I.U." AND SULGRAVE
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
SIR,—Your note upon this subject indicates that the activities of the body calling itself the "Intercollegiate University" are to bt continued by a new body calling itself the " Sulgrave University," a name associated with George Washington, and doubtless assumed by this new body for the purpose of attracting American candidates for its "degrees." To understand the present position, it is necessary to refer to the Inter- collegiate University, which is indeed the chrysalis from which the new and even more mischievous moth is now in the process of emerging. Intercollegiate University was brought to my notice in February last by a constituent, who sugvsted that I should invoke action by Parlia- ment. When, however, I put a question down for this purpose it was disallowed by the Clerks at the Table (who have the duty of revising questions before they are admitted to the Order Paper) on the ground that no Government Department could be responsible for the conduct of a private society. I thereupon wrote to Professor Low pointing out the dubious credentials of the so-called University on the Board of Studies of which he was cited as a member, and after some correspondence Professor Low informed me that he was removing his name.
In the Calendar mentioned by you the name of a British registered medical practitioner is cited with the title " M.D.I.U." after his name as well as the initials of his British qualifications. I accordingly com- municated in March, 1942, with the President of the General Medical Council, Mr. H. L. Eason, who had quite recently filled the office of Principal of London University. It appeared from subsequent cor- respondence that it is not clear whether the General Medical Council has any power under the Medical Acts to restrain any unauthorised body from granting medical degrees or diplomas, or to restrain any holder of such a degree or diploma from using the title or description which indicates that he holds such a diploma, provided that he does not attempt to practise medicine by virtue of that "qualification."
In the Medical Directory of 1939 the name of this practitioner is followed by the letters M.D., I.U., but these disappear in subsequent editions of the Directory, and I understand that Crock ford's Directory has consistently refused to insert " qualifications" from this body. It would be a valuable means of checking the activities of bogus institutions if the professional directories would refuse to insert their "qualifications," and the same course might profitably be adopted by compilations like Who's Who. If greatcr publicity could be given to the consideration that persons having a reputation to lose suffer positive discredit from using titles which are essentially fraudulent in their origin, these institu- tions would fade out.
The abuse is especially mischievous in medicine, inasmuch as persons pretending to be qualified might be let loose upon the public without any proper training. A generation ago the multiplicity of bogus medical " qualifications " in the United States was bringing disrepute, even upon the universities and colleges enjoying a reputation second to none in the world. Very effective action was taken some 25 years ago by the American Medical Association, which is a private and not a statutory body like our G.M C., but perfonns many of its functions. The Associa- tion established three categories, viz., A, B and C, of schools which could be accepted as giving respectable medical qualifications. The effect of this measure was to put the inferior institutions out of business. In an official publication (1932) by the "Commission on Medical Education" in the United States which had been set up by another private body, the Association of American Medical Colleges, the following note appears in the foreword to the Report:
"Medical education in the United States is regulated by rules and specifications of the American Medical Association, the Associa- tion of American Medical Colleges, and the requirements of the various States for licensure to practise. These regulations and rules were necessary in the programme of elevating the standards of
medical training and in eliminating the proprietary and commercial medical schools (the italics are mine). They had to be defined in detail to serve their purposes, and were largely responsible for the
remarkable improvement which has taken place in this field of professional training during the last twenty-five years. There is a higher degree of regulation in this than in any other branch of education."
This remarkable improvement thus effected by the action of private bodies suggests that some such measures might be usefully taken in this country, in view of the answer by the Lord President of the Council to a question put by me this week.
London University is, of course, primarily interested in preventing the assumption of authority to confer fictitious degrees by any institution in its area of activity, but it would appear that at present there is, in fact, no power to prevent bogus institutions from acting in the way you have described.
I am entirely in agreement with your opinion that this is an unsatis- factory state of affairs, more particularly at this moment when so many American citizens are ill this country and may very well be tempted to take advantage of an institution, the doubtful character of which is not immediately obvious, and I submit that some means should be found to deal with what is a real abuse.
The Press can help here even more immediately than Parliament by giving publicity to this audacious effort which your journal has so usefully [The question and answer are as follows: Sir Ernest Graham-Little: To ask the Lord President of the Council, whether, with a view to curbing the activities, information of which has furnished him of bodies purporting to grant university degrees calculated to deceive students of allied nationality at present in this country, he will, by an Emergency Order in Council, or otherwise, restrain such activities by bodies not duly empowered to grant university degrees.
Lord President of the Council (Sir John Anderson): Action could not be taken under existing emergency powers but only as the result of
legislatioh. While I sympathise with the Hon. Member's desire to restrain the acti-eities to which he refers, I am not satisfied, on the information at preseat before me, that the introduction of legislation for the purpose would be justified. The matter, however, will be kept under review.]
Previous page
