Knightsbridge U. Part of Immigration Scheme

http://eng.uvm.dk/factsheets/dvu.htm?menuid=2520

Italics mine.

Seems pretty unambiguous to an average reader.

 

Unambiguous indeed. So it would seem that
1) there needs to be an accreditation procedure, and
2) it must be of the sort that allows for the state study grants.
So if there's no appropriate accreditation procedure then they're operating illegally. Interesting.
Jack

 

There have been a number of interesting issues raised in this discussion of the Knightsbridge degree mill. I'll comment on a few.

First, we did contact the Danish government via our international evaluator last year and they say that Knightsbridge has no authority to issue degrees and the degrees are not valid in Denmark. That automatically means that Knightsbridge is a degree mill under Oregon law. At a fundamental level, there is no such thing as Knightsbridge as a university.

Most degrees issued at foreign institutions are perfectly legal for use in Oregon. As long as the school is approved to issue valid degrees usable in the nation it claims to be approved in, we accept them unless there is additional evidence of problems (the latter situation would include, for example, recent Liberian approvals). This strikes me as a perfectly reasonable standard, and obviously includes the vast majority of non-US colleges.

Casual mention of a degree in Oregon does not violate the law. Only use of the degree in a formal way as a credential (e.g. for employment or to attract customers) activates the law.

Finally, it is true that I could be more formal and talk like a bureaucrat. I do when a serious matter is under discussion. Knightsbridge is simply not a serious matter, it is a well-known source of humor because its status has been so notorious for so long.

 

OK, OK, if that's the way it's going to be, then, please do enjoy the silly little game you're playing there, Jack. Please, do. I gave up arguing with such silly replies once I had three kids of my own.

 

Re: no joke

Janko, you presume that everyone that points out that KU is operating legally is a 'shill'. No, what we are doing is just pointing out the obvious, and if disgusting references is all you have to counter the obvious, then this is disappointing.

It reminds me of the old preacher's joke: " if your argument is weak, then yell louder"

 

While private institutions can operate without any approval, they must, however, abide by an accreditation procedure to make their students eligible for state study grants.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And if this is the law of Denmark regarding private institutions, then if you don't want your students to be eligible for study grants, then no need of approval!

Roll on, Knightbridge...

But let me just add my personal opinion about unaccredited schools (so I am not labelled a 'shill'); they are a waste of money and if anyone who is really srerous about studying for a meaningful degree, ALWAYS choose a fully accredited school

 

Re: Re: no joke

Let me point out the obvious: I can legally print out a degree for myself on my home, ink-jet printer. It would be legal for me to do this. It would also be academically meaningless.

Same with Knightsbridge

 

The above comment and Rich's comment about cockroaches running under the fridge to hide or sometimes to Denmark have officially received my vote for the two funniest statements on DegreeInfo for the month of November.

Congratulations and thank you!

 

Alan

I'd say that clears up any confusion that may exist regarding KU.

 

Re: Re: Re: no joke

Hi Robb,

Your basic premise is absolutely correct. I couldn't help but pick a few nits for fun though.

This is true unless you then try to use the degree. If you try to use such a degree in say the state of South Dakota (IIRC) then you would be commiting a felony. It is a misdemeanor in many more states. Depending on the use, it could potentially rise to the level of criminal fraud in any state.

 

I think that Jack's right.

Let's go over the Danish text, bit by bit:

That's categorical. It doesn't say that some are and some aren't.

This is where the word 'approval' appears, as one of the three QA facets: The ministry approves new higher education institutions and programs before they are rolled out.

That's pretty clear. It doesn't say that some institutions must follow the regulations while others are exempt.

Presumably that's the same approval as two sentences earlier. New private institutions don't need prior ministry approval in order to exist and create programs. But that doesn't necessarily imply that private institutions are exempt from subsequent ongoing oversight.

That isn't a conditional statement.

It doesn't say that that private institutions must "abide by an accreditation procedure IF they want to make their students eligible for state study grants". There isn't any 'if' in the original text at all.

If we assume that an 'if' is implicit, then the last sentence would directly contradict the finance, regulation and quality assurance statements in the earlier sentences. But if it is read as Jack suggests that we read it (the more natural reading), then the entire statement remains consistent.

 

Now Quinn, as someone who has had to deal with his share of controversy in the past I thought you'd be more sensitive. You've gone and hurt my feelings. I would like to ask you to be more delicate in the furure.
Jack

 

Furore.

 

You too.

Jack

 

Bill, you have the patience of a saint.

 

presumption

But I, Bill (or Bill), do not.

Mr Hume has no idea at all what I presume.

The "it's leeegal" incantation is characteristic of shills.

There are also:
trolls
idiots
mimics
and the occasional guileless person unduly swayed by the above.

I would ask anyone to name a legitimate university anywhere on the planet whose graduates, personnel, or promoters resort ceaselessly to the cry of "it's leeegal." I cannot recall anyone in authority at any of the tertiary institutions I have attended feeling constrained to reassure me that the school was "legal", nor any of my fellow students or alumni resorting to "it's leeegal" as a defence of any of the almae matres--or needing to do so.

I would ask anyone to name a university [apart, perhaps, from tertiary institutions in Belarus, where universities are repeatedly targeted by the Communist dictatorship] where the names of doctoral-paper supervisors are kept secret, as Dr Hayes has consistently done with the professor of zoology from a prominent German university who supervised Dr Hayes' paper upon its resubmission to Mr Kristensen's enterprise.

Mr Kristensen has managed to stay out of jail in Denmark. I am glad. I have also managed to stay out of jail in my country. About this, too, I am glad. But the fact that Mr Kristensen and I are both running around loose does not make anything in our respective garages a university.

I know a lawn mower when I see it.

 

Re: presumption

Harvard started in a minister's study; Princeton in a log college, and Microsoft and a few other notables stated in the proverbial 'garage'.

I am not sure what you are doing in yours, Janko, but Kristensen appears to have registered a corporation with a 'university' name, is offering courses of study using what appears to be well qualified academics to supervise the learning process, and I am still not convinced that the laws of his country do not forbid him to issue degrees to those who complete their studies.

Of course, no one with an accredited degree has to apologise and continually defend their degree or institution. That is the down side (among many) of getting an unaccredited degree.

 

Re: Re: presumption

Yep. But Knightsbridge isn't just "unaccredited." It has no authority to award degrees, period.

 

What FWD said.
What RobbCD said.
What Jack said.
What BillD said.
What Bill H said.
What UncleJ said,
What Rich Douglas said (absolutely, positively, unambiguously!).

&

What DavidHume said, specifically:

......."But let me just add my personal opinion about unaccredited schools (so I am not labelled a 'shill'); they are a waste of money and if anyone who is really serious about studying for a meaningful degree, ALWAYS choose a fully accredited school."

Newbies:

Thanks for coming to DI and checking it out. Please pay atttention to our DI sages, experts and contributors, and refuse to be fooled into paying good money for an "unaccredited but legal" non-"degree." A few training credits and maybe even a non-credit course or two from an unaccredited entity may be personally gratifying but a "degree?" No! It is utter gutter nonsense the vast majority of the time.

Thanks.

 

When the extinguished owner and Vice Chancellor (okay, I'm not sure that was the self appointed title so sorry if it was not) and janitorial custodian of KU visited this beloved site, I recall him putting forth two principle premises to prove the validity of KU. The second was that KU was legal. I believe that it has been settled from two different sources that the authorities in Denmark seem to disagree with this. The first was that on a Google search very few hits could be found for KU. I notice that there are many more hits now. Many are negative. I do note though that to my surprise there seems to be some that are not the source of obvious shills and are positive.