polite questions to Henrik

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.

 

dissertation, resource, contribution, why, telling
(some typo corrections for my post above)

 

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

 

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

 

Att: Bill Huffman,

You posted:
QUOTE
"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?"
UNQUOTE

Since this notion of 'a list' was first brought up, with the follow-on that it is somehow a bad sign if such a list does not exist, we seem to have wandered all over the woods. For the duration I have been waiting. For what?

For someone to show me that it is really the case that such a list is available at UK institutions, never mind the US counterparts. Perhaps the reason noone has substantiated this idea is that it cannot be done.

The way it works at UK universities is that theses are deposited in the library. Visitors to the library, or those visiting the library section of the university's web-site can then search by author, title, and oftentimes key words. There is not, however, a unified listing of all the titles kept. You would also not find such a list at British Library, through which such documents can be ordered.

I have already said before that we can do a manual search here, and that documents can be made available under our standard terms. Terms, incidentally, similar to what you'd find at, you guessed it, a UK higher education institution.

By the way, theses are not 'published', but 'disseminated'. This has copyright implications etc, and is a completely different issue altogether. Theses may be accessed under specific terms, either by showing up in the library of the institution where they were deposited, or, in most cases, as a copy for purchase. This is not considered publishing. Whether what UMI do is considered 'publishing' I do not know, no doubt there will be differences between the concepts.

I did notice that the 'going about about UMI' was not a popular thread. Perhaps some shouldn't have brought up the issue if the same 'some' didn't like to learn more.

Henrik

 

Bill Huffman,

You posted:
QUOTE
"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?"
UNQUOTE

That which you claim to be not correct is something that does not concur with how you think it ought to be. Your not agreeing with the world does not mean the world has to align right for your pleasance.

Your assertions are habitually incorrect. It is indeed not the case that UK universities provide the sort of list that you keep talking about. I have told you how the system works, the fact that it does not work according to how you'd like it to ideally work does not change facts.

I do not believe I have seen you post anything here that substantiates the claim you make above. Not one word. Perhaps you would like to do some searches of your own and see if not UK universities deal with theses in exactly the way I have described elsewhere?


Henrik

 

Henrik has now posted the same exact message on three different occasions. This means that either he has become completely unraveled, or he has dropped the pretense of posting anything substantive, and figured that since he was being repetitive anyway, he might as well just post the exact same message, word for word, rather than rephrasing it in an attempt to make us believe it was something new.

On 09-30-2003 at 03:48 AM

On 09-30-2003 at 05:07 PM

On 09-30-2003 at 05:55 PM

Then again, maybe he is just channeling Jan Brady.

“Janko, Janko, Janko!!!”

 

Henrik,

You failed to answer my very simple, polite questions, so I will assume that you just didn't see them. Here they are again:

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?

 

Passing strange.

 

Bill Huffman posted:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by henrikfyrst
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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."
UNQUOTE

Bill,

This goes again back to the question I've tried to get someone to answer here:

Can you provide evidence of a fixed and immutable connection between external approval and legitimacy?

If not, you have no business suggesting that institutions without external approval are any less 'genuine' than those with.

If not, you have no business making the insinuations and statements you perpetuate here.

If not, all you're providing here is based on opinion and bias.

As for your reference to the various guides published by John alone and later with offspring, I have noticed that there is a section with degree mills. However, is it really the greater number? Amazing. Either way, I am fairly sure that the placement of Knightsbridge in these guides is usually closer to the 'Accredited Schools' section. I'm sure you must have a copy you could check.

Incidentally, I am sure that elsewhere others have referred having found Knightsbridge in some other lists of various kind. There used to be several such to find, so with patience I'm sure you could find more.

I am not aware that I have stated that you or anyone else was 'biased against UK or Danish schools'. It is possible that I have hinted that sitting where you are you might be in the throes of some bias that rubs off on your argument, and that you think that whatever exists right outside your living room is the way it ought to be elsewhere, too.


Henrik

 

Jeff,

Must have not got to yours yet, I'm still only at page 4. Mind, there does seem to be something screwy going on, for some reason one of my messages got posted several times, while 2 others are nowhere to be seen.

Your questions:

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

Entry requirements differ for different programmes, you should be able to find these for each programme at our web-site. The following is a sample from the MSc in Astronomy:

"The usual requirements for entry to the Course are as follows:

A first degree in a scientific discipline containing physics as a primary subject,
or,
Membership of a professional body whose qualification may be deemed to be the equivalent of a degree.

Candidates will normally have attained the age of twenty-eight years. All candidates will be expected to show a proficiency in the English language.

Candidates will need access to a PC, or mainframe computer, and be able to demonstrate some proficiency in computer programming."

Entry requirements are settled by programme designers and proposed for acceptance, together with other programme details, by the Academic Board.

Your second question:

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

We rarely get enquiries, let alone applications for taught courses from graduates of other un-accredited institutions. Such, in the limited numbers they exist, would be usually aiming for a higher degree via research.

We apply the same methodology for verification for all applicants, at-source confirmation requests, this both from employers and institutions from which qualifications are claimed. At times, such confirmation does not yield a response, but this is not by any stretch unique to un-accredited institutions, many seem to be very tardy in their file handling, particularly on this aspect. Luckily, eligibility can be tested for in other ways, and existing qualifications are by no means the only criterion on which evaluation can be based. One of the most convincing ways to establish suitability is a conversation between proposed candidate and their likely supervisor. It is not uncommon for faculty to recommend against the enrolment of a particular individual, and at times this would not be something we could have guessed on the basis of their CV.

In all circumstances, the assessment of an applicant for entry starts already at the stage where they submit their CV for evaluation. We invite only those to apply whose background is sufficiently strong to convince us they're likely to complete the programme. That is an administrative effort, the assessment of the subsequent application is a joint administrative/academic effort.

Hope this is of illumination.



Henrik

 

I'm not Bill, but come on, this is way too easy!
WAST majority or legitimate schools have one form of external approval or another.
ALL illegal degree mills have none.
Didn't you know this already?

Moreover, external approval is perhaps the easiest and most direct way to demonstrate legitimacy. Another way would be to demonstrate outcomes - (in)famous dissertations list thing, for example. BTW, did you tell Gus how one can obtain that dissertation he requested? Huh? Please understand that outside parties can't rely on just your words. And potential students and alumni are NOT the only interested parties - as long as you issue degrees, pretty much EVERYONE have legitimate interest in your school's legitimacy.

 

Henrik, thank you again for the totally unresponsive but pleasant and verbose post. This truly has become your hallmark.

Note that I say "in their own library as a minimum".

Note that you dance around and then admit that the minimum is meet at UK institutions.

Note that at the same time KU does not meet this minimum.

Note that at the same time you try to claim that KU doesn't need to meet this minimum standard because I haven't proven that the UK universities meet this minimum standard which you admit do in fact meet this minimum all in this same post!

And you feigned insult when someone said your posts were disingenuous. (I really did enjoy that part.) You are obviously far too intelligent to be this stupid. Therefore disingenuous is the only reasonable conclusion I can come up with.

 

Stanislav,

You posted:
QUOTE
"I'm not Bill, but come on, this is way too easy!
WAST majority or legitimate schools have one form of external approval or another.
ALL illegal degree mills have none.
Didn't you know this already?"
UNQUOTE

That is not what I asked for. I asked for evidence not that the majority of legitimate institutions hold external approval, but that only those institutions with external approval are legitimate. Such a universal factor does not exist, and so arguments cannot be made based upon the mere assumption or opinion that it should exist.

I am perfectly aware that what you term 'illegal degree mills' do not enjoy any external approval (of any value).

However, you cannot extend your argument to say that all institutions without external approval are not legitimate.

Your words:
QUOTE
"Moreover, external approval is perhaps the easiest and most direct way to demonstrate legitimacy."
UNQUOTE

Easy? But of course, although not necessarily an accurate indicator. To put on my polemic hat, how are you to know if the institution in which you show an interest, and which has external approval today will have same after the next evaluation?

Only? Not at all.

External approval is a badge, a sign to the interested party. I agree fully. I have also stated elsewhere that for the majority of seekers of higher education, the best bet is to aim for an institution with external approval.

None of this de-values what I said above, however.

Your words:
QUOTE
"Another way would be to demonstrate outcomes - (in)famous dissertations list thing, for example."
UNQUOTE

I have already stated elsewhere how the 'list' concept works, both here and elsewhere. Bill Huffman is very keen on such a list existing. It would be fun to hear if Bill could find such a 'list' elsewhere.

You also wrote:
QUOTE
"BTW, did you tell Gus how one can obtain that dissertation he requested? Huh?"
UNQUOTE

Gus? Who is that? Do you mean the individual who posts at DegreeInfo as 'Gus Sainz', whose identity is unknown? This individual would be most welcome to visit the library, and be welcome also to view any non-restricted title in the reading room. He/she would be also able to order a copy of any available title, using the relevant order form.

There is no doubt that, as you term it, 'outside parties' can harbour an interest in any institution they wish. They may then seek such information as is available from that institution. This presupposes being able to actually request this information, in a format open to supply of such relevant information. I may have missed it, but as far as I can recall from these threads, nobody has asked how to go about ordering a copy of a thesis. The thrust has been on why no unified list of documents exists, as if this were a universally established element of all institutions.


Henrik

 

Bill,

You posted all of this, do read through particularly my part again:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by henrikfyrst
You posted:
QUOTE
"Every university publishes their dissertations in their own library as a minimum. "
UNQUOTE

Since this notion of 'a list' was first brought up, with the follow-on that it is somehow a bad sign if such a list does not exist, we seem to have wandered all over the woods. For the duration I have been waiting. For what?

For someone to show me that it is really the case that such a list is available at UK institutions, never mind the US counterparts. Perhaps the reason noone has substantiated this idea is that it cannot be done.

The way it works at UK universities is that theses are deposited in the library. Visitors to the library, or those visiting the library section of the university's web-site can then search by author, title, and oftentimes key words. There is not, however, a unified listing of all the titles kept. You would also not find such a list at British Library, through which such documents can be ordered.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Henrik, thank you again for the totally unresponsive but pleasant and verbose post. This truly has become your hallmark.

Note that I say "in their own library as a minimum".

Note that you dance around and then admit that the minimum is meet at UK institutions.

Note that at the same time KU does not meet this minimum.

Note that at the same time you try to claim that KU doesn't need to meet this minimum standard because I haven't proven that the UK universities meet this minimum standard which you admit do in fact meet this minimum all in this same post!

And you feigned insult when someone said your posts were disingenuous. (I really did enjoy that part.) You are obviously far too intelligent to be this stupid. Therefore disingenuous is the only reasonable conclusion I can come up with."
UNQUOTE

Your post makes no sense whatsoever. Either you haven't understood what I've told you, or you deliberately pretend to think that I said something completely different. Do look again.

Do you dispute that UK universities do not actually, as you previously postulated, maintain a list such as you keep insisting we must make available? Are you at all able to let us know what made you make such a statement?

Where did you get the impression that we do not deposit theses in the library? I have stated again and again that we do. Do you dispute this?

You now realise that your statement that UK institutions maintain a list was wrong. So you changed the criterion to 'deposit in the library'. It must have escaped you that this had been already described as procedure.

What will be your next, new criterion?


Henrik

 

How does one go about obtaining the relevant order form?

 

Dear Henrik,

From the very begining I've said that a list is always externally available. A list that is maintained at a minimum by the university library. Perhaps you haven't really read any of my posts? Should I quote from "Get the Facts on Anyone" again? You keep making up stories about what I've said and what I haven't said. It happens with such regularity that I must concluded that you do it on purpose.

In the post just recently you said,

You asked me for proof and I'll use your own words that you wrote in the same post that you asked for proof. Perhaps your own words are too hard for you to understand? Let me quote the relevant piece here.
"those visiting the library section of the university's web-site can then search by author, title, and oftentimes key words"

This does not mean that the body of the dissertation is available. This is frequently ordered latter. The body of knowledge can be searched and if it looks like a dissertation might be applicable then it can be ordered.

What does this all mean, IMHO?
1. KU doesn't follow UK procedures as closely as you and Dr. Marianus previously claimed.
2. The KU body of knowledge (which you haven't even proven exists!) is not reasonably referencible by the academic world.
3. The KU body of knowledge is not part of the academic knowledge of mankind.
4. The KU doctorates do not satisfy the requirement that a significant contribution has been made to the academic knowledge of mankind.
5. The KU doctorates are suspect.
6. This problem is not even admitted to by the owner and KU boss which is the most distressing thing of all about KU. Is KU one of the relatively few unaccredited institutions that are real universities? I believe that your ridiculous resistance to admitting this simple fact that there's a hole in your procedures says much about the lack of processes that can't be seen. Which means that the view past the facade is most likely far worse with more glaring breakdowns in academic procedures. It forces a poor conclusion in regards to KU.

 

My dear Bill Huffman,

For someone with such an oft-vented dislike of verbosity, you sure do seem to take delight in same. 'No, no, nothing for me please..... oh, go on'.

It is very good of you to post again the questions I put to you. They're very recognisable. Next time, perhaps, you would care to respond to the very same questions, with real answers?

What you have referred to as a list is not a list. This is the point I am trying to make, and that you continue to obfuscate and evade. Either you don't understand the way the search procedure described work. Or you pretend not to understand. In any case, we're not dealing with a 'list'.

Imagine walking into your nearest library. Ask to see a total list of all the titles they hold there. It may just possibly take you a little while to find anything of interest or relevance to your search. If they have such a unified list, and I rather doubt they would.

What you are discussing is a database or other such search tool. We obviously do not have such a search tool attached to our web-site. We do not even have need of such a search tool, given the quite small number of documents held. A manual search will suffice.

So, let us try again.

Do you still believe UK universities actually maintain a list such as you keep insisting we must make available? What you're calling 'a list' is nothing of the kind. Terminology, while perhaps boring, is often useful in making sure that you're saying what you think you're saying.

And better:

Where did you get the impression that we do not deposit theses in the library? I have stated again and again that we do. Do you dispute this?

Go on, this was the main point of your previous post, don't you want to answer?

Oh, I've read your posts, perhaps you didn't at the time of writing. It is certainly clear from your recent rambles that you've not ingested any of what I've told you.

Perhaps the regularity of mine telling you that what you're posting is nonsensical is something to do with the nonsensicality of your statements. And yes, I must admit that I tell you this on purpose, no medication or ghost writers here.

Now, just so we get this straight:

How many times have you done searches and ordered dissertations/theses from a collecting body or institution?
Are you so familiar with the way systems work everywhere that you can comment without fear of contradiction on the suitability or usefulness of any particular system?

So far, all I have seen is the opinion that things should be in a certain way to satisfy Bill Huffman. You're not happy with the system, and, really, so what?

As for your postulations 1-6 I think in the past year or so I've never seen so much bunkum in such a compressed space. Your 'humble' opinion happens to be about as arrogant as arrogant comes, but at least you finally admit it's just your opinion. None of what you write has any basis in reality, and you're simply hellbent on proving a point that never existed in the first place. The 'list', remember?

In all, you are quite right, you have made 'poor conclusions in regards to KU'. Those pesky Freudian slips, they'll get you eventually, you know.


Henrik

 

Well duh! Anyone who follow this forum for any period of time knows at least one example of unrecognised legitimate school - Bob Jones University. Noone, and I mean noone had ever argued in this thread that "all institutions without external approval are not legitimate". You made this argument up. Do you think noone noticed?
You wanted to ask where all the aggression comes from? I have an answer: you insult people's intelligence in each and every bloody post you make. That's annoying.

Name one recognised institution that is not legitimate.

For Pete's sake, Henrik, I proposed the other way to show legitimacy in the very next phrase. And you comment on it - or at least on a portion you see fit. What kind of arguing technique is that?

So what's your way of demonstrating outcomes? UK institutions are recognised (you agreed that would prove their legitimacy), they are part of the wider academic community, and I'm sure they'll honor simple requests in much more useful fashion that you did. What's your school's claim?

Here you've done it again. I'll miss standard attack on Gus. Did you really missed all three or four times he expressed interest in "Old Lesbians" dissertation? And do you expect noone realises that you didn't answer his question once again? The "relevant order form" could be anything.

 

Rather than admit there's a problem in KU academic procedures, Henrik, you plays games over the word 'list'. Similar to the games you played earlier with the phrase 'adjunct professor'. You describe a computer list that can be searched for all UK schools. Then you pretend that it is not a list but a search engine. My dear obfuscator, Henrik, the computer is searching a list. The search engine is searching that list and it returns hits from the list. You admit that the UK institutions have such a list publically available but then demand that I provide proof and attempt to insult me rather than addressing the issue.

You, sir, are either a fraud running a degree mill or you're so hung up on winning an argument that is already lost that you're blinded to reality. The simple and more likely explanation is that you aren't really interested in academic procedures. You are only interested in academic procedures in so far as you can build the facade for your degree mill. The evidence of this is before us. Rather than fixing a hole in your academic procedures you pretend that a search engine is able to search without having a database to search on. You obviously want to freely advertise your degree mill on this forum. It's not going to work.