polite questions to Henrik

Bill wrote:
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.

That's actually not a million miles from the point I'm trying to make. As far as a UK institution is concerned, beyond the *basic* level of quality assurance provided by QCA etc, each university is self-validating as far as the meaning of its awards is concerned. That implies that in order to establish how, as a member of the wider community, one should assess a particular UK award, one must first establish its context within the university that has awarded it, customarily by reference to the university's published materials. It is a complex and tricky process requiring detailed knowledge of the field. In many cases that meaning is standardised; eg. most UK universities award BA/BSc as their first degree. But anomalies exist at every turn, often in such a way that one may *appear* to have a higher degree than one actually has (witness the MPhil of Cambridge discussed earlier; also the Oxbridge MA or the London BD). That, if I may, is the hallmark and nature of the system. It isn't standardised beyond a very basic extent. The concept of a degree universally making its holder a peer of others holding the same degree *does* evaporate as far as the UK is concerned. All a degree signifies in the UK is a particular status within a particular university.

There is an inbuilt reliance by the public on the integrity of UK universities, largely because the peer review we have been discussing forms the backdrop for such processes as external examination (just as is the case for KU faculty who teach elsewhere) and because the basic level of quality assurance provided ensures that no-one gets away with heinous academic crimes such as selling degrees for no work.

Peer review within the UK system thus has a different function from that within the USA. In the UK, the function of doctoral examiners is that, they being of doctoral status themselves, they assess the successful candidate as being their peer. If an examining panel of three doctors agree that you are worthy to become one of them, you do so. Quality assurance in this process is assured through the use of external examiners from other institutions. Where, as at KU, the faculty consists almost entirely of those who teach at other institutions, the degree is effectively awarded by a panel of 'external examiners' *as well as* being united by the common ethos and processes of KU. Thus the notion of ownership of academic standards by parties beyond the academic community concerned isn't a concept embraced by the UK in the same way as the USA. You can generalise and say *most PhDs, most MAs etc mean the same* in the UK, but there are always exceptions, and those exceptions are not rendered bogus by being so - just different. Knightsbridge is different. So is the very unusual University of Buckingham - for different reasons. Both are valid academic institutions according to the UK model.

Bill quoted me:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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?
UNQUOTE

The wider market makes a judgement on whether the university education concerned meets their needs. If they find that they graduate from University X and no-one will employ them (not uncommon at some institutions) they will go to University Y instead. Employers prefer to hire Oxford graduates rather than those of South Bank University, so more candidates will seek admission at Oxford than do so at SBU. Whilst the wider market may make these judgements, based on perception of standards, nature of intake and quality of teaching, thus influencing graduate behaviour, universities can choose to remain independent from those judgements and are not obliged to abide by them. South Bank could improve its employment rate for graduates and its perception among employers by accepting fewer students and raising its entry offers. But it doesn't do that for many reasons, not least its ethical position, and no-one will force its hand. It remains independent to make those decisions and establish its place or lack of same in the free market as a consequence.

In my post I was seeking to make a distinction between the concept of standardisation of degree levels (my point about the *wider community* referring to such) and concepts of utility and perception of degrees by the wider market. I hope I've made myself a little clearer.

 

Very interesting set of posting Dr. M. I was unaware of most of what you wrote. Just out of curiosity, I'd be interested in knowing what makes Buckingham so unusual.
Jack

 

Buckingham

Jack wrote:
Just out of curiosity, I'd be interested in knowing what makes Buckingham so unusual.

I'm really glad you asked that! Buckingham (www.buckingham.ac.uk) is the UK's only private university and offers its programmes independently of government control and oversight.

It began as a non-profit company and charity in 1976, with 65 students, awarding a License rather than a degree. Support from many influential figures in the education and business worlds led to a growth in reputation and the wide acceptance of the Buckingham license by professional associations and employers.

If proof were needed that a private institution, operating independently of any governmental quality assurance scheme, could offer education of genuine quality, here it is. The quality of education at Buckingham was recognised by the award of a UK Royal Charter in 1983. The License was then converted to a degree programme. The award of the Royal Charter acted as a validation of Buckingham's internal processes and their success in meeting high academic standards; it did not impose any external control upon them.

Note at www.buckingham.ac.uk/facts/history/ (the second page) the quality assurance system that Buckingham relied upon:

1. external examiners from other UK universities
2. an advisory council of senior figures from academia and elsewhere.

Now, what is unusual about Buckingham apart from that, is that it awards a BA on the basis of two years' study instead of the three years that is usual at other universities. It has developed a highly innovative compressed delivery system that allows for a much more intensive style of study. This actually means that for some students, even though Buckingham is fee-paying and the fees are pretty substantial, their first degree can cost *less* than at some three-year non-fee-paying institutions. That's impressive!

It still has fewer than 1000 students, making it the smallest university in the UK.

If you follow Buckingham's history, you will see a good many parallels with a certain Danish institution we have been discussing, which also follows the pattern of a UK private university.

 

British job advertisements regularly specify candidates at particular degree levels, but don't specify the university. Presumably those employers think that British degrees mean something that isn't simply university-specific.

More to the point, why should the international participants on Degreeinfo, most of whom aren't Britons, believe that Knightsbridge degrees are equivalent to what we understand by degrees where we come from?

OK, then you have four "doctors" in a little mutual admiration club.

What outsiders such as potential students, employers and clients want to know is whether the new 'doctor' is what they understand by that word. If the word 'doctor' means whatever "three doctors" want it to mean, then it isn't very enlightening to those beyond that small circle.

Assuming that the word 'quality' even has meaning in a situation where standards are a degree-by-degree matter among four people, how does KU's selecting those people from a pool of adjuncts assure quality assurance and thus represent a reliable form of accreditation?

That's certainly an original argument.

If the academic and professional communities are in no position to judge if a particular university's degrees are credible, who makes that decision? Who and what is "the wider market"?

Using the market criterion, what would be wrong with a hypothetical substandard school granting misleading "credentials"? There's obviously a market for such things.

 

Bill wrote:
British job advertisements regularly specify candidates at particular degree levels, but don't specify the university. Presumably those employers think that British degrees mean something that isn't simply university-specific.

Yes - what it means is a generalisation based on a confidence in the standard of British universities in toto, without those universities necessarily having to standardise their offerings beyond a basic level of quality assurance. For a university teaching post requiring *a doctorate*, you could apply with a PhD, a lower doctorate such as the EdD, a higher doctorate such as the DLitt or even an honorary doctorate, which is sometimes considered in academia to pass in lieu of an earned doctorate for a scholar with a distinguished record (such as my own erstwhile supervisor, now head of a doctoral programme at a British university on the basis merely of two first degrees and an honorary doctorate, plus twentysomething years of teaching). None of those doctorates mean the same; all of them will qualify in theory, although the EdD might not suffice for a pure research post depending on its content.

The question that gets asked most commonly for UK PhD holders when they apply for an academic job isn't *where did you do your PhD*; it's *who was your supervisor*. At doctoral level, the personal support of the supervisor is the make or break factor that can lead to your research getting published or your getting a research fellowship. It doesn't matter whether the supervisor is at Manchester or the former polytechnic of Nether Wallop. This is why many graduate faculties are small and specialised in terms of the research supervision they offer - because it's personal. A colleague of mine started his PhD at Oxford and then moved to the much less prestigious Dartington College of Arts to complete it when his supervisor moved jobs. That's not uncommon here. You select a graduate school for your PhD based on who's there and whether their research interests coincide with yours. Where they don't, the university will refuse to supervise you and direct you elsewhere.

Bill quoted:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If an examining panel of three doctors agree that you are worthy to become one of them, you do so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, then you have four "doctors" in a little mutual admiration club.

What outsiders such as potential students, employers and clients want to know is whether the new 'doctor' is what they understand by that word. If the word 'doctor' means whatever "three doctors" want it to mean, then it isn't very enlightening to those beyond that small circle.
UNQUOTE

But, enlightening or not, this is what actually happens. The relationship at graduate level between student and faculty as far as assessment is concerned is essentially confined to about four people, of which one will allegedly be your friend, mentor and guide through the three or more dark years of research hell. This is why relationship breakdown between student and supervisor is so catastrophic - because the university then tends to close ranks leaving no-one to turn to (there was a very good article on this in the Guardian newspaper some years ago - I can find the reference if anyone is interested).

You said "If the word 'doctor' means whatever "three doctors" want it to mean, then it isn't very enlightening to those beyond that small circle." Au contraire, what it relies upon is a perhaps unusual level of public trust in the standard of British doctorates and the universities that award them. The attitude is that *if you have earned an acceptable PhD, if you have struggled through the post-doc years, if you have then gained tenure as a lecturer (which will have demanded publication and other scholarly activity) THEN we'll trust you to tell us whether this neophyte deserves to be one of us.* There's something almost Masonic about it as a rite of passage, and yes, you are totally right, it's a club. Outsiders are not deemed to be qualified to judge what makes an acceptable PhD, only doctorate-holding academics. The concept of the PhD is left up to those academics, linked in what amounts to a national chain of external examiners, to determine. The public trusts them to maintain integrity. So far, with the occasional well-publicised exception, they have done so because to do so is massively in their own interests. An excellent example of a self-regulating market!!

You wrote:
Assuming that the word 'quality' even has meaning in a situation where standards are a degree-by-degree matter among four people, how does KU's selecting those people from a pool of adjuncts assure quality assurance and thus represent a reliable form of accreditation?
UNQUOTE

As I've said above, this is the UK system. If you accept any PhD from any UK university you will find that the mechanisms for its award are essentially as I have described. This is the UK system, and KU abides by it.

QUOTE
If the academic and professional communities are in no position to judge if a particular university's degrees are credible, who makes that decision? Who and what is "the wider market"?
UNQUOTE

Not quite. The academic community decides whether the award of the doctorate is credible through its internal processes, using external examiners as their means of quality assurance. The wider market, by which I mean those outside academia, trusts universities, perhaps to an extraordinary degree compared with the USA, to maintain their standards as far as degree awards are concerned.

That trust is maintained so long as universities don't deliver sub-standard candidates to the market. Where they start doing so, pressure is applied by the market in an indirect way, so that employers say *We employed a candidate from University X; they were awful*; other employers don't employ candidates from X, fewer people apply to X and X has to think hard about its mission and standards. Standards are almost always, however, a part of a wider picture, not something that is addressed in isolation.

You may not like it, but that is the UK system under which KU operates. It's served us well, with slight modifications, for a good 800 or so years. Universities are autonomous; universities are self-regulating; universities enjoy and preserve public trust in their standards and integrity.

 

Thank you for another informative post.

Could you please explain how you concluded that KU abides by the UK system?

Please include in the above explanation a response to my previous query. That seems to me to be a difference between the UK system and the KU procedures (at least number 2, number one was to logically cover all possibilites based on Henrik's quote). For your convenance, here's another copy.

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.

Thanks again,

 

Bill asked:
Could you please explain how you concluded that KU abides by the UK system?

Henrik has said on this forum that KU's operation is modelled on the UK system. For about eight years, KU was physically based in the UK whilst holding degree-granting authority from Antigua and Barbuda. If I've got that wrong, I trust Henrik will correct me.

Bill wrote:
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.

In a sense, that's true. What the PhD constitutes under the UK system is a kind of proof of a capability to undertake research under a designated schema and under supervision. Sometimes, that research can be of wider academic merit at that stage, other times the PhD is more like a training and foundation in the conducting of research in the expectation that, having demonstrated capability under supervision, the candidate can go on to conduct research that is worthy of publication and thus of the respect of the wider academic community without said supervision.

Inevitably some PhDs are going to have wider applicability than others. However, that depends as much upon the nature of the research undertaken as upon the standard reached. Increasingly, for example, arts PhDs are having to address themselves to increasingly specialised fields in order to be judged to have made an original contribution to knowledge. That contribution may well have been made for the award of the PhD, but its usefulness may lie at the outer edges of arcana rather than at the mainstream of the subject. For that reason, the work done in the post-doctoral stages, which can be more generalised, may very well be of considerably greater significance given that its context is wider than simply meeting the expectations of a degree committee. In that situation, the PhD serves more as a rite of passage rather than an end in itself.

Bill wrote:
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.

And that is precisely how many UK PhDs are examined, as I indicated in my last post. If you try to get a copy of a PhD thesis from some UK universities you will find similar conditions apply to KU. For example, I was interested to read the Cambridge PhD thesis on medieval bishops by Stephen Lander, former director-general of M15. I had to look up the year he graduated and then search the graduation records in the general university journal (the Reporter) to find the exact title of his thesis - there is no single list available for all PhDs. I then applied to the Faculty of History and they provided me with a copy of the thesis, lodged in their library, and a university reading room in which to consult it. I'm not aware that this is a radically different process at KU. Henrik has also said that such a list as you've commented on was formerly available. You can also order copies of KU dissertations by post. That seems similar to the provision arrangements of some UK universities.

Hope this has gone some way to answering your questions.

 

I'm sure that British higher education is respected, but I'm also confident that the respect was earned by more than the fact that three "doctors" read every dissertation.

Unfortunately, the topic of this thread isn't British higher education, it's Knightsbridge University. Knightsbridge, despite its name and its years using an address in southwest England, isn't a British university, is it?

It does? What does that assertion mean, beyond the fact that KU apparently has three adjunct professors read each dissertation? If you want to spin that fact into the equivalent of accreditation, that's quite a leap.

In the case of British universities, you are dealing with what until recently was a small higher education system. The country only had a few dozen universities, and the academic and professional communities were familiar with them to a greater or lesser extent. These institutions produced lots of corroborating evidence of their legitimacy, such as published scholarly product, research corroborations, awards, grants, industry partnerships and the like. Their funding was in the hands of the various funding councils. Teaching and research assessments were published.

As the size and diversity of the system expanded, the QAA was created, occupying a role similar to that of an American institutional accreditor. The Dearing commission recommended that external examination be tightened up, with examiners being drawn from a national list of senior academics nominated by their own institutions, approved by the QAA and seconded for the purpose. It was recommended that these examiners be trained for their roles and that they operate in teams. There seems to be no confusion between external examiners and a university's own adjunct instructors and the issue of conflicts of interest is specifically addressed.

If Knightsbridge claimed to be offering British academic awards, wouldn't it be violating British law?

You make a great deal of the trust that exists in the British system. Well, Knightsbridge is a virtual university ostensibly located in Denmark that markets itself internationally. It exists in a far broader context than the UK, among thousands of other schools ranging from clearly excellent to the grossest of mills. KU's own characteristics (or more accurately, lack of them) only add to the disquiet.

That isn't necessarily fatal, and it doesn't prove that KU is a mill. But it does suggest that KU be accorded far less a-priori trust than we might be willing to allow the University of Leicester. KU has a much greater burden of proof.

 

Bill D. wrote:
If Knightsbridge claimed to be offering British academic awards, wouldn't it be violating British law?

Yes. To my knowledge it hasn't done, however.

I'm trying to make a distinction between a school being located in a country and a part of its education system, and a school choosing, wherever its physical location may be, to abide by a different model for offering awards. A comparison would be with Richmond - The American University in London, which is a US RA institution wholly physically located in the UK and offering US-style degree programmes as a private university to both UK and US students.

Knightsbridge is located in Denmark, but chooses to adopt a UK ethos and model of assessment. I think that's as valid a choice as Richmond's. Richmond could in theory apply for a Royal Charter and award UK degrees. It doesn't, because what it's offering appeals to a different market than those seeking a UK model of education.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I've said above, this is the UK system. If you accept any PhD from any UK university you will find that the mechanisms for its award are essentially as I have described. This is the UK system, and KU abides by it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It does? What does that assertion mean, beyond the fact that KU apparently has three adjunct professors read each dissertation?
If you want to spin that fact into the equivalent of accreditation, that's quite a leap.
UNQUOTE

It isn't accreditation, it's an ethos and an academic methodology. Accreditation is an adjunct process on top of and in addition to the existing academic methodology that supports it in certain aspects, most notably quality assurance.

quote:
You make a great deal of the trust that exists in the British system. Well, Knightsbridge is a virtual university ostensibly located in Denmark that markets itself internationally.

That doesn't preclude it from defining its academic model according to the UK, nor from modifying that model somewhat as it sees fit to do so.

 

Henrik,
Please accept my sincere respect. Nevertheless, I feel that what you've wrote is utter nonsense. How on this Earth there can be any "credibility" without "the public"? Credibility to whom? To other members of your staff and faculty? This is, at best, worthless. So, okay, your degrees may not be 'bogus' - but they sure are 'worthless', almost by your own words. So is ULC ordination - except that ULC does not try to argue othervise thus not deceiving the 'public'.

 

After Doctor Marianus clarified his statement that KU abides by the UK system, I understood him to mean the following. That KU appears to try to abide by a system that is very similar to the UK system. I don't think that he meant to say that he knows for sure that KU actually does in fact abide by the UK system.

Please correct me if I've misunderstood, Dr. Marianus.

 

Bill Huffman wrote:
After Doctor Marianus clarified his statement that KU abides by the UK system, I understood him to mean the following. That KU appears to try to abide by a system that is very similar to the UK system. I don't think that he meant to say that he knows for sure that KU actually does in fact abide by the UK system.
UNQUOTE

I know for sure that KU abides by a system that is very similar to the UK system.

 

Doctor Marianus:

Could you please be so kind as to fully disclose the precise nature of your affiliation with Knightsbridge University?

 

Gus asked:

Doctor Marianus:

Could you please be so kind as to fully disclose the precise nature of your affiliation with Knightsbridge University?
UNQUOTE

Glad you asked, Gus. I'm a recently appointed member of the adjunct faculty, although I've not as yet been assigned any candidates to supervise or examine (and given that my field is not a common one at Knightsbridge, that situation may perpetuate for some time). I am also a candidate for the PhD by published work there, which, if I am successful, will make me a multiple doctorate holder.

I should make it very clear, however, that I speak for myself only, out of personal conviction and not as any kind of official or other spokesperson for Knightsbridge. Nor, for that matter, have I ever received any consideration whatsoever, financial or otherwise, from Knightsbridge.

I do, however, believe in Knightsbridge as an institution and feel more than a certain affection for it. I also believe in its integrity and in Henrik's. If I didn't, I would not have entered into the relationship with it stated above, nor declared the same here at the first time of asking, nor taken time out of what is an extremely busy life to participate in what has been an interesting debate. If nothing else, being here has tested my own views against those who disagree with them, and reinforced for me the reasons why I chose to join Knightsbridge in the first place.

 

"There is a kind of rudimentary ignorance which precedes the learning process; another doctoral, following that learning — an ignorance which learning does beget, even as it spoils the first."

 

Okay thank you, I'll try to be more blunt then. One of the things that caused me great concern about KU is that the dissertations are not published. Every university publishes their dissertations in their own library as a minimum. This issue has been side stepped in the past by going on about UMI. By publishing it means that there is a publically available list of the dissertations and if requested a copy can be sent. I don't see how the claim can be reasonably made that a significant contribution has been made to the field, especially because the dissertations haven't even been published?

 

Doctor Marianus:

Thank you for your prompt reply. Two things, however, are troubling. First, although it was obvious that you were a shill, integrity and propriety would have you disclose your affiliation without having been asked. Second, if you are, as you claim, proud of your affiliation, why do you find it necessary to use an alias? For an individual to publicly disclose that he is a faculty member of a university without revealing his true identity or credentials is, to say the least, quite unusual. This does nothing to bolster Knightsbridge University’s claim of legitimacy.

 

Oh, I don't know about that, Gus. Remeber when Stephen Hawking kept signing up under fake names to shill for Cambridge?

 

I didn't mind him shilling for Cambridge, I just didn't think it was right for him to bad-mouth Oxford. Which is a completely different thing from a Berkeley guy like me bad-mouthing Stanford.

 

I was beginning to wonder why there was such an aggressive and almost indignant defence of the "UK system" vs. the "US system" instead of the live and let live attitude I've encountered from "UK system" academics in South Africa and in the UK.

Claiming that KU follows the UK model will remain a bit disingenuous until KU produces the publicly discernible results that other UK model universities produce.

As to the pseudonym, remember that Albanian fellow who posted under his real name but said his brilliant academic work was published pseudonymously because it was so controversial? Wasn't he a shill for SRU?

Knuts.