Jan 252012
 

I’ve been watching with increasing bewilderment and concern over the reaction of two London universities (London School of Economics and University College London) to the “Jesus and Mo” pictures. Coyne of “Why Evolution Is True” has a couple of posts on this today:

Pharyngula also has a piece on the LSE:

To this eclectic mix I would add the brilliant piece by Eric MacDonald:

It’s clear that the LSE and UCL have made a mistake. Religion is NOT protected from criticism and does NOT deserve any special privileges. Those who call themselves “devout” need not fear criticism as they’ve already closed their minds and can continue to live in the happiness of their delusions. Certainly the “devout” have no legitimate mechanism to feel “hurt” or “offended”, and any claims for such feelings are mock by definition.

Equating criticism of religion to racism as these universities are doing is mistaken and beyond rationality. In the short time that I’ve looked at bogus degrees at British universities it has become evident that universities are more interested in generating revenue than in instilling knowledge. By capitulating to the religious, by appeasement to the irrational, these two universities have shown that they will do anything to acquire as much money as possible by stamping on rationality, by censuring and silencing the minority.

LSE, UCL, shame on you.

Article by Kulvinder Singh Matharu – 2012

Jan 012012
 

DC’s Improbable Science has posted a summary of the fiver-year battle against the nonsense that UK universities have taught. It’s encouraging:

Article by Kulvinder Singh Matharu – 2012

Oct 142011
 

This from Quackometer on The University of Wales:

…and this from DC’s Improbable Science where the University’s previous practices on validating external degrees are described as bordering on corrupt:

However, what about the people within the University that promoted this practice? Are they still there to further poison the well of education? And it seems that this disgraceful practice is still undertaken at other universities so I imagine that all those external bogus organisations will get their bullshit degrees validated one way or the other.

dumb

Article by Kulvinder Singh Matharu – 2011

Aug 132011
 

Read DC’s Improbable Science article and decide for yourself:

I’ve said many times, universities such as Westminster don’t care about reputation or quality education. They care about making money. Lots of it.

Article by Kulvinder Singh Matharu – 2011

Jul 042011
 

Please, please, please, please, please, Southampton University. Quality courses and critical thinking skills go a long way. Let’s keep the garbage out.

keep britain tidy

Article by Kulvinder Singh Matharu – 2011

Jun 212011
 

Detailed investigation from DC’s Improbable Science:

Maybe the University of Westminster don’t care about their reputation or the quality of their courses. Perhaps money is more important. Judge for yourself.

Article by Kulvinder Singh Matharu – 2011

May 032011
 

Another great article written by David Colquhoun:

I’ve been saying for years now, that universities are increasingly seeing themselves primarily as profit-making organisations and not as institutions of education. They will therefore teach anything, good or bad, just so long as it generates money. Reputations be damned, money is what it’s all about.

Article by Kulvinder Singh Matharu – 2011

Mar 142011
 

You bet!

See this enlightening post from DC’s Improbable Science:

Article by Kulvinder Singh Matharu – 2011

Jul 012010
 

I nearly wet myself when I read this at Pharyngula:

Then I stopped laughing; this is a crime and an abuse against our children.

Idiot educators need to be rooted out and exposed to the world.

Article by Kulvinder Singh Matharu – 2010

Jun 232010
 

DC’s excellent article “Hot and cold herbal nonsense from Napier University Edinburgh: another course shuts” scores again for science against nonsense “degrees”.

I laughed when I read this quote from Gerry Webber after he refused to supply information to a Freedom of Information request for details of what was actually taught on one of their “degree” courses :

“On public interest grounds, I have therefore concluded that, in respect of the commercially sensitive information requested, the public interest is better served in withholding the information you have requested than in disclosing it.”

What’s he hiding? Embarrassment, perhaps?

Article by Kulvinder Singh Matharu – 2010