polite questions to Henrik

The only proof of Knightsbridge University’s legitimacy being offered by its owner is his own words. It seems to me (after having read everything that Henrik has posted on this forum) that Bill (or anyone else) has a lot on which to base the assumption that Knightsbridge University is a degree mill. For example, I, for one, fail to see how telling those who are politely inquiring about and trying to ascertain Knightsbridge University’s legitimacy as well as verifying some of the claims made by its proprietor, that, in essence, it is none of their business, will make it any harder to come to the conclusion that Knightsbridge is a degree mill. Moreover, both playing the role of an injured victim and threatening libel are behaviors typical of degree mills, not legitimate institutions.

It may be hard for some to say that Knightsbridge University is a degree mill, Henrik, but you are making it easier every day.

 

Bill Huffman addresses Henrik:

> 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.

For "relucant to respond to", read "very eager to respond to, but prevented from posting at all to DegreeInfo for several weeks because of a technical glitch".

 

Bill Huffman,

You're most welcome.

QUOTE
"... I believe shows that KU is bogus in claiming to offer doctorate degrees."
UNQUOTE

You believe? You cannot substantiate, or demonstrate, or provide evidence. What you have is a view that the candidate/graduate must make available to the public at large the result of their research. No such requirement exists, im- or explicit, anywhere. If it does, if it is not just your belief, show me where it exists.

It is entirely beyond reason for you to set up your own belief as an unassailable fact and then to attack anyone for not having arranged their affairs to match your belief.

You are not part of the programme undertaken by the candidate. Your neighbour isn't part of it. Your town, county, state, nation are not part of it. Other higher education institutions are not part of it, locally or elsewhere. They may become privy to content only in the extent the graduate chooses to publish their work. Alternatively, they would have the option of visiting the institution in question, and ask to see the available titles, pick one, and read it on the spot. You could do the same here, and you'd be welcome anytime.

The contribution is exactly to faculty and examiners. They are the 'peers' whose opinions count, and upon whose recommendation the decision to make award is made. These people represent the academic community in assessing the work of the candidate. Failing to recognise this demonstrates a lack of understanding of how the assessment of research based degrees works.

As for the post of Rich Douglas that I addressed, I was unable to post here at the time. This went on for quite a long time, during which his statements stood unchallenged. I see that rather than try and contravene my points in this thread you simply say that I 'tried to dismantle' the statements made. In fact, I'm pretty sure I managed to do exactly that. '...totally on target...' does not quite make it in debate.

It is good of you to not 'necessarily' think me a 'fraud'. I feel the same about you.

Your point about faculty makes no sense to me at all. I thought I'd already said that those on the list are or have recently been active. In saying so, I've pointed out all of them. The only exception to this is Dr Kannan, the merits of which we've already covered elsewhere. If I have not managed to make this clear previously, it should be now.

If mine stating Knightsbridge is a university does not make it so, your suggesting the opposite does not make you right. Perhaps you could give me a clear definition of what a university is? And why think that particular train of thought links to this issue?


Henrik

 

Perhaps there are some problems here, Henrik.

1) It's well and good to say "come and see" what your students are doing, but this is a distance learning constituency you're addressing. It may well appear inconsistent to solicit distance learning students via your website, but then to say you can see their work only on the physical premises.

2) I think that your idea of a student's finished work in partial fulfilment of degree requirements being strictly private, unless the student chooses to publicize it, is an idea which will do harm to your school's reputation, in two ways:

2a) Every (other?) reputable school requires the public availability of doctoral dissertations, whether through UMI/Proquest--if RA--or as bound copies in the school's library in every case I have ever encountered. The dissertation supposedly displays the student's mastery and the student's contribution to his/her field. If it's worth a bucket of warm s**t, as the late John Nance Garner put it, it will be quoted in subsequent dissertations; if not, subsequent dissertations will try to score points off it. Either way, a finished dissertation is a matter of public record and public interaction. KU's refusal to handle dissertations in this way, I believe, only adds to its isolation.

2b) What if a student posts his dissertation on his own website, labeling it as a KU dissertation? I posted a link to just such a dissertation from another school. Those who read it thought it did not speak well of the school that supervised it. The student did not make clear whether his dissertation was a finished, approved product or merely a draft. By posting it on his own website, this student effectively intervened in the "public relations" of his school--but not to its benefit. Without countervailing availability of the general run of KU dissertations, you make your school vulnerable to just this sort of mishap, if you should enroll a doctoral student with a sufficiently large ego...

 

How are those remarks consistent with these:

We seem to be faced with this question:

Do Knightsbridge degrees have any meaning outside the narrow confines of the Knightsbridge community itself?

If so, what message does possession of a Knightsbridge degree communicate to employers, clients and colleagues? More importantly, what reasons do those external parties have for believing the truth of that message?

If Knightsbridge degrees lack meaning beyond Knightsbridge, then how do KU degrees demonstrate to the world that those possessing them are the peers of individuals who received the same award from other universities?

 

Janko,

Can we dispense with the 'Uncle', or will you insist on proper titulation?

One thing at a time:

QUOTE
"1) It's well and good to say "come and see" what your students are doing, but this is a distance learning constituency you're addressing. It may well appear inconsistent to solicit distance learning students via your website, but then to say you can see their work only on the physical premises."
UNQUOTE

You're confusing the two issues. There's a difference between enrolling distance learning candidates and the local availability of research work produced by past candidates. If new candidates are interested in referencing documents lodged in the library, they can, as mentioned, turn up and see what they can find. Alternatively, they can engage in dialogue with us (this would usually be their supervisor), and ask for comments and directions to suitable documents. They would be able to remember any texts relevant to such a search. Due to size, it is not very likely that there would be anything relevant to a new study in our library. So, they have other options, UMI being but one.

I realise now there's another way of reading your point, that perhaps new candidates would be just generally interested in past work, and that then it seems a bit of a long way to go for some to have a browse. True enough. Which is why, via Library Services, texts may be purchased and sent to the candidate.

QUOTE
"2) I think that your idea of a student's finished work in partial fulfilment of degree requirements being strictly private, unless the student chooses to publicize it, is an idea which will do harm to your school's reputation, in two ways:

2a) Every (other?) reputable school requires the public availability of doctoral dissertations, whether through UMI/Proquest--if RA--or as bound copies in the school's library in every case I have ever encountered. The dissertation supposedly displays the student's mastery and the student's contribution to his/her field. If it's worth a bucket of warm s**t, as the late John Nance Garner put it, it will be quoted in subsequent dissertations; if not, subsequent dissertations will try to score points off it. Either way, a finished dissertation is a matter of public record and public interaction. KU's refusal to handle dissertations in this way, I believe, only adds to its isolation.

2b) What if a student posts his dissertation on his own website, labeling it as a KU dissertation? I posted a link to just such a dissertation from another school. Those who read it thought it did not speak well of the school that supervised it. The student did not make clear whether his dissertation was a finished, approved product or merely a draft. By posting it on his own website, this student effectively intervened in the "public relations" of his school--but not to its benefit. Without countervailing availability of the general run of KU dissertations, you make your school vulnerable to just this sort of mishap, if you should enroll a doctoral student with a sufficiently large ego..."
UNQUOTE

Firstly, let it be understood that when we talk about these things I am referring to research programmes. This means that the document is not in partial fulfilment of the degree requirements, it is the only requirement. This is based on the UK system.

The way graduates make their work available to the public is through submission to journals and the like, and via making their thesis/dissertation available via a central compiler, such as UMI. This may, in the US, be a requirement in some places, but in other parts of the world this is not a requirement. When I was in contact with UMI, one of the paragraphs received back was:

"Generally, schools that participate submit all of their dissertations. It is with theses that decisions are made on disciplines or specific titles to submit."

This suggests to me that not all schools participate. It also suggests that not all potentially available dissertations are submitted, but there could be good reasons for this, such as confidentiality clauses. Anyway, the point is, if not all schools participate, it is not a universal requirement. I've certainly never seen it described it as such anywhere.

As you say, 'as bound copies in the school's library'. That's what you'll find here, and why the charge for having a copy made is so relatively high. This will change as per 1st January, when all new submissions must be made available also in electronic format.

Your comment on 'isolation' is interesting. We exist in a niche. We have no particular intention of jumping through hoops to impress people who aren't there to be impressed. What we do is solid, it must be, or the people involved, who have no other stakes in the undertaking, would run a mile. It does not matter to us if someone in Florida thinks we really ought to raise our visible profile.

How that someone in Florida, or any other place, could develop the notion that a low profile equates something less than acceptable I still fail to appreciate.

What you say about others referencing dissertations is a truth with some modifications. If dissertations are referenced, they are usually dissertations found at the same institution or those highlighted by the supervisor as worth taking a look at in the early stages of the research training.

As for 2.b., the following is taken from 'Regulations for Research Degree Examinations':

"Any material published by the candidate in advance of the submission of the
thesis must be referred to in the thesis and copies of all such published material
must be included, either securely bound into the thesis or placed in a secure pocket at the end of the thesis."

We cannot control what the candidate chooses to do on their own accord. It should be remembered also that their work is not for us to use for 'public relations' purposes, but is their copyright work that they may disseminate as they see fit. When they submit the document they also - at the very latest! - provide a form allowing us to copy for specific purposes. They obviously should not publish anything other than the actual, full text with the claim that it is the document text assessed for the award in question. The only reason I could see for doing so would be someone who was actually unable to complete the work but wanted to make it look as though they did. They can only consider publishing the work as 'being the source of their award' after the award has been made, as the final draft review almost always leads to calls for changes and amendments.

Hope this illuminates.


Henrik

 

Hi Henrik:
I'm not confusing anything.

This forum is a DL constituency, and if you want to score points here you cannot blithely say that the only way you can see any completed work is to crawl about in your garage's rafters and look for it.

Also, my term "isolation" was an attempt to be nice. "Limbo" might have been more accurate, but not as nice.

Also, whether you do course+diss or diss only is irrelevant to the issue of public availability. I used the American phraseology in order to seal off the straw man argument that I expected all of a student's work (whether class results, class papers, diss proposals, or chapters/drafts) to be made public. No: only the finished dissertation.

All of Bill Grover's positive comments about unaccredited institutions hold good for me too. I would like to believe the best about you and your school. So far, I can't shake the idea that it's less a university than a rather expensive and arcane private club hidden away in the Danish Alps.

 

Dear Henrik,

Thanks again for providing the very evidence that you request from me. The very evidence that, to me, shows that KU doctorate degrees are bogus.

"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).

You apparently tried to argue that "peer of others" meant simply the few people holding doctorate degrees that actually review the candidate. The truth is that the intent here is that it means the peers of the other doctorates within the field of study of the candidate, within the greater academic community. More importantly the only accepted way of showing that the candidate can make a worthwhile contribution is to actually do it. This does not appear possible at KU. The reason it is not possible is that since KU is not part of the greater academic community, it cannot reasonably contribute to the greater academic community. So a "doctoral candidate" at KU cannot reasonably contribute to the greater academic community. Therefore, the doctorates bestowed by KU are bogus.

Again, I'm not arguing that this makes you a fraud. I am not even arguing here that KU is a degree mill. Based purely on the percent of unaccredited schools that are degree mills, I might argue that it probably is. Especially because you apparently won't cooperate with any constructive attempts to get real information on KU.

Thanks again, this is great fun!

 

Att: Bill Grover,

You wrote:

QUOTE
"I'm wondering if these examiners you mention include representatives from other schools?"
UNQUOTE

They do indeed. The following is an excerpt from 'Regulation 9 - Research Degree Examinations' (do forgive any weird formatting, not everything arrives at the board the way intended):

"7. Examiners

I. The thesis shall be examined by not less than two and normally not more than three examiners, of whom at least one shall be an External Examiner.

II. Internal examiners may be:

a. a supervisor or advisor of the candidate;
b. a member of staff of the collaborating establishment(s) concerned with the
programme of supervised research under examination.

III. If a candidate's supervisor is appointed as an internal examiner, an additional examiner, either external or internal, shall be appointed. Where two External Examiners are appointed, only one internal examiner may be appointed.

IV. Each examiner must satisfy the normal University requirements for the appointment of examiners, and shall be experienced in research in the general area of the candidate's thesis and, where practicable, have experience in the topic(s) to be examined.

V. At least one External Examiner shall normally have substantial experience of examining research degree candidates. In an examination for the degree of PhD, at least one External Examiner shall normally have substantial experience of examining at PhD level.

The term 'substantial experience' shall be taken as the person appointed as an examiner having acted in that capacity in three or more examinations.

VI. Each External Examiner shall be independent of the University and of any collaborating establishment(s) and shall not have acted previously as the candidate's supervisor or advisor."

Further than this, the appointed supervisor(s) will also be external to the University, as they are all appointed on an adjunct basis. As previously commented, these people would run a mile if the procedures underpinning the programmes were not in their view solid.

And yours:

QUOTE
"It is believed dissertations add to knowledge and knowledge should be made available. These two processes widen the opportunity to assess the virtue, or lack of it, of work done at Unizul. Dissertations are open for anyone to read and by that judge the worth of the study in that UZ department. Is anything like this done at your university? If not, due to not having a library perhaps, could some dissertations not be put on the web? Would that not serve to provide evidence of the worth of study there?"
UNQUOTE

We do have a library, and anyone is welcome to visit. It is possible also to purchase copies of titles. From the turn of the year, all work must be deposited also in electronic format, and will be made available for purchase via our web-site.

I do agree that sampling the work of research graduates could be one way of evidencing the quality of work accepted at a given institution. I just do not agree that it is the province of any outside party to flat out claim that 'the public' has a right to demand access, and easy such, to such evidence.

The issue here was supposed to be that of credibility. However, it has not been established by anyone that credibility depends on the ease of access by 'the public' to the work of graduates. Yet, this is the case some seem eager to argue.

I have early on stated that we do not aim to convince anyone of anything. We provide information relevant to requests received. People make up their own minds on this basis. People who are interested in our programmes would ask what the examination procedures are. Nobody here has done so. This indicates to me that they are not interested in such a thing, that they simply wish to attempt to paint a picture. Or, perhaps, they've no idea that such a procedure should exist.

Thank you for the insight to UniZul, always interesting to get a perspective from elsewhere.


Henrik

 

Bill Huffman,

Does your re-posting what I shared from 'How to get a PhD' mean that you agree with what the authors say?

Does it mean that you acknowledge the statement that the candidate must 'prove to be a peer of others who already possess doctorates'?

If so, how do you extrapolate that this must mean 'everyone else who already possess doctorates'?

The people supervising and examining the candidate are the very people who determine that the candidate 'is in command of the field of study and can make a worthwhile contribution to it'. This having been done, it is very likely that the object of the examination be made available to the public in whole, but it is not a requirement. Your wanting to believe it to be one does not make it one.

If you really do hold with Phillips & Pugh, might I share, from chapter 3, 'The Nature of the PhD Qualification', subheading 'The meaning of a doctorate'

"A doctor's degree is a licence to teach - meaning to teach in a university as a member of a faculty." (Phillips & Pugh, 'How to get a PhD', 3rd Edition, 2000, p.19).

Where, historically, would you say universities got their PhD graduates from? Let me tell you: They grew their own. This means that the university was the predominant, if not only body for whom the examination and outcome was relevant.

Let me share with you also this little trinket:

"When your thesis is finished, and you have been awarded your degree, you will probably be hoping to publish your findings, either as a book, or in the form of several journal articles."

Before I give details on where you can find this, would you care to guess?

Your talk of what is the true intent is not substantiated, it is merely your opinion. If it were not merely your opinion, you would be able to refer me to a source to support your opinion. Someone else saying 'that's my opinion, too', is not a source of reference.

Your talk of 'the greater academic community' is not substantiated, it is merely your opinion. If it were not merely your opinion, you would be able to refer me to a source to support your opinion.

Therefore, the opinions you bestow upon us are bogus.

I am very happy to, as you call it, 'cooperate with any constructive attempts to get real information on KU'. And when I see any such, I'll be happy to respond.

Glad you're having fun, I always thought blessed those with great capacity for laughing at themselves.


Henrik

 

Uncle Janko,

It matters very little if this forum is, as you dub it, 'a DL constituency', the documents discussed are still available only under the forms detailed. This will change in a few months' time, though.

If this is such a reprehensible state of affairs, it seems to me odd that people do not immediately take step to identify the institutions in the US that do not supply documents to UMI, and take them to task over it.

Definitely do I not want to 'score points' here. It seems there are no points to be scored, nor is it very likely that we're playing the same game.

The 'garage's rafters', don't be silly. It's in the cellars, like all good archives.

'Isolation' I could sort of follow, but 'limbo', not sure what your particular interpretation of that one would be, and so cannot proffer my own.

I mentioned the fact that we follow a UK system because you talked about 'partial fulfilment'. Had I not clarified this I am sure that someone would soon enough have wondered why I hadn't.

A question for you : Will you acknowledge the right of the graduate to not make available their document to the public?

Ah, yes, the Danish Alps, elevation five-and-three-quarter meters above sea level. Skiing is a bit rubbish, but the after ski is wonderful, the womanfolk mainly to thank.


Henrik

 

Bill Dayson wrote:

and Henrik responded:

Is not the university's reputation a public dimension? Aren't degrees from Harvard or Oxford valuable, in large part, because of the reputation of the university?

At http://www.knightsbridgeuniversity.com/about.html, you say, "We strive to offer high quality programmes to high calibre candidates". Would you feel comfortable expanding this to "We strive to offer high quality programmes to high calibre candidates, while doing nothing whatever to convince the rest of the world of their quality"?

 

Ladies and gentlemen, I am appalled. It is quite apparent that none of you are familiar with Professor Henrik’s method for determining the legitimacy of a university and the caliber of its programs—The Think System. You never have to actually examine outcomes, ask any questions, or scrutinize any replies. You just think about quality and academic integrity.

”Oh, we got trouble…”

 

Henrik is great at presenting theories and policies. Henrik is great at arguing. The more Henrik posts the more convinced I am that Henrik is the a great owner of a degree mill. He refuses to cooperate with any attempts at getting any information that would be meaningful. Instead he produces policies.

Why won't Henrik produce a list of the dissertations produced at KU? It was too expensive now I guess the story has changed to we need to wait until next year? Why won't Henrik tell us the names of actual advisors at KU? He gives no excuse, he just ignores.

 

Bill Huffman writes:

> Why won't Henrik tell us the names of actual advisors at KU?

He has. He said:

The list is at http://www.knightsbridgeuniversity.com/faculty.html.

 

Absolutely

Absolutely

It means that they are all peers. All the doctorates within a field are one big happy family of peers. Now if the "peer" reviewers provided by KU are incompetent academic frauds then they are not truly peers are they? Or if they are doctorates but in unrelated disciplines then they are not truly peers are they? Therefore they cannot represent the big happy family of peers of real doctorates.

Thank you for the kind words. I'm pleased that I've apparently got your goat. It does make it all the more fun. I'm also pleased that you honored my argument by ignoring it, again.

I'll copy it for you here yet AGAIN so that it will be emphasized again that KU doctorates are bogus and that it is not simply my opinion as you keep erroneously stating. Note that the part that you have ignored time and time again begins with the words "More importantly". That was/is supposed to be a clue that it was well ... more important. It is the simple outcome of the basic doctorate requirement, that you so kindly posted,

"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).

More importantly the only accepted way of showing that the candidate can make a worthwhile contribution is to actually do it. This does not appear possible at KU. The reason it is not possible is that since KU is not part of the greater academic community, it cannot reasonably contribute to the greater academic community, if it is not a part. So a "doctoral candidate" at KU cannot reasonably contribute to the greater academic community. Therefore, the doctorates bestowed by KU are bogus.

 

Bill Huffman wrote:
Originally posted by henrikfyrst
If so, how do you extrapolate that this must mean 'everyone else who already possess doctorates'?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It means that they are all peers. All the doctorates within a field are one big happy family of peers. Now if the "peer" reviewers provided by KU are incompetent academic frauds then they are not truly peers are they? Or if they are doctorates but in unrelated disciplines then they are not truly peers are they? Therefore they cannot represent the big happy family of peers of real doctorates.
UNQUOTE

Henrik has said that the senior faculty listed at http://www.knightsbridgeuniversity.com/faculty.html constitutes some of those peer reviewers. Which of *that list* exactly do you consider *incompetent academic frauds*? What evidence do you have that they are reviewing/supervising doctorates that are not falling within their field of expertise? Perhaps it is my myopia, but I haven't seen such evidence presented anywhere on this board. Would you mind pointing out to me where I might find it?

May I also suggest that if you doubt the connection of those people to KU, that you should write to them and seek independent confirmation of their status? Some of them even have email addresses listed, so that this is a convenient process.

I have heard the argument about the *wider community* of doctorates many times here. May I point out that unless and until some authoritative written source is quoted in support of that view, it will remain supposition and opinion, and therefore *bogus* in my estimation (and I thought we were trying to get away from the name-calling...)

In truth, that argument has a US focus and has little in the way of historical or other precedent to commend it in European or UK terms. Most European countries consider universities to be autonomous bodies. In seeking to extrapolate the systems of US regional accreditation to the UK and elsewhere there is the risk of making assumptions based on little evidence.

What the UK in particular has started to introduce in the past decade is a system of basic quality assurance under the auspices of QCA and similar agencies. That system does not seek to interfere in individual university governance so far as the awards offered and their meaning to the internal university community are concerned. Bear in mind that the construance of a degree in the UK is *academic rank conferred as mark of proficiency* (Concise Oxford Dictionary) and that that proficiency is left to individual universities to determine. That is why, for example, Cambridge confers the MPhil after a taught postgrad course extending over one year (except in Theology where it takes two), whilst Oxford confers it after two years' postgrad taught course study and London and others after two years of *research* as a lower degree for those not proceeding to the PhD (the equivalent of the MLitt at Oxford and Cambridge). There are countless other examples I could give. The BMus at Wales is a three year undergraduate course. At Oxford it's a one year postgraduate course for which only existing Oxford graduates are eligible.

The point is simple. UK universities will accept standardisation in as far as quality assurance is concerned in what they offer, but there is enormous resistance to a cookie-cutter standardisation of their offerings themselves. That is the heritage of a system that was completely unregulated before 1988 and in which the consumer is trusted to establish which course will best meet their anticipated present and future needs. UK and European universities emphatically don't share the US concept of standardisation of degree levels as a sine qua non, nor does their quality assurance framework impose such a standardisation at present; witness the examples I have given. As a UK employer, a familiarity with a very complex and at times confusing system is expected and indeed such a system is part of the strength of choice to consumers offered there.

KU seeks to establish its framework within such a system, albeit that it is now a Danish institution. Therefore its construance of standards is as individualist as any UK university pre-1988. Would you regard a degree from Oxford granted pre-1988 as suspect? I think not, yet in terms of oversight and standardisation its position vis-a-vis the state was exactly the same as a KU degree now. It is up to the institution to determine its own standards. If those standards are not seen to meet the needs of consumers, employers and the wider market the institution in question will lose respect and fail, regardless of any accreditation or government support. This is what happened at Thames Valley University, which needed total restructuring and new personnel to survive when it was shown to fail on quality assurance grounds. It isn't my impression of KU over the past 17 years that its standards are seen in that light. Indeed, the previous post of mine concerning an American evaluator considering KU degrees to be the equal of other UK degrees would suggest otherwise.

I remain to be convinced that Bill's system is superior to the freedom of the UK system. I will happily concede that it is valid as an educational methodology, however, even if I don't like or agree with it. What it isn't is a universally applicable truth. The UK system is *different* and positively revels in that difference and autonomy. Its institutions command wide respect despite the light touch of UK quality assurance systems and the limited standardisation imposed by central government. Bogus institutions are prevented from issuing UK degrees by law. The UK system *is* a legitimate alternative to US regional accreditation, and if an institution with UK ties chooses to construe itself within that UK ethos rather than a US ethos because of the greater independence that this gives, that decision is a legitimate one as well. It is helped in KU's case because the Danish authorities take a very similar view to university regulation and independence to the UK, presumably because they value the concept that universities should operate within a balance that gives priority to academic freedom ahead of what are ultimately politically-influenced standardisation and consumer assurance measures.

 

A very interesting post, thank you.

Within the UK system, in current times, and for the doctorate degree is a significant contribution to the field of study ever commonly interpreted by a university as:

1. The candidate is probably capable of making a significant contribution sometime in the future but we'll not require it before granting the degree.

or

2. This contribution to the field would be significant however, we are not going to publish it nor are we going to travel to other colleges and present it, instead it will be reviewed by three doctorates. They will determine whether or not it could be a significant contribution and then it will be hidden away. The dissertation is not available on any list anywhere but if someone asked specifically for a copy of it then we might send them a copy, if we deemed their request to be reasonable.

 

KU and its champions seem to want it both ways. When outsiders inquire how the standard of KU awards might be independently determined, we are told that the matter is a private in-house matter and none of our business. But for some reason these private KU degrees are supposed to have public meaning when graduates present them outside Knightsbridge.

If Oxford presented the appearance of KU, of course I'd consider its degrees questionable.

If that were all there was to it, it would make academic degrees rather meaningless, wouldn't it? If every university's degrees mean something different, then the whole concept of a degree making its holder a peer of others holding the same degree evaporates.

You dismissed the "wider community" up above, but now you appeal to the judgement of the "wider market"? Would you care to expand on that distinction?