polite questions to Henrik

I'm not sure what Mark meant either. But the question does seem relevant to Dr. Marianus' attempt to defend Knightsbridge by citing its faculty list as evidence of its credibility. In that case, one would want to know what kind of connection those names actually have to Knightsbridge.

On another thread, Bill Huffman argued that doctoral degrees involve original contributions to the wider scholarly community. But if the wider community has no way of knowing about those contributions apart from personal familiarity with the graduate, has such a contribution really been made?

 

I agree with that. I trust that you recognize the burden that it places on Knightsbridge.

If the purpose of an academic award is to demonstrate something to the wider community, then that wider community needs to know what is being demonstrated and why they should believe it.

But you have told us that Denmark has absolutely no interest in licensing or regulating private universities. You have suggested that anyone can set up anything in that country and call it a "private university".

So if there are any "procedures, processes, regulations" at play here, they are all creations of Knightsbridge and they all exist in-house. The rest of the community beyond your school is forced to rely on your word that they exist and are being enforced.

 

Bill,

The point of the doctorate programme is for the candidate to prove to be a peer of others who already possess doctorates. The aim is to establish oneself "as an equal", and it "embodies the concept that the holder of the PhD is in command of the field of study and can make a worthwhile contribution to it" (Phillips & Pugh, 'How to get a PhD', 3rd Edition, 2000). The 'peers' are the faculty and examiners.

The 'wider scholarly community' would be a BH interpretation/guess/assumption.

The same writers recommend against PhD candidates writing for publication until they have actually completed their programme, except under particularly defined circumstances. They also state:

"If you consider the PhD to be a period of professional training, then learning to write papers, as well as learning to teach and do research is an important component. Provided you know what you want to get out of it, and what you want to do at the end, you can choose your own specific objectives. The criteria for obtaining a PhD are the same for everybody (presenting and defending an original piece of work). If you meet these criteria, you are free to develop the skills you want to develop." (Ibid.)

A PhD used to be what you'd get if you wanted to teach in higher education. Nowadays, most PhDs do not aspire in this direction.

Henrik

 

Bill Dayson wrote:

> I'm not sure what Mark meant either. But the question does
> seem relevant to Dr. Marianus' attempt to defend Knightsbridge
> by citing its faculty list as evidence of its credibility.

Can I clarify something for you? What you call relevant is indeed what I had in mind.

> If the purpose of an academic award is to demonstrate
> something to the wider community, then that wider community
> needs to know what is being demonstrated and why they
> should believe it.
>
> But you have told us that Denmark has absolutely no interest
> in licensing or regulating private universities. You have
> suggested that anyone can set up anything in that country and
> call it a "private university".
>
> So if there are any "procedures, processes, regulations" at play
> here, they are all creations of Knightsbridge and they all exist
> in-house.

I agree with all of the above.

> The rest of the community beyond your school is forced to rely
> on your word that they exist and are being enforced.

Well...

Henrik has mentioned some of the standards documents that Knightsbridge University has: he says there's a Quality Assurance Framework document for Research, and one for Teaching.

You doubt they exist? Ask Henrik to post the text of one of them.

You doubt they're being enforced? Well, Henrik has addressed that by saying: "if you were to enrol, you have a legally binding agreement, and if they renege on anything promised you have grounds for action." If you think that's not adequate, maybe you should tell Henrik why not.

 

This would be funny if it didn’t go straight to the heart of the matter. What proof do you have that Knightsbridge is a university? Is there an official Danish authority or publication that lists Knightsbridge as such? Moreover, even if it was a real university, what proof do you have that it is a Danish university? A previous incarnation of Knightsbridge was supposedly located in the UK, but it was never really a UK institution. Once again, all we have is your word that Knightsbridge is a university and a Danish one at that.

I was under the impression that private institutions in Denmark could indeed function without any approval, but they did have the option of submitting themselves to an accreditation process. This process would make the institution eligible for state study grants. Therefore, the question remains. If the government does not recognize Knightsbridge as a university, who does? Is Knightsbridge a university just because you say it is?

This, I believe, is the gist of the entire discussion. You have offered absolutely no corroboration of this statement. You ask us to simply take your (and incidentally, only your) word for this. What proof do you offer that degrees from Knightsbridge University are academically equivalent to those from “any other university providing quality education?”

Is a degree from Knightsbridge University accepted by other Danish universities for admittance or further study? Do other Danish universities accept a degree from Knightsbridge University as an appropriate credential for a faculty member? Can you direct us to a single faculty member of a US regionally accredited or foreign institution meeting the GAAP criteria that was hired based on his or her Knightsbridge degree?

I, for one, am glad you put the term “real” in quotation marks. Once again, who, besides you, considers a Knightsbridge degree to be “real?” Does the Danish government consider it to be “real?” Is a Knightsbridge degree acceptable for employment or promotion in a civil service or government position? Do other Danish universities consider it to be “real?” Does Knightsbridge use the European credit transfer system (ECTS) as do all other Danish institutions of higher education, and do other Danish universities accept a degree from Knightsbridge University for admission purposes or for further study?

Henrik, you continue to offer a veritable cornucopia of plausible reasons why Knightsbridge University should be considered legitimate. Why is it that you offer no corroborating evidence for any of your statements?

 

Bill,

QUOTE
"Originally posted by henrikfyrst
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.

BD: I agree with that. I trust that you recognize the burden that it places on Knightsbridge."
UNQUOTE

It's the same burden placed on all institutions enrolling candidates for higher degrees.

QUOTE
"If the purpose of an academic award is to demonstrate something to the wider community, then that wider community needs to know what is being demonstrated and why they should believe it."
UNQUOTE

The 'wider community' is not for whom the work is undertaken, the work is undertaken for the institution, represented by supervisor and examiners and any other element introduced to ensure that the candidate can be said to have demonstrated that which is required.

The notion that the results of such work must be made available to outside parties is a matter of opinion, there is no such obligation, im- or explicit.

QUOTE
"But you have told us that Denmark has absolutely no interest in licensing or regulating private universities. You have suggested that anyone can set up anything in that country and call it a "private university"."
UNQUOTE

Let me make this clear: I have 'suggested' nothing at all. I have made clear and unambiguous statements. It is you and others who continuously suggest and imply that my statements are perhaps not the epicure of veracity. Why stop short of this? Why not just call my statement a bluff - or even a lie? Could this be because you have nothing to back up your insinuations, but you still want to be able to keep repeating them? Either show some backbone about suggesting I'm lying here, or stop suggesting it.

QUOTE
"So if there are any "procedures, processes, regulations" at play here, they are all creations of Knightsbridge and they all exist in-house. The rest of the community beyond your school is forced to rely on your word that they exist and are being enforced."
UNQUOTE

Of course they are our procedures, processes and regulations. Who do you think created the same such for any other institution you know of, do you somehow entertain the notion that they appeared out of thin air? All institutions put down their own policies etc.

The 'rest of the community beyond' Knightsbridge are by definition not involved with us, and thus have no interest in the elements under discussion. In the event that they express any interest in such, they are most welcome to receiving relevant information.

'So if there are any….'. How original and deep. Is this how you propose to couch all your future paragraphs?

Henrik

 

How are those remarks consistent with this one:

If the standard and credibility of a degree process is simply a private matter between students and their university, precisely what is being demonstrated to the rest of the world, and more to the point, why should that wider world believe it?

 

MLK could have plagiarized 100% of his dissertation, and BU still wouldn't revoke his degree. "Sacred cow" would be a major understatement.

 

I'm surprised that you didn't take that opportunity yourself.

Any degree mill that makes misleading academic claims is theoretically open to lawsuit. Nevertheless, we all know that there are hordes of bogus schools out there busily making misleading claims. Potential legal vulnerability clearly isn't evidence of a degree mill's academic credibility.

Knightsbridge may or may not be a degree mill. It's hard to say. But whatever it is, the fact that a dissatisfied customer might someday decide to sue it doesn't represent a new form of accreditation.

What's more, this is once again treating academic credibility as if it were a private matter and ignoring the public dimension.

Even if every degree mill customer is completely satisfied with a school's product, why should the wider community of employers, clients and colleagues assume that the expected standards have been met?

 

Bill Dayson wrote:

> But whatever it is, the fact that a dissatisfied customer might
> someday decide to sue it doesn't represent a new form of
> accreditation.

Henrik has been open all along about the fact that Knightsbridge University is unaccredited. With the above sentence, you seem to be accusing Knightsbridge University of being unaccredited. How much sense does that make?

Furthermore, don't you realise that Henrik's response will be to take great offence at how you keep saying "Knightsbridge University" and "degree mill" in the same breath? If you want a substantive response from Henrik, you're going to have to do better than that.

Henrik, please answer Bill's earlier question, "How are those remarks consistent with this one".

 

I was addressing these words of yours:

"Henrik has mentioned some of the standards documents that Knightsbridge University has: he says there's a Quality Assurance Framework document for Research, and one for Teaching.
You doubt they exist? Ask Henrik to post the text of one of them.

You doubt they're being enforced? Well, Henrik has addressed that by saying: "if you were to enrol, you have a legally binding agreement, and if they renege on anything promised you have grounds for action." If you think that's not adequate, maybe you should tell Henrik why not."

Even the grossest degree mills can make the same argument as you/Henrik made. They can promise the moon and then insist that if they weren't delivering it, they'd be sued out of existence.

As to Henrik's emotional response to that observation, I'm simply not interested.

 

May I ask what you think it will take to bet a substantive answer from Henrik? I fail to see how your efforts have been more successful than Bill’s or anyone else’s efforts in eliciting anything substantive from Henrik.

It seems we are being asked to judge whether Knightsbridge University is a legitimate institution or a degree mill based on a single criterion: Henrik’s statements. If Henrik can offer no other objective basis for forming an opinion, then it seems to me that the answer, taking into account all of Henrik’s statements, is crystal clear.

 

Bill Dayson wrote:

> Even the grossest degree mills can make the same
> argument as you/Henrik made. They can promise the moon and
> then insist that if they weren't delivering it, they'd be sued out
> of existence.

But the grossest mills don't promise the moon in terms of rigour, do they? They say "Want a degree? Here, have a degree." Further, don't you think it might be easier to sue someone in Denmark than someone in say, Liberia or Romania?

It's Henrik's argument, not mine.

> As to Henrik's emotional response to that observation, I'm
> simply not interested.

Then please use one of the other threads. Remember the subject line here.

 

'The world'

Bill,

The 'wider community' is not my invention, Bill Huffman is championing this notion.

'The world' is not my invention, this was brought into the discussion by Unkle Janko.

The 'world' and 'community' that the candidate belongs to is that of the institution. This is the environment in which he needs to establish his standing. The work he produces is done for the institution, and the assessment of same is done by the institution and by external assessor(s) for the institution. Having graduated, the candidate's world may expand, should he choose to try and get his work published.

You seem to suggest that you, as an outsider, could/should be able to be made privy to the work of a candidate at any institution of your choosing. The work of the candidate is, in fact, a matter of privacy between the candidate and the institution, unless the candidate chooses to publish it.

It really does not matter one bit if you - self-elected as representing 'the rest of the world' - believe in the process or outcome, you're not part of it, and you have no entitlement to be part of it.


Henrik

 

Bill Dayson wrote to Mark Israel:

QUOTE
"Knightsbridge may or may not be a degree mill. It's hard to say. But whatever it is, the fact that a dissatisfied customer might someday decide to sue it doesn't represent a new form of accreditation."
UNQUOTE

Bill,

Allow me to budge in, here. Has it escaped you that we do not claim to be accredited? The point in case is that we're liable for our actions to the people that matter, the candidates.

And further:

QUOTE
"What's more, this is once again treating academic credibility as if it were a private matter and ignoring the public dimension. "
UNQUOTE

You may think there is a public dimension. There isn't. The relationship of X with Y University is none of your business. The outcome of X's relationship with Y University is none of your business unless X chooses to publish the outcome. The only 'public dimension' that has any credence is that where checks are made that public funding buys what the funding body wanted.

And still:

QUOTE
"Even if every degree mill customer is completely satisfied with a school's product, why should the wider community of employers, clients and colleagues assume that the expected standards have been met?"
UNQUOTE

The parties you mention should not assume anything at all. They should apply their own policies and views in reaching their decision. Furthermore, clearly defined parties with a relevant interest in the matter may be made privy to all elements of a candidate/graduate file, following proper procedure. But not John Doe, the nosey parker.


Henrik

 

Bill,

You shared:

QUOTE
"As to Henrik's emotional response to that observation, I'm simply not interested."
UNQUOTE

Is this a response you can point to and quote, or one that you're expecting? If the latter, what should cause it?


Henrik

 

Henrik asked Bill Dayson:

> Is this a response you can point to and quote, or one that
> you're expecting? If the latter, what should cause it?

Sorry, Henrik, this is my fault. I was the one expecting the response; I said, "don't you realise that Henrik's response will be to take great offence at how you keep saying 'Knightsbridge University' and 'degree mill' in the same breath?" I was thinking of the following exchange from the "First question to Henrik re-Knightsbridge University" thread, and I wasn't remembering it correctly. Perhaps I should not have said "take great offence".

 

Mark,

Thanks for the clarification of origin.

Of course I take offense. This should not lead me to emotionally laden comment, though. You have described very accurately the methods applied by Bill Dayson. He is quite happy to make a statement such as :

"Knightsbridge may or may not be a degree mill. It's hard to say."

Now, where I was raised, if it was hard to determine if one's worst suspicions were borne out by fact, one would not air them. There is such a thing as libel. As far as I can determine, Bill has nothing upon which to determine, or even assume, that Knightsbridge is a degree mill. He even states that it's hard to say. Yet he is happy to leave the implication hanging in the air.

And then he happily tells you that he doesn't care what impression that leaves with me. Altogether pleasant.


Henrik

 

Henrik, thank you so much for the great quote. It is a most excellent definition of a doctorate and I believe shows that KU is bogus in claiming to offer doctorate degrees. Look at the phrase "worthwhile contribution to it". The contribution is NOT to faculty and examiners. The peers are not limited to only the bestowing institution that you so cleverly try to argue. The contribution and the peers are to the whole field of study, to the greater academic community and the knowledge contained therein.

I do not believe that KU can legitimately bestow doctorate degrees. Rich's post that you were reluctant to respond to while Rich was present and tried to dismantle after he was gone was totally on target. On the other hand, it doesn't necessarily mean to me that you're a dishonest fellow and fraud. You could be sincere and actually believe the things that you say. A bit of evidence indicating that is not the case is your continued refusal to point out the people that are actually faculty at KU. Why won't you give that out? You tried to give the impression that you agreed with the suggestion. The only explanation it seems, you resist simply because KU is nothing but a facade, a house of cards that is held up by nothing more than your words, no substance. You stating that KU is a University does not make it so.

 

Bill Huffman wrote:

> A bit of evidence indicating that is not the case is your
> continued refusal to point out the people that are actually
> faculty at KU. Why won't you give that out?

Before we get stuck in a semantic quibble, perhaps we should change "people that are actually faculty" to "people who have already supervised dissertations".