polite questions to Henrik

Stanislav,

Everything we do has ample precedence in the UK system. Programme design and delivery, assessment regulations and methodology, policies and regulations. Everything. Saying that what I have referred is nonsense is the same as saying that the system on which we base our provision is nonsense.

The programmes and awards we offer have exactly the value/worth applied to them by the candidate/graduate. Our candidates/graduates do not need the validation of a group of people who seem to be pre-occupied with the US and regional accrediation only, and for whom everything else is automatically considered substandard. Whether or not they actually have any true knowledge, which, I think has been established here, they do not. Witness the 'it's no substitute for accreditation' response that keeps cropping up. We're not talking about accreditation here, but whether a specific assessment system is - in the judgement of some people who seem to have very little specific relevant information - is 'acceptable'.

I don't know where you posit yourself, and should hasten to add that I do not propose to include you in the above referenced group.

To your questions:

Yes, credibility rests with the assessment by qualified parties. That is the way it works under this methodology. I have not seen anyone here suggest that the faculty whose names we publish are less than credible. So the argument must be that the methodology lacks credibility. Extrapolating from this, no UK university's assessment procedure is credible. Do you believe this?

No, we do not claim to be a UK institution by adopting a UK system. Not everybody who ever used Marconi's inventions were Italian. This system makes sense over here. It may make less sense in the US!

One thing I'd like to know is just how involved 'the public' are in the assessment of submitted dissertations at US universities. Do you know? Or any of the people so busy agreeing that they think our system is not good enough? This, however, seems to be not an interesting point of discussion, indeed, it seems to be a matter of course that none of the queries that I post here are attended to. But eternal hell-fire on my head if I do not respond double speed to queries that I've already addressed.

This, to me, is not debate or discussion, it is attack. Further, it is attack with the purpose not of highlighting a particular issue, more does the purpose seem to be to make sure that anything uttered here by people with a positive bent towards anything without external approval is rubbished or buried under so much speculation and utterance of beliefs and opinions.

No doubt now someone will post something along the lines of 'just typical, we tell the world xxxxx and you start whingeing, that's the usual from [apologists/shills/degree mill operators/put in your own derogatory term]'. Apparently, several of the things encountered by the more vocal opposers here are suitable for naming as 'THE' primary identifying mark of a questionable school (with no regard for the listing of such warning signs listed elsewhere on the www.degreeinfo.com site).

For the record: Not one person who has by now become easily identifiable as hellbent on rubbishing Knightsbridge has been able to come up with anything that rises even one hair above 'I believe' statements. No facts. No references to relevant works. No comments by people in the industry. Only 'I believe', 'I think', 'it seems' etc. On this morass of supposition, judgements are then not only created but perpetuated. Again and again. Yet, for some reason, it is considered less than proper if I dare protest.

I've discussed at length this forum with faculty over the past few days. The universal comment I get back is: 'Are these people important?' The answer is, no, they're not, but it is important that they be not allowed to perpetuate insinuations and down-right lies about Knightsbridge. I would be happy to acknowledge reasonable criticism from people with a proper position in the industry, people with actual and relevant insight, people who know what they're looking at and how to evaluate what they see in comparison with other institutions. This, however, is and has been in scant supply here, with certain notable exceptions. Interestingly, those who know their beans also manage to keep a civil note in their posts, even when they do not agree on something.

Having only just returned after a few days off, it is likely that I've just given you a spray that would have found better use elsewhere, and thence I shall now venture.

Best regards,


Henrik

 

I appreciate the elaborate manner you chose to respond, however, you still clowding the issue here. The discussion was about "credibility" and "reputation", and those things by definition contain "public dimension", whether you like to acknowledge it or not.

OK, back to old tried "US vs UK/Europe/UNESCO" line of discussion again (you introduced it, not "them"). For the record, I am not US-educated yet, and have the deepest respect for UK system, as I am sure all here do. But UK and US systems, however different, do have something very important in common. They contain an elaborate independent quality assurance procedures. That's why their outcomes can be seen as equivalent, to a certain degree - their standards are available for anyone to compare, QA procedures are known and trusted.
I like your argument about "people who seem to have very little specific relevant information". Henrik, sure you realise that most or your writing seem to serve purpose of denying those "people" of any useful bit of "relevant information". Surely you can't expect everyone just trust your word on the acceptability of a product you sell for money? Or?

 

Janko,

Not sure where the aggression is coming from. I've been certainly the model of restraint, would be nice if the same could be said of others.

Please remember that, earlier on, the suggestion was that Knightsbridge was working in isolation of any academically proven system. Now that this has been obviously rejected, apparently the new angle is to suggest that the methodology chosen is not good enough.

I am sure that there is nothing better in the whole, wide world than the assessment processes as they pertain to US post-graduate work. However, those are not the processes we apply. And they're certainly not the one and only option. Anyone with a genuine interest and actual knowledge of the matter would have been able to request the policies and regulations and procedural documentation underpinning the methodology. Nobody has asked for this. This either because of awareness that receipt of same does not automatically bring ability to assess same, or because the actual purpose of the continued burrowing has nothing to do with the claimed or supposed purpose.

The methodology works. It works for us, and it works for others. Whether it be seen by some as inferior to other systems, for whatever perceived reason, is a matter of individual leaning and opinion.

My Webster's has 'disingenuous' as: 'lacking in candor; giving a false appearance of simple frankness'. Is this what you meant to say? Have you ever requested any such information as might enable you to ascertain what methodology is used? What exactly would it be that you think has not been candidly shared upon request?

Do you really mean to say that unless theses are publicly available, no university is credible?

Have I not already said - I am sure more than once - that theses are in fact available?

Now, if what you're saying is that if the theses are not electronically available the institution cannot be trusted, what would you make of the situation before theses became electronically available?

Do you know round about what time most UK universities started making their theses available via the British Library? Or US universities to UMI? Or any other institution in the history of mankind to any such depository, for that matter? Would you suggest that prior to this it was reasonable to question the credibility of those universities? After all, 'the public' were not privy to the assessment, and had to visit the library to gain access to documents.

Do you realise that for all UK universities, these documents are first and foremost an internal resource?

What would you make of the notion I mentioned previously, for which the lack of response was overwhelming, that not all US universities participate in the UMI/Proquest system, and those that do do not submit all eligible documents?

What would you make of the notion that not all eligible UK institutions make their theses available to the British Library, and those that do do not submit all eligible documents?

In the industry of higher education, one concept speaks louder than anything else: Precedence. If it has been done before elsewhere, it can be done by others. The UK assessment methodology is well tried and tested, and it has been shown to work. So that's good enough for us.


Henrik

 

Once again, it all comes down to what you say, Henrik. Why can’t you understand that your word alone is insufficient to establish any kind of credibility or legitimacy for Knightsbridge University?

What a load of crap. This is tantamount to a con artist stating that if his victim is suitably deluded then everything is fine. Moreover, there is ample evidence to prove that the members of this forum are not just preoccupied with US regional accreditation, and, in fact, are well versed with the UK (as well as Australian, Canadian, and South African) educational models.

So, we’ve now gone from “it’s none of your business” to “you’re too dense and uninformed to understand.” I do believe you are becoming progressively more unglued, Henrik.

We’re not talking whether a specific assessment system is acceptable. We want to know what proof do you have to offer (besides your words, of course) that Knightsbridge adheres to these assessment procedures as well as proof that the outcomes are equivalent to those of legitimate institutions (whether they adhere to the same procedures or not).

Are you implying that there are faculty members whose name you do not publish? If so, why don’t you? Moreover, I have found more than a few discrepancies in the credentials of the faculty you do publish.

Wow! Has anyone stated that the methodology lacks credibility? No. Have you offered any evidence (aside, of course, from your word) that Knightsbridge adheres to the same methodology or that the outcomes are equivalent to those of a legitimate university? Once again, no.

My son’s Boy Scout troop needs to vote in a new leader. If they sequester themselves, vote in secret, and indicate they have come to a decision by a plume of smoke, will that make the new leader the Pope? Can you understand that modeling a methodology does not ensure similar outcomes? I am beginning to see why some Danes believe that Professor Nyborg’s ideas have merit.

Who said the Danes weren’t funny? (Certainly not me, I’ve always been a fan of Victor Borge.)

Did I say funny? I meant to say hilarious. In the words of another (great) Dane, “The lady doth protest too much.” Contrary to your belief, Henrik, protestations are no substitute for evidence to back up what you say. It is you that has offered nothing more than your beliefs and comments to support your assertion that Knightsbridge University is legitimate, while there is ample and substantive evidence to conclude that it is not. The burden of proof is on you. “No facts, no reference to relevant works, no comments by people in industry,” describes exactly what you have offered in defense of Knightsbridge’s legitimacy.

If they are lies, why haven’t you been able to refute them or provide any concrete evidence that they are false? Why is it that you offer nothing more than your words?

You keep getting funnier and funnier. I challenge you to point out another forum whose members are more knowledgeable concerning distance and non-traditional education. I, on the other hand, could easily direct you to other forums where the collective knowledge (not to mention ethics) is significantly less, and consequently, your ideas would be met with much more acceptance.

 

Bill Dayson,


You wrote:

QUOTE
"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

This is the whole crux for you, isn't it? And that of others, I suspect. You are obviously entirely blinded by the notion of 'accreditation', so much so that anything that doesn't fit the stereotype that you associate with accreditation, in whichever way, is suspect to you. We do not claim any external approval, we do not want any external approval. That's been made clear. Yet you drag up the issue of external approval as though this were the only guarantor of quality.

Your above paragraphs supports completely what I postulated here rather early on: Some will try and drag, push and pull the discussion as far as they can to the issue of accreditation as they can, and try and base all their thoughts and notions on this as a requirement. I called it 'moving the goalposts', and that is what is being done here. This thread did not start with a post discussing whether or not Knightsbridge is accredited. Assessment procedures and dissemination procedures are not in the least to do with accreditation. Academic credibility has nothing to do with accreditation.

At least the good people at UNESCO, Council of Europe, European Union and WTO are a little bit better informed and a lot less narrowminded about this issue.

You also wrote:
QUOTE
"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."
UNQUOTE

Amazing how that could have been taken directly from our 'Regulation 9 - Research Degree Examinations'.

You also wrote:

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

Of course we would. We never made such a claim. Indeed, we have always been very clear that we did not offer a UK recognised award. That, however, is not what Doc Marianus was discussing.

You also wrote:
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. 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.
UNQUOTE

We've been over the 'virtual' bit before. I asked you a question on this, you chose to ignore it. If it is to 'be a virtual university' to have a web-site, then, sure, we're a 'virtual university'. This I write to you on my 'virtual IBM', and in a moment I'll have myself a 'virtual cup of Twinings Earl Grey' and probably later a 'virtual Budvar'. I might at the same time muse on how those American 'virtual universities' are doing these days, and that 'virtual White House', and so forth. Sure thing, they got a web-site, they don't exist.

We are in fact in Denmark. You're most welcome to visit.

You should be aware that there is nary a UK further or higher education institution that does not market itself internationally. The 'broader context' that you refer to now counts a bewildering number of institutions. Several UK institutions now have as policy that all new programmes should be also developed for distance learning provision, unless otherwise decided.

The disquiet you feel is shared by you and apparently two other people here. It is not a universal or even 'virtual' disquiet. The public that some seem to think they need to protect are quite capable of making up their own minds.

And you wrote:
QUOTE
"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."
UNQUOTE

There you go again, 'KU' and 'mill' in the same sentence, close proximity. If I started habitually writing here that 'I cannot know for sure if [insert preferred name] is a [insert descriptive insult]', what would that do for my credibility? This is the sort of tactic that you stoop to, and that generally says to me that your argument is weak, or you wouldn't have to stoop.

And, of course, there is still the question: Why would you afford the University of Leicester 'far greater a-priori trust'? Your answer, no doubt, will be 'because they've got recognition'. Which rather goes a long way to prove my point.


Henrik

 

Hi Henrik: Why do I trust the University of Leicester more than Knightsbridge? That's easy. Many people get real degrees there. Many real professors really teach there. Many of its graduates go on to teach elsewhere. Many of its professors and grad students publish professional articles and books. It doesn't call itself, say, the University of Bornholm while being located in England. It doesn't have an undeclared shill posting on this forum. Its most famous professor hasn't been exposed as a resume fudger (please to note the kind term) by a major and reputable Strine newspyper.

So, old chumch, that's why, yaar, you and your star prof Rohan baby might want to go on a tour of Shrill Anger or Bungleditch: you ain't ready for prime time Vilayet yet.

 

There is no list of completed dissertations available to the public or apparently to other institutions. All real universities provide this, USA and UK. You claim that you follow the UK system. You claim that no weakness has been pointed out in KU procedures. Rather than claiming things that aren't true, perhaps it would be better if you acknowledged KU's error and corrected it?

 

I never argued that KU was working in isolation of any academically proven system. I don't recall anyone else arguing that either. I said that it appears that KU was working in isolation. That is a big difference. I have also heard people question how anyone outside KU could know that you actually do follow accepted academic procedures, but that is also very different.

I provided quotes from the book "Get the Facts on Anyone", that indicated that lists of all dissertations for all universities are available at a minimum from the university library. I believe that you are the one that keeps going off on the UMI tangent.

Your theses are available but the list is not. The list being available is what allows people to look and see what the university has done. The list is what allows others to search the body of knowledge. Even assuming that KU is everything that you claim it to be, I understand that you don't feel the list is important because you know that no other universities are going to want to reference the list and search your body of knowledge. My point is that it precludes you from even pretending to look like you're part of the greater academic community. More specifically, it prevents even the illusion that the KU body of knowledge is part of the academic body of knowledge. It is that academic body of knowledge that real doctorates are supposed to contribute to but don't, in the case of KU.

 

Stanislav,


You wrote:
QUOTE
"I appreciate the elaborate manner you chose to respond, however, you still clowding the issue here. The discussion was about "credibility" and "reputation", and those things by definition contain "public dimension", whether you like to acknowledge it or not."
UNQUOTE

I am happy to acknowledge the link between credibility, reputation and the public dimension. We enrol a good percentage of our candidates on the back of referrals.

However, what was discussed in reference to the 'public dimension' was the assessment process of theses presented by doctorate candidates. There is no 'public dimension' involved, it is an internal process, albeit one undertaken by external examiners.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by henrikfyrst
The programmes and awards we offer have exactly the value/worth applied to them by the candidate/graduate. Our candidates/graduates do not need the validation of a group of people who seem to be pre-occupied with the US and regional accrediation only, and for whom everything else is automatically considered substandard. Whether or not they actually have any true knowledge, which, I think has been established here, they do not. Witness the 'it's no substitute for accreditation' response that keeps cropping up. We're not talking about accreditation here, but whether a specific assessment system is - in the judgement of some people who seem to have very little specific relevant information - is 'acceptable'.
[/B]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


OK, back to old tried "US vs UK/Europe/UNESCO" line of discussion again (you introduced it, not "them"). For the record, I am not US-educated yet, and have the deepest respect for UK system, as I am sure all here do. But UK and US systems, however different, do have something very important in common. They contain an elaborate independent quality assurance procedures. That's why their outcomes can be seen as equivalent, to a certain degree - their standards are available for anyone to compare, QA procedures are known and trusted.
I like your argument about "people who seem to have very little specific relevant information". Henrik, sure you realise that most or your writing seem to serve purpose of denying those "people" of any useful bit of "relevant information". Surely you can't expect everyone just trust your word on the acceptability of a product you sell for money? Or?"
UNQUOTE

'They' surely introduced the whole 'accredited' notion.

The quality assurance procedures you talk about are inherent in any institution, without them they could not function. 'Quality' can be best be described as 'Fitness for purpose', and it this fitness as brought to life by actual case stories and examples and internal processes, procedures and regulations that external agencies evaluate and comment upon. The UK system is not prescriptive (at least not officially!), but tends to build towards a 'best practice' line of thinking, even if in practice this is very often understood to mean 'lowest common denominator that will pass'. Every institution is free to interpret the QAA findings and views as they see fit, although with the obvious link there exists to funding, they're increasingly geared to clacking heels and getting with the QAA programme. You do not have to look too long or hard to find a lot of dissent among the ranks with the QAA activities, I can particularly recommend the title 'Does Education Matter' by Alison Wolf (available as a paperback from Penguin).

To a very large extent, all institutions are basically asking their prospective students to trust them, whether the programme is free or costs hundreds of thousands. This goes for all the RA institutions, too.

'Relevant information' is provided to 'relevant people', i.e. those who have an actual interest, and who can formulate a request for same. All I've seen here is supposition that the information doesn't even exist, and no indication whatever that anyone knows just what information they want, in case they were able to ask politely for it. When I mentioned the Quality Framework documents recently, there was a staggering silence. As I said, I cannot quite make up my mind if some of the contributors here really think such procedures do not exist, or they simply want to perpetuate the notion by insinuation that they don't. When somebody puffs himself up as a 'protector of the public' in a given field, particularly when they cannot quite show why such a hero is needed, it is reasonable to expect that they know enough of the field to be able to accurately identify such information as would be useful to allow them to gain an impression. Nobody's been able to do this, with the exception, as far as I recall, of Mark Israel (apologies hereby granted to anyone forgotten). Mark has also pointed out several times that some of the things requested again and again have been actually responded to. Yet there are no takers.

You might reasonably ask: 'But why haven't you just swamped this place with documents?' I'll tell you why: Genuine, sincerely interested parties will receive everything they could possibly need, and then some. And, in fact, far in excess of what you'd get at other institutions prior to enrolment. Here, however, I started out by stating that I am not here to convince anyone who has inherent and deliberate doubts about anything. They can request information as it exists, and we can talk about matters. This was a deliberate basis for arriving here. Even then I was accused of being a 'shill', albeit by somebody who obviously has no idea what that word means. Nobody requested the information - except in private messages - and yet they go on with their opinions and beliefs, based on nothing but bias. No facts, references, universal truths or policies or anything else at all solid. Only beliefs and opinions and bias. That's not much of a basis for debate.


Henrik

 

This is simply wrong. You have not proven that Knightsbridge isn’t working in isolation. You can mimic any methodology you like, and do so in isolation. Or better said, you can claim to mimic a methodology, but because you do so in isolation, there no actual proof that you actually do. Do you actually reads the posts on this forum? That Knightsbridge operates in absolute isolation has not been rejected by anyone.

You obviously continue to believe that contempt, subterfuge, evasion, condescension and sarcasm will bolster your arguments. Instead, they tend to tip the scales in the opposite direction.

No one has argued that the UK methodology does not work. What proof do you offer that Knightsbridge adheres to the same methodology to the extent that the outcomes are similar to legitimate universities? Just because you say it, doesn’t make it so.

You continue to regale us with your uproariously funny sense of humor, Henrik. I would post a list of all the questions you have ignored or not answered, but there is a 10,000-character limit on posts.

I tried to request a copy of a dissertation from Knightsbridge. I provided the title, year and author, and politely requested the procedure for acquiring a copy. My request was ignored. I would hardly call that being “publicly available.” There must be some kind of secret password…

What proof do you offer that Knightsbridge University adheres exactly to the UK assessment methodology? What proof do you offer that such an adherence produces similar outcomes? Simply claiming that you mimic a methodology that has been successful for others does not make Knightsbridge legitimate. Can’t you see that?

Henrik, your attempts to switch the entire question of Knightsbridge’s legitimacy into a debate about the legitimacy of the UK educational methodology are extremely transparent and dishonest. I am sure you would like nothing more than for all of us to ignore the fact that Knightsbridge University offers more than just doctorates, and that Knightsbridge does not adhere to the UK methodology for awarding all of its degrees. I am still waiting for any kind of proof that Knightsbridge University is a legitimate academic institution.

 

Simple, because the University of Leicester is found in a list of real genuine schools.

http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si1997/97000101.htm

The only list that I can find KU in is in Bear's Guide listed along side mostly degree mills.

I hope that this shots down your conspiracy theories and your unfounded claims that we are somehow biased against UK or Danish schools.

 

Uncle Janko,

Pardon me if I'm wrong here, but I feel certain that you didn't post the stuff about University of Leicester?!

Since you're on it, though, the whole issue was on credibility as it pertains to assessment procedures. Do you know how they assess doctorate theses at Leicester?

As for names, I thought we'd been there. The American University in London isn't in America, by the way. Just, I should probably add for ribtickling effect, as you're not my uncle.

If I do understand your reference to 'Rohan' correctly, it seems you're suggesting that there's something untoward about Rohan Gunaratna's CV. I would be grateful if you could provide a link to the paper in mention, as obviously this is something we'd need to take up.

You seem to labour under the misunderstanding that I am angry about something. What would that be, then?

Now, Janko, you've provided response to a question I did not ask of you. What about all the other questions, then? You know, the ones that were addressed to you, on the basis of your post, not those addressed to others on the basis of their posts.

Patiently, and not the least upset, waiting,


Henrik

 

I dare say disingenuous.

 

Did I read this correctly? Did you actually state that that if no “external agencies evaluate and comment upon” “actual case stories and examples and internal processes, procedures and regulations,” quality cannot be determined? I mean, I agree, but did you actually mean to say this? I hope you understand that you have just admitted that the quality of Knightsbridge University cannot be ascertained and that an institution cannot function (as a legitimate institution of higher education) without these quality assurance procedures. This is ample enough reason to dissuade prospective students from enrolling in Knightsbridge University or prospective employers from accepting a degree from Knightsbridge as a legitimate credential.

It is perfectly fine for an institution to ask prospective students (and the public at large) to trust them. Why do you feel there is something wrong with prospective students (and the public at large) asking, “Why should I?”

I politely enquired how I could obtain a copy of a specific dissertation from Knightsbridge. I provided the title, year and author. I did not receive an answer to my request. Must the request be formulated in some secret and unfathomable way?

Are you actually implying that degree mills don’t exist and that many individuals and organizations aren't victimized by the insidious characters that run them? That's what you would really like everyone to believe, isn't it? Mark has pointed out that you have provided some replies; I have pointed out that the replies must actually relate to the questions for them to be deemed answers.

This is crap. A university is not supposed to be some kind of private con game. I requested a dissertation. I supplied the information you publicly stated was necessary to fulfill the request. There simply aren’t any procedures in place for obtaining a dissertation from Knightsbridge. Is this because it would be unthinkable that anyone one would actually be interested in the work being done there, or is it because the information would prove to be embarrassing to the school? Personally I think it is because it is simply too much trouble to search for them, as they are interspersed among the stacks of magazines in the “library” (in my house, guess which room is referred to as the “library”)?

I agree; no facts, references or anything substantive does not provide a basis for debate. As you have not provided any evidence to the contrary, as everything you have said has constituted nothing more than “smoke and mirrors,” the inescapable conclusion is that Knightsbridge University is not a legitimate institution of higher learning; it is a business simply posing as one. End of debate.

 

Hi Henrik: No, your shill Marianus was the original angry one. Now you are chiming in with contempt for the US-style doctoral program and claiming that someone who has denounced UMI-Proquest for refusing to include dissertations from unaccredited schools isn't aware that they exclude disserations from unaccredited schools. And as for that "I'm sure you didn't write that post" attempt at disinformation, in the immortal words of a truly impressive con man, the late great Mayor Coleman Young, "I Got damn did." And as for Rohan, see the other thread.
-----------------
You want responses? OK, here goes.

"Please remember that, earlier on, the suggestion was that Knightsbridge was working in isolation of any academically proven system. Now that this has been obviously rejected, apparently the new angle is to suggest that the methodology chosen is not good enough."

Response--You are working in isolation. You boast of it. You say it doesn't impair what you are doing. You are wrong. Who takes you seriously? (This is not a rhetorical question. Who among established universities takes KU seriously?) I never said that the "UK" methodology wasn't good enough. I don't recall anybody else saying that, either, tho someone may have done.

"I am sure that there is nothing better in the whole, wide world than the assessment processes as they pertain to US post-graduate work. However, those are not the processes we apply. And they're certainly not the one and only option. Anyone with a genuine interest and actual knowledge of the matter would have been able to request the policies and regulations and procedural documentation underpinning the methodology. Nobody has asked for this. This either because of awareness that receipt of same does not automatically bring ability to assess same, or because the actual purpose of the continued burrowing has nothing to do with the claimed or supposed purpose."

Response--Oh, now it's the xenophobic American canard. How sweet. And as for the "policies and regulations," etc., now you're playing the "you didn't ask just the right way" game I recall prisoners playing when I was a chaplain in a correctional institution. I'm not selling anything or promoting anything or hoping to establish the credibility of my own personal uniqversity. If I were, I might just post the questioned policies, etc, to show how adequately wonderful they really are.

"The methodology works. It works for us, and it works for others. Whether it be seen by some as inferior to other systems, for whatever perceived reason, is a matter of individual leaning and opinion."

Response--"Methodology" is such a vague term it could, and perhaps does, cover everything from the "UK system", to operating w/o oversight, to faculty resume fudging, to lack of public evidence of worthwhile scholarly work.

"My Webster's has 'disingenuous' as: 'lacking in candor; giving a false appearance of simple frankness'. Is this what you meant to say? Have you ever requested any such information as might enable you to ascertain what methodology is used? What exactly would it be that you think has not been candidly shared upon request?"

Response--You started out as a cute eccentric coming well recommended. You started out with my wanting to believe the very best of you, given John Bear's comments and your own wittiness. Yes, your posts are disingenuous, oscillating between what you think is coruscating wit and what we know to be a whingeful setting up and knocking down of straw men. I don't question your methodology (there you go again); I question the reality and worthwhileness of your school. Eisenhowering is a clever rhetorical strategy, but I don't see documentation being "candidly shared" out of your own zeal to defend the wonderfulness of your school. (And if you don't care about that, why are you posting here?)

"Do you really mean to say that unless theses are publicly available, no university is credible?"

Response--Yes, together with the other normal documentation of scholarly productivity (learned journal articles, symposia hosted, books published by faculty and alumni/ae, etc.).

"Have I not already said - I am sure more than once - that theses are in fact available?"

Response--We all tend to repeat ourselves. Don't worry; it's aging, not anything to be taken seriously.

"Now, if what you're saying is that if the theses are not electronically available the institution cannot be trusted, what would you make of the situation before theses became electronically available?"

Response--This is a distance learning forum. Until evidence of scholarly productivity is available in ways that do not require on-site visits to your toolshed, why exactly should anybody trust you? What happened long ago and far away is immaterial. Your late king was a rather accomplished orchestra conductor (I have several of his recordings). That hardly makes HM Queen Margrethe a prima donna assoluta, just because her late father was musically talented, although I am sure she is distinguished by other excellences.

"Do you know round about what time most UK universities started making their theses available via the British Library? Or US universities to UMI? Or any other institution in the history of mankind to any such depository, for that matter? Would you suggest that prior to this it was reasonable to question the credibility of those universities? After all, 'the public' were not privy to the assessment, and had to visit the library to gain access to documents."

Response--No, I don't know the timing on that (straw man). What Oxford or even the (in)famous Leicester did before some arbitrarily set terminus ad quem does not matter; what your school does or does not do now, does. Also, there was interlibrary loan.

"Do you realise that for all UK universities, these documents are first and foremost an internal resource?"

Response--Duh (another straw man). Of course they are primarily (your adverb) an internal respource. Who wouldn't they be? That does not make them exclusively an internal resource. Besides, you're not a UK university, however sedulously you may imitate their practices (apart from such thinks as visible scholarly productivity, decades or even centuries of such controbution--you keep mentioning the past,so I thought it only sporting to bring it up briefly.

"What would you make of the notion I mentioned previously, for which the lack of response was overwhelming, that not all US universities participate in the UMI/Proquest system, and those that do do not submit all eligible documents?"

Response--Having already denounced UMI/Proquest's exclusionary policies elsewhere on this forum and commended the opening up of other venues of publication, I guess I would thank you for teling me what I already knew.

"What would you make of the notion that not all eligible UK institutions make their theses available to the British Library, and those that do do not submit all eligible documents?"

Response--Their public record of scholarly productivity is still sufficient to win the admiration and respect of disinterested and informed onlookers. Your school's record of such productivity isn't there just yet.

"In the industry of higher education, one concept speaks louder than anything else: Precedence. If it has been done before elsewhere, it can be done by others. The UK assessment methodology is well tried and tested, and it has been shown to work. So that's good enough for us."

Response--Precedence does not guarantee that "it" can be done by particular others, only that "it" can be done. Roger Bannister ran a 4-minute mile. Some particular others have duplicated the feat. Most particular others cannot. Many methodologies have been shown to work, that is true. That does not mean that you have shown that your school makes them work, only that you have a model you (commendably) wish to imitate.

 

Actually, Knightsbridge University also appears on another list (see here). It is a list of institutions that are not included in the TeleCampus Online Course Database. Once again, Knightsbridge University is listed among the numerous blatant degree mills, and the list is preceded by an ominous warning recommending that students be very cautious about taking courses from any of the institutions on the list.

 

Henrick,

Do you require an undergraduate degree for entry into your graduate programs?

If so, what exactly are the steps you take in evaluating the legitimacy of degrees from other "self-validating" schools?

 

There's no "c" in "Henrik".

 

Excellent question!!

 

That's ironic, considering that there's also no "c" in "typo," but there is one in "nitpicking."

You requested polite questions. I asked one. I look forward to the response.