Can you please cut the ******** and tell us why local U don't employ their own PhD students? What are the qualifications of professors lecturing at a local U? Harvard I believe?

Hi I'm the SMU student who wrote the post.

Tons of people contribute on online forums. You assume that anyone whose contribution exceeds a certain post length could only be motivated by low self-esteemed caused by their degree programme?

You have done nothing to criticize the validity of what I have written except an attack on the author. "11+11=22" is true regardless of whether your maths teacher teaches it in class or an infant mutters it. Instead of explaining why 11 plus 11 is not 22, you have decided to attack the speaker.

Plus, I don't think that my post was biased towards or against the SIM degree but rather an accurate representation of reality.

Most universities try not to hire their own PhD students to avoid academic inbreeding. There are a lot of articles on academic inbreeding which you can read online.

You seem like a much better person to debate with than the other lunatics.Thanks for your unbiased views and your previous post was really well detailed.Although I do have an argument to make regarding UOL-LSE being comparable to LSE.

It goes without saying that the standard in the internal programs is a lot better and thus holds more value than those external programs by UOL but LSE have explicitly stated on their website and I copy and paste from the LSE website:

1) High academic standards - the same stringent academic standards apply to all University of London degrees, whether students are taught internally at LSE or study individually at a distance.

2)Course development - LSE academics develop course structure and content, subject guides and other study materials to reflect internal standards.

3)
Examinations - LSE academics set and mark the examinations to the same standards as are applied at LSE.
4)
Further study - many graduates from the University of London International programmes have gained places on Masters and PhD programmes at LSE and other universities in the UK.

5) Transfer to LSE - degree and diploma students have successfully transferred to the second year of degree courses at LSE and other universities in the UK. More information can be found, here.

Now the last point is notably important because if you were to question the authenticity of the exams conducted by UOL then you would have already dismissed the 5th point as senseless.
Reference : ://.lse.ac.uk/study/UOLIP/international_degree.aspx

LSE also have stated that the external UOL degree programs closely follow those internally so degree transfer even though might be hard is not impossible.Remember we are debating about the comparability between LSE and their external programs not the likeliness of a person transferring to LSE.
Many people have dismissed the UOL degree pointing out that the limited modules place it at a disadvantage but are you going to say the same for those LSE programs conducted internally? I mean you can only transfer if both the internal and the external programs are similar right ? Both take up same number of modules which is 4 a year.
So then am I right so say even though there might be an enormous difference between the branding of both degrees the differences are rather subtle?

A brief explanation was already given previously.

You simply are not at a level where you can understand why.

Go and find out at other forums and then enlighten your fellow SIMians here.

I suggest you borrow this book ://.amazon.com/gp/product/1421404605

Then look at chapter "Do universities hire their own Ph.D.s as faculty?"

It is available in SIM library.

1. UOL is not LSE.

2. LSE does not participate in distance learning crap.

3. despite the crap SIM administrators tell you, LSE profs do not participate in distant learning crap. they do not set or mark papers from SIM students.

4. the lecturers are from UOL, not LSE. these are 2 completely different schools.

5. friend. dont out down singapore please. LSE is a world renowned institution with a great history and boast of nobel winners as academics. SIM is but a private university in singapore for students who could not make it into a normal university, hence chose to spend their money to earn a degree.

6. Summary - SIM is not LSE. pls stop adding youselves to my LSE alumni network in SG, or stop listing yourselves as LSE graduates on FB.

pal dont be deluded. if SIM students are judged based on "the same standard as applied at LSE", there will be no one who can finish the programme.

note i refrain from using the word "graduate" because SIM is not a university.

you sign up for SIM because you cant enter nus/smu econs, but you think you are judged on the same level as one of the world's top econs school?

its like saying driving a cherry QQ is the same as driving a bugati veyron.

What that guy is trying to say is that Cherry QQ may look like a cherry QQ but drives like a bugatii veyron.

I notice recently a lot of UOL grads are putting LSE in their CVs / Linkedin / Facebook or sometimes positioning it as some sort of LSE degree administered by SIM. The less blatant liars still put SIM-UOL in the CVs, but attempt to indirectly imply that they are held to the same standards from LSE during interviews or assessments.

Personally I think this is lame and probably due to the fact that the perpetrators are ignorant of what sort of university LSE is. These SIMs student/customers will have difficulty even convincing employers they are local university standards, to try and pawn off as LSE is just asking for trouble.

The English standards, executive presence, strategic thinking and depth of knowledge is just so far out that it is painful to watch them twist & turn like struggling in a quick sand of LSE expectations.

i think the key differece between a SIM student and one from a proper university is that one is paid for with money (no effort required), and the other is earned.

and i can empathise with paying for something, its just like if i walk and buy the latest IWC watch vs one that is given to me.

obviously, i would have more pride over what i paid for - after all i'm paying for it.

now this explains why SIM students feel the need to brand themselves as UOL/LSE/RMIT etc. and it boils down to the fact that since they are paying for it, brand matters.

what they fail to realise is that these institutions are a far cry from their fairy tale world. for starters, the courses run by SIM are not even available in UOL - they distinguish what is distant learning vs on campus.