Search results

In an educational era focused on expectations related to program accreditation, academic integrity is paramount to program success and credibility. Because Internet-based learning is not limited to geographical or political lines drawn on a map, there is a certain amount of ambiguity regarding the application of regulations and laws governing online learning and how they are enforced. Managing the financial and accreditation needs of institutions with authentic and appropriate methods of teaching, learning, and assessment is a precarious balance – one in which the potential for misbehaving online can quickly tip the scales to the side of questioning the credibility of online learning and misusing power in terms of data privacy. Wendy Kraglund-Gauthier and David Young explore the issue of how online students misbehave when being tested at a distance, what technological challenges emerge when verifying the identity of online students, and issues of privacy. They also include a comparison of methods used to confirm the identity of online students. In light of the inherent challenges that emerge alongside the demand for more technology-based screening tools and devices, Kraglund-Gauthier and Young question whether solutions lie in competence-based assessment for learning, rather than a reliance on surveillance. They argue that in spite of stakeholders' best efforts and best intentions, legislation directed at ensuring online privacy is fraught with potential challenges.

Universally, university is considered as the apex body which is ethically obliged to present a substantial society. In doing so, universities often innovate dynamic business models and theories. Ideally, the countries whose universities contribute for better and sustainable business growth are the advanced one. However, universities themselves should be the business organisation – an argument is yet to receive attention. Although literature lacks in the area of education business especially university provision, the sector behaves as business entity after the inception of private sector. Therefore, this paper aims to explore the paradigm transformation of university sector and its impact on the society.

Given the differentiated nature of research questions, multiple techniques are used to collect the data. However, this research adopts the norms of qualitative methods. Both secondary and primary data are used. While secondary data are collected by University Grants Commission (UGC), primary data are collected through interviews.

Findings show that the development of university sector started following monopoly model. More than half a century, the same model was continued. Thereafter, duopoly model was introduced which carried until the inception of private sector. The growth of private sector followed oligopoly model which was further extended to small and medium enterprises (SMEs). These days, society compares university with “diploma mill”, as production of knowledge and civic society is longer than the part of the core business of university. Consequently, compromising with research is to be judged as a threat to overall development that includes business and social development.

A few studies have been published in the area of private university. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, none covers the oligopoly-ism and SME-ism behaviour of university and its impact on the concept of university and on the society. Therefore, this project aims to understand the norms of university business and its substantial contribution on the social change.

I have been rather concerned recently to read of the growing number of bogus degrees available in this country. It is difficult to know just how many degree mills there are, as they tend to spring up overnight and disappear again, but the Department of Education estimates there are between 70 and 80 of them. Two years ago there were 30.

Diploma Mills are not new. Certainly they have been around for 150 years. The earliest recorded operation known to the writer was Richmond College, a US‐based outfit established in 1835.

Growing unease exists in many quarters, not least amongst academics, regarding the diploma mill industry. In the UK disquiet surfaces periodically. A Member of Parliament will ask a question in the House of Commons; a newspaper will feature an expose; or that indefatigable consumer watchdog Roger Cook, in his BBC programme Checkpoint, will focus the spotlight on the educational underworld.

During the early 1970s the author was instrumental in interesting a number of Members of Parliament in the subject of diploma mills, and the matter reached the floor of the House of Commons on several occasions. Witness the following extracts from Hansard.

One of the prime beneficiaries of the diploma mill merchants is the publishing industry. A very high propor‐tion of the degrees sold are the result of press advertising.

Every technological advance has its dark side. The aeroplane has made world travel possible for the masses — and thousands have died in horrific crashes. We have grown utterly dependent on the automobile — but the fumes from its exhaust pollute the air we breathe. The computer has revolutionised the way we do business — and that includes, alas, the business of running the fraudulent colleges and universities that are known as diploma mills. Indeed operators of the world's less‐than‐wonderful educational institutions have eagerly seized upon all that the modern world of high technology and industry has to offer, the better to make their worthless certificates available to more and more unsuspecting victims worldwide.

In recent years governments in many countries, notably UK and USA, have introduced a mass of legislation aimed at safeguarding the consumer. This is in sharp contrast with their unwillingness to ensure consumer protection against degree mill operators selling fringe medical qualifications.

The third in a series of articles exposing Diploma Mills features in this issue of Education & Training. Some ten or so articles will appear, with one focusing on the attitude of the UK Government. The present Prime Minister was alerted to the need for safeguards against the sale of degrees. On 13 July 1972, when Mrs. Thatcher was Secretary of State for Education, two members of her own party tabled the following questions in the House of Commons: