If you reject any kind of verification from outside Knightsbridge, then how can Knightsbridge guarantee its own quality without falling into circular reasoning? Citing KU's internal procedures to guarantee the effectiveness of KU's internal procedures is only convincing if we already trust the effectivenes of KU's internal procedures. Then feel free to provide us with some alternative reasons to trust KU's academic credibility. So your regulation 9 contradicts Dr. Marianus' argument that KU's employing adjunct instructors represents a form of external examination, and hence "assures quality assurance"? (I interpreted the phrase 'assured quality assurance' to be equivalent to the word 'accreditation'.) If you would like more distance between 'KU' and 'mill', then by all means give us additional reasons to be confident that KU isn't one. Let me see if I understand you... I suggest that the possibility exists that KU is a degree-mill. That means that I am insulting KU. Stooping to insults is a sign of a weak argument. Therefore, KU is not a degree-mill. That's very convenient for you Henrik, if skepticism about KU discredits the skeptic. Not only do they have recognition, they have qualities that deserve recognition.