polite questions to Henrik

Googling individual faculty does help us verify that these people actually exist, that they are active scholars and gives us an idea of what their interests and specialties are. That's very important.

But it seems to me that if a dating-service university actually is working, if it puts students together with real scholars who are truly willing to mentor them just as they do their day-job students, and if it grants those students a credible degree for real academic work, this process would be noted by somebody somewhere.

If a school is a 'community of scholars' that's producing real scholarship, shouldn't we expect some sort of recognition of the existence of that community? Wouldn't the academic and professional worlds take note of the results of that community's labor? Wouldn't somebody associated with that community list that affiliation somewhere?

Even if real faculty are in some way involved, if what they are involved with leaves almost no trace, one probably should ask questions.

 

Yes, but Henrik has also stated the following concerning Knightsbridge’s faculty list.

• ” We have dozens of people on the faculty who have never been assigned candidates.”

AND

• ”The referred list is indicative of the type of individual engaged as adjunct faculty.”

In other words, the list may be just a representative sample of the quality of individuals Knightsbridge would like to employ, not necessarily those who have had actual student contact.

This the only academic reference that is linked from Knightsbridge’s own Web site. It is interesting, but it's relevance stems from the fact that it boggles the mind how few references Knightsbridge lists for its faculty. Moreover, for an individual with a M.Sc. and Ph.D.in Chemistry, as well as a Ph.D. in Plasma Physics, Dr. da Silva’s dearth of academic references and publications is staggering. Perhaps Henrik can tell us if his degrees are from Knightsbridge University. Moreover, aside from being the founder of the Society for Martial Arts, I am not sure what qualifies him for his position in Knightsbridge’s Department Of Intelligence, Security & Terrorism Studies (isn’t this same thing Dr. Hoyer is trying to cash in on?). Knightsbridge lists him as a Research Fellow; Centre for Defence and International Security Studies; Cartmel College, University of Lancaster. Although the correct title should be Honorary Research Fellow, the CDISS does not list Dr. de Silva on its Web site. Knightsbridge University also lists Prof. de Silva as the Head: Faculty of Intelligence, Security and Terrorism Studies; CHEMA, UK. This, of course, is the (now apparently defunct, although many of Knightsbridge’s faculty still claim affiliation) College of Higher Education of Martial Arts, one of Knightsbridge University’s partners. I don’t see how any of this helps Knightsbridge University’s legitimacy.
.

First, Knightsbridge isn’t a UK based institution ( it’s doubtful that it ever was). That it tried to create the illusion it was, is much to Knightsbridge detriment. Second, the word “convenio” does not mean partner, it means agreement, as in articulation agreements. This is a list of institutions that accept degrees from the Universidad Autonoma de Asuncion. Perhaps Henrik can tell us if the agreement also calls for the Universidad Autonoma de Asuncion to accept Knightsbridge’s degrees.

First, Foreign Consultants are not members of NACES. Second, what do you mean by approved? Foreign Consultants state no such thing on their Web site. Third, the list is just a list of schools supposedly located in the United Kingdom. They don’t differentiate between British or British-based (where did you read that?). Moreover, Knightsbridge was and is neither, even though they still insist that all payments be in "£ sterling."

 

Gus Sainz wrote:

> when assessing an institution, the minimum acceptable
> standards are what is relevant, not the typical experience.

¿¿¿Is Boston University a mill because one man got a Ph.D. by submitting a plagiarized thesis??? Surely not.

There is an excellent reason to watch those minimum acceptable standards: when a loophole is discovered, it had bloody well better be closed quickly, before other students rush to exploit it and it becomes the typical experience. But I'll continue to be interested in the typical experience, thank you.

 

If this was the minimum acceptable standard, then, certainly yes, I would consider Boston University a degree mill. One man, one incidence, does not a standard make, however, nor does it determine acceptability. I am certain that at Boston University it was neither the minimum standard, nor was it acceptable.

I don't understand how you can make such an argument based on the false assumption that acceptable standards and loopholes are synonymous. Moreover, the example you provided is not a loophole at all, but instead more illustrative of a deception or an isolated instance of incompetence. The problem with your “typical experience” argument is that (at least in this case) it cannot be proved or verified. What is “typical?” Would the experience of 51% of the students be considered “typical?” How would you ascertain that whatever percentage you chose is accurate? Who would select the samples? How many degrees based on grossly substandard work can an institution grant before it is considered a mill? Can it grant as many as it wants as long as the “typical experience” (however that is defined) passes muster?

Experiences, however typical, do not equate to standards.

 

Gus Sainz wrote:

> I am certain that at Boston University it was neither the
> minimum standard, nor was it acceptable.

"September 1991
A Boston University committee reports that while 45% of the first half and 21% of the second half of King's thesis was plagiarized, it was still an original contribution to scholarship, and his degree should not be revoked. The true extent of King's plagiarism is much greater, and comparing his thesis with its sources [...]"
-- http://chem-gharbison.unl.edu/mlk/chronology.html

Is this news to you? If so, is it a good idea to be "certain" in the absence of information?

> The problem with your “typical experience” argument is that
> (at least in this case) it cannot be proved or verified.

Au contraire. If you want to test whether a vessel holds water, it is much easier to verify that most of the water is still in the vessel than to prove that not even one molecule has leaked.

 

I said "interested in", not "only interested in", much less "consider the sole determinant of acceptability"!

Your hypothetical start-up school is a mill. Once students learn that a credit card number is sufficient, most students won't bother doing dissertations, and the typical experience will plummet.

 

Sorry, I deleted my post before Mark's was added because I thought of a better example.

My previous example was a situation in which some graduates did actual work and others simply supplied a credit card number.

I would be interested to know how you would go about determining the "typical experience" at a place like Knightsbridge or St. Regis.

I've seen abstracts of Ph.D. dissertations at St. Regis that were written at about the high school level. Is this acceptable as long as it is a rarity, and assuming that it is not a loophole that could be exploited in the future?

 

Most of the info we have in life is about typical experience. When the accreditors come to visit Harvard, they can't examine the work of every last student to see who did the least work. They take a sample, and hope that it's typical.

What to do with rarities is a judgment call. Obviously Boston University's accreditation hasn't been pulled.

 

Gus wrote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Doctor Marianus
KU listed as one of two non-British but British-based (then) institutions on Foreign Consultants, Inc's list of their approved British universities (the other is the US regionally accredited Richmond - The American University in London):
www.foreignconsultants.com/global.a...y=unitedkingdom
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First, Foreign Consultants are not members of NACES. Second, what do you mean by approved? Foreign Consultants state no such thing on their Web site. Third, the list is just a list of schools supposedly located in the United Kingdom. They don’t differentiate between British or British-based (where did you read that?). Moreover, Knightsbridge was and is neither, even though they still insist that all payments be in "£ sterling."
UNQUOTE

At http://www.foreignconsultants.com/global.asp?
the following is stated in preface to the country lists upon which KU may be found:

QUOTE
FCI examined Educational Credentials, completed Evaluation Reports and advised on the most successful Application of Foreign Education for the alumni and students from the following Universities World Wide.
UNQUOTE

I read this as indicating that approval extends to a willingness to evaluate credentials from KU. If the equivalence of said credentials had been judged not to equate to a reasonable standard, there wouldn't be much point in including an institution on the list, would there? Unless, of course, their intention is to deliberately encourage individuals to part with their money only to be told that their credential is worthless, which I very much doubt is the case.

The background to FCI is here: http://www.foreignconsultants.com/company.asp

They may not be members of NACES, but their CEO is a member of AACRAO and NAFSA. On a purely personal assessment of their website, they look like a serious and well-intentioned outfit rather than a fake one.

The distinction between British and British-based is mine, made on reading their list. If they had included all British-based universities with overseas degree-granting authority I'd expect the list to be twice as long and to include Trinity C&U, Earlscroft and other less-than-wonderful places. It doesn't. This in itself is not conclusive evidence, just another piece of the picture as to how KU is regarded by others.

KU had an administration office in Britain (Torquay, then the Isle of Skye), whilst having degree-granting authority from elsewhere, until a few years ago. This was and is legal under the 1988 UK Education Reform Act.

 

I believe that it is generally true that the minimum acceptable standard defines the school to a very large extent. For questionable schools this is even more true. I consider this especially true for unaccredited schools because unaccredited schools have not submitted themselves to outside evaluation. Unaccredited schools are notorious for being misleading on exactly what their standards are. They will pretend to have whatever standard they believe will convince the student to give them money.

Mark, I admit that it appears that you may very well have found an exception to the rule. I believe that the rule still generally holds. These rules are not mathematical or physics theories that can be disproven with one exception!

 

No, it is not news to me. I knew exactly what example you where referring to in your attempt to bait and paint me into a corner. That is precisely why I alluded to “an isolated instance of incompetence.” The incompetence, of course, was on the part of Boston University. I am sure you are not so naïve to understand the political pressures that were brought to bear in such a circumstance. Not only history, but also street signs in practically every major city in the United States would have to have been changed if Martin Luther King’s doctorate had been revoked. It is doubtful that anyone that participated in such a decision would ever be able to feed at the public trough ever again, especially in such a state as Massachusetts. You are simply going to have to better than such a unique example laden with such a plethora of unrelated issues and ramifications.

Is it really easier to measure the absence of a single molecule (out of billions, if not trillions) rather than the presence, in isolation, of that single molecule? Why is the easiest method of measurement to be preferred over the method than measures the determining criteria most accurately? Why is it than you choose to measure that only most of the water is still in the vessel? According to your definition, 49.9999999% of the water may leak out before you make the determination that the vessel does not hold water. I guess I wasn’t too far off the mark when I suggested (facetiously) that you would consider the experience of 51% of the students to be typical and ignore the other 49%. That’s no way to determine standards, much less standards of minimum acceptability.

Imagine the following conversation between a job applicant and a prospective employer.

• “Yes sir, I understand that 49% of the alumni from my alma mater did absolutely no work for their degree, but my experience was typical; I can assure I was one of the 51% who actually did some credible work.”

 

Mark,

It is not for me to judge the extent of what the good Marianus is on to, indeed I suspect that most people are 'on to' but a fraction of what is available at any given time. If not, I am sure we could all see almost all the 10 dimensions most of the time.

When you make enquiries of any institution, office, authority, etc., you rely on the people who respond to give you the information available. This does not mean that you rely on 'taking their word', they simply disseminate the words as they have been created for and on behalf of that organisation.

In other words, if you ask questions of me related to Knightsbridge, you get the information available. This is not produced as I see fit and to demand every time someone asks a question, they're standard documents. If you ask information of, say, the Institute of World Politics, somebody will provide this. If you call up SIMI (see also www.simi.dk), you will speak with someone, who will be happy to provide the information you request. In all cases, the person represents the organisation. You do not need to rely on their personal word, as they are not the legal body with which you will potentially enter into an agreement. Even if they were, if you were to enrol, you have a legally binding agreement, and if they renege on anything promised you have grounds for action.
In all cases, you review the information received, with a view to establishing whether what is offered tallies with your objectives and expectations. And then you make a decision. For some, one of the objectives is that the qualification must be fitted with some sort of external approval. For others this is not the case.

I've no idea who Jay Wise is, or what Northwestern International University is or stands for, or where it is registered. Nor any particular interest. Anyone with an interest in these issues should make such enquiries as would be needed for them to receive the information they require. I can comment only on our own adjunct faculty. Incidentally, the information given in the faculty list is what they have provided directly, and although the request is for a precís, some will tend to supply considerably more than that. That’s the risk of allowing people to be their own editors, you cannot control volume!
I cannot comment on behalf of any other organisation, I cannot speculate on what I might say in response to a hypothetical statement made by a to me unknown individual about a to me unknown institution, and I certainly cannot speculate on any other organisation on the basis of any statements I've made about Knightsbridge.
Each institution needs to be seen in its own context by an individual who knows what it is they wish to establish. If all the person wishes to establish is whether the institution holds external approval, well, that should be pretty easy.

I fail to recognise how a list of dissertations supervised could help you assess the education of graduates of any institution. The most you could get out of that is a loose picture of which areas of study are most sought after. Perhaps you could explain this to me?


Henrik

 

Hi Henrik: Here is one reason why a list of dissertations--or better yet, some sort of access to them analogous to that provided by all B&M universities--would help.

On another thread there was discussion about the practice of UMI-Proquest (the near-monopolistic source for dissertation reprints) to exclude all dissertations from non-accredited universities. Most posters thought that this was a good way to uphold standards of academic quality, inasmuch as regional accreditation of an institution ought to carry some quality control weight on individual dissertations. I disagreed with this in favor of a free market of ideas. (If an unaccredited diss is stupid or incompetent, so much the worse for the person who wrote it and the institution that vetted it; if it's worth reading, let the public read it and draw whatever conclusions the public likes about the institution it came from.)

If your school made successful dissertations (or at least abstracts and links to authors and directors) available, this availability would provide a means for your successful doctoral students to make their work known, and would display for all the world to see the quality of the doctoral work being done at your school.

 

Keep in mind that this is an equally valid reason for a school not to make their dissertations available. It all really depends on the quality and legitimacy of the school.

 

Oh, yes. "Displaying quality for all the world to see" could be very much a double-edged sword!

 

Unkle Janko,

It was this last bit from Mark that I did not quite grasp:

QUOTE
"(I do disagree with Gus, by the way: I'm sure the listed faculty are "available." But a list in, say, descending order of number of dissertations supervised, would help us assess the education of a typical Knightsbridge student.)"
UNQUOTE

I got the impression that Mark meant a list showing work done by individual faculty, and how many candidates they've been associated with, and that somehow this could be used to assess the education. I am not too sure what he means, however, nor that I understood this correctly.

Knightsbridge dissertations and theses are available to the public. Only not through external sources. There are fixed procedures attached to such an undertaking. I have taken steps to have the details pertaining to Library Services added to our web-site, hopefully you'll be able to see the relevant information soon enough.

It may be that UMI control the turf in the US, but there are several other depositories outwith those particular borders. This would give those with a genuine interest in the issue a chance to do some closer investigation. However, this does not seem to be the issue attracting interest here at all.


Henrik

 

Dear Henrik,

In the "Commencement of service" thread, Dennis Ruhl wrote, "Giving a degree to someone who has spent a couple years producing a well researched dissertation and the next week giving a degree to someone with a 20 page paper written in a weekend does not garner respect", and you responded:

> Nor should it. I get the impression that you're principally
> referring to a particular entity? It is certainly an alien approach
> here.

Without exemplifying with real entities, can we agree on why it should not garner respect? Do we agree that the degree conferred on the student who wrote the 20-page paper, is harmful to the student who wrote the well-researched dissertation -- because it cheapens the value of all degrees conferred by the institution?

And if that is so, how could a prospective Knightsbridge student satisfy himself that it is indeed "an alien approach" at Knightsbridge?

> You do not need to rely on their personal word, as they are
> not the legal body with which you will potentially enter into an
> agreement. Even if they were, if you were to enrol, you have a
> legally binding agreement, and if they renege on anything
> promised you have grounds for action.

But isn't quality such a subjective thing that one would really want an independent opinion? If you ask the proprietor of some bad school how good his school is, and he says "It's very good", I don't think you could really sue him (or the school) for that, no matter how many other people think it's "bad".

> I fail to recognise how a list of dissertations supervised
> could help you assess the education of graduates of any
> institution. The most you could get out of that is a loose picture
> of which areas of study are most sought after. Perhaps you
> could explain this to me?

You have acknowledged that quality of faculty can be an indicator of quality of education. If Professor A has supervised 20 dissertations for Knightsbridge, Professor B has supervised 2 dissertations, and Professor C has supervised no dissertations but has indicated he would be willing to supervise some -- would you agree or disagree that Professor A's credentials tell us more about the quality of typical Knightsbridge education than Professor B's credentials, and that Professor B's credentials in turn tell us more than Professor C's?

 

Mark,

Time flies when you're having fun.

From yours:

QUOTE
"In the "Commencement of service" thread, Dennis Ruhl wrote, "Giving a degree to someone who has spent a couple years producing a well researched dissertation and the next week giving a degree to someone with a 20 page paper written in a weekend does not garner respect", and you responded:

> Nor should it. I get the impression that you're principally
> referring to a particular entity? It is certainly an alien approach
> here.

Without exemplifying with real entities, can we agree on why it should not garner respect? Do we agree that the degree conferred on the student who wrote the 20-page paper, is harmful to the student who wrote the well-researched dissertation -- because it cheapens the value of all degrees conferred by the institution?"
UNQUOTE

If we can agree to dismiss those exceptionally rare cases where something really satisfying can be submitted within the confines of 20 pages - no matter how long it has taken to produce same - it would be usually reasonable to assume that a document of such magnitude does not even begin to satisfy reasonable physical requirements, let alone those of content and insight. either of which shortcomings should automatically disallow any form of award.
Such an occurrence would indicate that the supervisor has not been allowed to do their job, and that the document has not been presented, in sections or as a full draft, before formal submission is made. Indeed, the candidate should be never able to take such a document to the formal submission stage if a proper procedure is in place and applied.

If proper procedure is not in place, and candidates are generally allowed to turn in whatever they like, with no apparent indication of any kind of supervisor input, it seems reasonable to arrive at the conclusion that those who happen to produce passable work have done so in an environment unable to recognise it as that. This again suggests that you cannot reasonably assume that any individual with, say, a PhD from such an institution is the peer of someone else with a PhD from the same institution. Or any other institution.
Demonstrating 'to the world' the notion that you're the peer of others at the same level of award is the primary purpose of the award. Thus, an institution failing in creating and applying a procedure of supervision and assessment of work to support this objective firmly really ought not to award such degrees.

QUOTE
"And if that is so, how could a prospective Knightsbridge student satisfy himself that it is indeed "an alien approach" at Knightsbridge?"
UNQUOTE

All candidates are supplied with a handbook of guides and directives covering every facet of their programme. Take a research programme. The first thing they'd do is go through the Research Module. After this they'd go through the steps in the 'Guide to Dissertation & Thesis Preparation'.
The Handbook contains relevant regulations appertaining their rights and obligations, what is expected in terms of the document they are to produce, details of assessment procedures and regulations, details on how external assessors are appointed, how communication with supervisor(s) is to be conducted, grievance procedures etc etc.
They will, in short, be thoroughly trained in research work, and indoctrinated with what is expected of them to pass muster.

QUOTE
"> You do not need to rely on their personal word, as they are
> not the legal body with which you will potentially enter into an
> agreement. Even if they were, if you were to enrol, you have a
> legally binding agreement, and if they renege on anything
> promised you have grounds for action.

But isn't quality such a subjective thing that one would really want an independent opinion? If you ask the proprietor of some bad school how good his school is, and he says "It's very good", I don't think you could really sue him (or the school) for that, no matter how many other people think it's "bad"."
UNQUOTE

Of course 'quality' is a subjective thing. That is why there need to be procedures, processes, regulations, as this provides standardisation. We cannot just act as we see fit or the wind blows as it relates to candidates, everything is set down and followed to the letter.

We cannot, for example, invent a new assessment form every time a new assignment/document went to faculty for grading. These things are standardised, faculty are instructed on how to apply them, and the rest is down to their professional abilities.

When all candidates get the same information on the same procedures and regulations, and all assessment follows the format and standards established, the subjectivity of assessment is reduced as much as possible. There is very little difference usually between the results of internal and external assessment of work, including dissertations and theses.

It is on the basis also of such regulations and procedures the candidate has leverage. They know what to expect from us as well as what we expect from them. If they can show that we have not acted in accordance with the rules, we have not lived up to our responsibility relative to the candidate, and they have grounds for complaint, internally as well as externally.


QUOTE
"> I fail to recognise how a list of dissertations supervised
> could help you assess the education of graduates of any
> institution. The most you could get out of that is a loose picture
> of which areas of study are most sought after. Perhaps you
> could explain this to me?

You have acknowledged that quality of faculty can be an indicator of quality of education. If Professor A has supervised 20 dissertations for Knightsbridge, Professor B has supervised 2 dissertations, and Professor C has supervised no dissertations but has indicated he would be willing to supervise some -- would you agree or disagree that Professor A's credentials tell us more about the quality of typical Knightsbridge education than Professor B's credentials, and that Professor B's credentials in turn tell us more than Professor C's?"
UNQUOTE

Usually, in fact, the quality of the candidate is the best indicator of the quality of the education! Provided the supervisor/tutor involved knows their beans, the onus lies on the candidate to get the most out of the education opportunity. There are, however, cases of supervisors/tutors literally dragging candidates from the quicksand to complete what otherwise they'd given up on. This is more a motivational task, however.

The 'counting up' scenario you describe would show one thing only: Which fields of study are more popular. It may very well be that the someone whose light burns bright in your estimation is hardly ever blessed with work, whereas the one you think of as a run-of-the-mill academic gets a much bigger share of the candidates. In any event, currently engaged with Knightsbridge candidates or not, all of the involved faculty are more than well up to the job. As long as candidates follow the lead of their programme materials, and take heed of the comments they receive from their supervisor/tutor, they receive education at a level commensurate with the programme designation. Some get more out of this than others, and usually the credentials of the faculty would not be expected to play a major role in that.

Hope this helps, and best to you,


Henrik

 

Does KU accept students from the UK?

 

Bill,

We accept any such person as a candidate who can satisfy the admissions criteria, and who is deemed likely to succeed with the programme in which they show an interest. Makes no difference where they happen to reside.

I must admit to being curious as to why you ask, and so hope you will deliver me from suspense.


Henrik