DC's Improbable Science

Truth, falsehood and evidence: investigations of dubious and dishonest science

DC's Improbable Science header image 2

Vice-chancellors defend homeopathy?

August 21st, 2007 · 6 Comments

On 21 August 2007, the Taxpayers’ Alliance produced a report that

“compiled Britain’s first ever list of university ‘non-courses';  university degrees that lend the respectability of scholarly qualifications to non-academic subjects and calculated their annual cost to students and taxpayers.”

In this they list 400 degree course, at 91 institutions in the UK, which they describe as “non-courses”. They claim that these courses cost the taxpayer £40 million per year.

At the top of their list they place a BA (Hons) degree in Outdoor Adventure and Philosophy, at Marjon College in Plymouth. They include also in their list 60 different courses in alternative medicine.

I don’t agree entirely with the Alliance. They fail, I think, to make a vital distinction, between things that are untrue, and things that a merely not a great intellectual challenge. In “Science degrees in anti-science” I said

“What matters here is that degrees in things such as golf-course management are honest. They do what it says on the label. That is quite different from awarding BSc degrees in subjects that are not science at all, but are positively anti-science.”

Nevertheless the 400 “non-courses” include 60 in alternative medicine, and they are quite unacceptable.

So how does Universities UK (UUK) react? (They are the folks who used to have the sensibly self-explanatory title “Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals”, before they had their Consignia moment). Nothing short of a blanket defence, according to the BBC News

But Universities UK said the alliance had failed to understand developments in higher education or the labour market.

“Had they done a little more research, they would have found that these so-called ‘non-courses’ are in fact based on demand from employers and developed in association with them,”

“Graduates on these courses are in demand from employers who are looking for people with specific skills alongside the general skills acquired during a degree such as critical thinking, team-working, time management and IT skills – a point lost on the authors of this rag-bag of prehudices and outdated assumptions.”

All courses were checked rigorously to ensure they met appropriate standards. “This is academic snobbery, as predictable as it is unfounded.”

Does UUK really think that that is a sufficient justification for BSc degrees in homeopathy?

Does UUK really think that degrees in homeopathy teach “critical thinking”?

Does UUK really think that “rigorous checking” of a degree in homeopathy is possible?

If so, the endarkenment has certainly reached high places.


An email from the president of UUK, Rick Trainor says that

“. . . degree courses change over time, are independently assessed for academic rigour and quality and provide a wider education than the simple description of the course might suggest”

Professor Trainor, Principal of King’s College London, is a social historian, not a scientist. But you don’t have to be a scientist to understand that it is simply preposterous to think that the smaller the dose the bigger the effect. The defence of such ideas on the basis that they have been “independently assessed for academic rigour” (assessed, of course, by fellow believers in magic) is equally preposterous.

SO I wrote again to explain the difference between honest and dishonest vocational degrees. It reall isn’t very difficult to grasp. This time all I got was

Dear David

Thank you very much for your comments, which I have read with interest.

Best wishes

Rick Trainor

UUK, like the Taxpayers’ Alliance, has failed totally to make the distinction betweeen honest vocational degrees and dishonest degrees.The attitude of UUK appears to be that of an old-fashioned trade union -defend your members, right or wrong. It is time they grasped the nettle.

Print Friendly

Tags: Anti-science · CAM · Dangerous advice · Politicians · Universities

6 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Dr Aust // Aug 21, 2007 at 22:08

    I’m only amazed UUK didn’t use the word “stakeholders”, David.

    ..since the consumers of alt health products, and the associations of self-styled “professionals” serving them, clearly have a stake in there being an ever-renewing cadre of keen young snake oil-sellers.

    Perhaps the VCs avoided the word “stake” because of it’s financial connotations –

    “our institutional bank balance is at stake if we stop running degrees in superstition”

  • 2 Mat Iredale // Aug 24, 2007 at 15:30

    What on earth is involved in a degree in “Outdoor Adventure and Philosophy”?

    Platonic rock climbing?

    Existential orienteering: an introduction?

    The mind boggles.

  • 3 Morals in high places: leadership from Anderson and Chisholm. // Dec 26, 2007 at 18:58

    […] seen the case of Howard Newby. We’ve seen vice-chancellors (12 of them) refuse point blank to respond to enquiries about how they justify running degrees in alternative […]

  • 4 Westminster University BSc: “amethysts emit high yin energy” // Apr 23, 2008 at 19:24

    […] vice chancellors union, Universities UK, has simply refused to consider this very basic threat to academic […]

  • 5 How to get good science: again // Feb 14, 2009 at 10:37

    […] Imperial Medical School. And of course we have “Morals in High Places“. And we have the vice-chancellors’ Trades Union, UUK, that does nothing to stop these […]

  • 6 Regulation of alternative medicine: why it doesn’t work, and never can // Jan 19, 2013 at 00:41

    […] (that’s the lunatic fringe of osteopathy). They will presumably uphold complaints about similar claims made (I’m ashamed to say) by UCLH […]

You must log in to post a comment.