightsbridge's status in the State of Oregon.

Oregon ODA currently lists Knightsbridge as a "degree mill". We can check the current ODA definition:

So the ODA definition of a foreign "degree mill" appears to hinge on legal authority (this are possibly better definitions of a "degree mill", but this appears to be the one that ODA uses). So if Knightsbridge has implicit legal authority to issue degrees in Denmark, then it arguably does not represent a "degree mill" under the ODA's definition.

Let's suppose instead that Knightsbridge operates legally in Denmark, but without any external oversight, and that it lacks the foreign equivalent of US accreditation. In this case, Knightsbridge would appear to meet the definition of a "nonstandard school" under current ODA regulations:

Does it matter whether Knightsbridge is a "degree mill" or a "nonstandard school"? Actually, it may. Under current ODA regulations, it appears that a degree from a degree mill is "invalid for use, with or without a disclaimer", whereas a degree from a nonstandard school can be used if the appropriate disclaimer is attached.

Disclaimer: I do not claim to be a legal expert, and have no particular connection to either Knightsbridge or ODA. I just looked at the regulations, and this is how they appeared to me. I could easily be missing something. But if so, I have no doubt that someone will correct me.

 

There is a difference between being legally constituted and being approved to award degrees.

If a Danish bakery, legally constituted, started awarding doctorates, there is no reason the ODA should recognize the degrees. Operating legally isn't sufficient.

Knightsbridge has no authority to award degrees. It does not award degrees recognized by Danish (or any other) authorities.

One might try to argue that Knightsbridge is comparable to an unaccredited-but-licensed/approved university in the U.S. But there are problems with that. First, that definition has a great deal of variance--just look at what passes for "licensed" or "approved" in some states vs. others. Second, there is no evidence of--and no process for--a status comparable to "unaccredited but licensed/approved." Danish authorities have not taken a swipe at Knightsbridge to authorize it. Just the opposite; they've said Knightsbridge doesn't have degree-granting authority. Finally, and much more significant, Knightsbridge fails on so many other "smell test" factors.

Can someone please point out one thing that clearly demonstrates this thing is something more than Fyrst's diploma mill?

 

The day Oregon started labeling foreign institutions "degree mills" is the day it lost my respect. Now, under current regulations, my ACU degree, since I have a letter from the Louisiana stating that the degree is legal and valid, would probably fall under the "can use with disclaimer" clause.

I never liked the law, since I think it's likely unconstitutional (but hey, I'm no lawyer, and I don't play one on television), but when Oregon took the stance that its ODA has more academic acument and discernment than the governments of other countries, that it's some kind of uberregionalaccreditor with the power to discern across international boundaries and customs without thorough (and I mean thorough) audit, it just went a little too far on the acclaimed Prefontaine bravado.

And when a government worker comes here and in public starts poking fun at an institutions name, signing his message with an official sounding sigline, that bravado just blows in the face of diplomacy.

At least the "Pre" knew how to win a race with style.

 

I call shenanigans!

-Chris

 

Under Oregon regulations, US or foreign institutions are classified as "diploma mills" if they have no apparent legal authority to grant degrees, or if their governments have determined that they have engaged in "dishonest, fraudulent or deceptive practices". In short, the Oregon regulations attempt to identify and ban institutions that award degrees illegally. In principle, there is nothing wrong with this, although we can argue about whether or not the regulations really work as planned.

Come on. There is nothing inherently unconstitutional about evaluating out-of-state credentials, whether they are academic degres or professional licenses. All state governments, not just Oregon's, routinely evaluate degrees and licenses granted in other states and foreign countries. Every state, for example, has an engineering board that does it for engineers. Every state has a medical board that does it for doctors. Every state has a bar association that does it for attorneys. Oregon's scope is just broader than that of most states. And even so, Oregon is not unique -- other states, like North Dakota or Michigan, also take it upon themselves to evaluate foreign degrees of all kinds.

OK, I agree with you on this point. I don't doubt that Mr. Contreras himself has been called much worse online, but as a representative of the State of Oregon, he is supposed to set a higher standard.