Quote:
|
the policy [is] the sole reason for understanding why the Extension School doesnt have to mention its college when stating the degrees it confers.
|
That's absurd, and avoids the question that was posed (would HES students be totally happy with a hypothetical new requirement to write down Extension School when listing their credentials?).
There is no policy that
forces HES folk to omit the words
Extension School in describing their affiliation. But in almost 100 percent of the cases where they have the option whether to specify or omit their ties to the Extension School, HES affiliates elect to make the omission. That choice lies outside the realm of the official policy and cannot be explained by pointing to policy. Nor is it relevant that HES is part of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences; it could be part of the President's office or the Harvard daycare center and that would make no difference to the point at issue.
The assertion you continue to dispute was about whether HES affiliates have the tendency to be unspecific about what admission standard is implied by their semesters at Harvard. i.e., was their degree earned after admission under the College's standards, some GSAS departmental standard, the Divinity School standard, or something else. Whether or not sakky is right about such behavior at non-HES degree programs, only at HES does one see an overwhelming incidence of such "prestige arbitrage" (try the web searches described above if you don't believe the anecdotal evidence).
These are questions of fact, and determining the correctness or not of the factual assertions does not imply any agenda to "demean" HES or protect a priestly caste of Cambridge mandarins.
Quote:
|
The [UC] measure was just to keep the distinction between the two schools. I do not have a problem with that.
|
No, that really ignores and blunts what the UC text says clearly is its emphasis. It is not a matter of "keeping the distinction", whatever that means; it is stated as
maintaining the integrity of the degree, meaning of course the degrees from the College. They even refer to the currency (apparently in the economic sense) of Harvard degrees, and the measure can be seen as an attempt to reduce the incidence of counterfeits. Whatever the peculiarities of the UC, they are if nothing else a sample of undergraduate opinion, and an overwhelming majority considered there to be a significant integrity-of-degrees issue in this seemingly obscure matter of degree reporting.