Uk Accreditation

Discussion in 'General Distance Learning Discussions' started by Kane, Apr 10, 2002.

Loading...
  1. Kane

    Kane New Member

    So far I have been a great proponent of the "Royal Charter" as accreditation for UK schools and I still am.

    However, Rich brought up a point on another board I have been thinking about. What makes Oxford and Cambridge accredited as they hold no such charter?

    I appreciate all opinions.
     
  2. triggersoft

    triggersoft New Member

    In my understanding, "Royal Charter" means that the university has received a status of "legitimacy" (is this the right English word?) from the government, more specifically the Department of Education. Therefore also those two MUST possess this Royal Charter, meaning the British State Authorities allow them to operate as legitimate Universities which have degree granting rights.

    Or am I wrong?

    Greets,

    Trigger
     
  3. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    IIRC, this was explained in BG 14 that although Oxford & Cambridge hold no Royal Charter, all the various colleges that make up the universities do hold the charter.


    Bruce
     
  4. Peter French

    Peter French member

    Oxford and cmabridge are 2 of the small list of UK universities that operate under theirriginal PAPAL CHARTER.

    The PAPAL charter preceeds the present system.
     
  5. DrAW

    DrAW New Member

    As I lecture at a British university, perhaps I can help with this thread:

    The Royal Charter is merely the university's foundation document - rather like a company's articles of association. It is granted before the university gets up and running. It is not the same thing as accreditation, although in principle it could be revoked and I doubt very much that a mill would be able to get a Royal Charter.

    The nearest things to accreditation, in the US sense, are the national quality assurance reviews that have been introduced over the past ten years or so. These cover both teaching (the TQA, administered by the Quality Assurance Agency) and research (the RAE, administered by the national HE funding agencies).

    Incidentally, Cambridge formally received the status of a Studium Generale (i.e. a papally recognized university) by a bull of Pope John XXII in 1318. (I have the extract, in Latin, if anyone's interested...) Oxford, to my knowledge, was never formally recognized as a studium generale; it became one only "by repute".

    DrAW
    (MA Cambridge, MA PhD Lancaster)
     
  6. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

  7. Peter French

    Peter French member

    So maybe Oxford is not just good enough? Maybe it is a mill? Maybe the Kiwis a correct [for once ;) ]as they do regard themselves as '...more British than the British...' :rolleyes: ... but all jokes aside Miwi universities are excellent and if ever they go into DE, either before or after they become a State of Australia, they will be an excellent option.
     

Share This Page