Woolf University - Educational Partnership & Institutions

[Eleanor]

The external quality assurance audit outcome of Woolf is serious. It is very rare that an institution obtains re-accreditation for only one year, with the sole purpose to eliminate a universe of conditions. Many of these conditions relate to their in-transparent network structure.

A higher education institution under the auspices of the MFHEA has no right to "accredit" its own network schools. The only compliant path is validation through RPL (recognition of prior learning). But RPL has its limits. First, RPL only works from a recognized institution (not the case with Woolf's sub-colleges). Second, it is impossible to recognize 100% of the work completed at another institution. 50% is the very rare acceptable maximum by best practice standards. RPL procedures must be separately registered at and approved by the MFHEA.

Furthermore, every single student and graduate must be reported to the MFHEA. This is important in so far as that a conferred degree can be deemed "unaccredited" by the MFHEA if Woolf's quality assurance framework is not exactly implemented and followed by their sub-college. The MFHEA is under pressure to apply highest standards on quality assurance vis-a-vis ENQA / EQAR. There are much safer options if a degree from Malta is a choice of preference...

[SteveFoerster]

The external quality assurance audit outcome of Woolf is serious. It is very rare that an institution obtains re-accreditation for only one year, with the sole purpose to eliminate a universe of conditions. Many of these conditions relate to their in-transparent network structure.

I agree.

A higher education institution under the auspices of the MFHEA has no right to "accredit" its own network schools. The only compliant path is validation through RPL (recognition of prior learning). But RPL has its limits. First, RPL only works from a recognized institution (not the case with Woolf's sub-colleges). Second, it is impossible to recognize 100% of the work completed at another institution. 50% is the very rare acceptable maximum by best practice standards. RPL procedures must be separately registered at and approved by the MFHEA.

That's not quite what Woolf says they're doing, but I suppose ultimately it only matters what MFHEA thinks.

Furthermore, every single student and graduate must be reported to the MFHEA. This is important in so far as that a conferred degree can be deemed "unaccredited" by the MFHEA if Woolf's quality assurance framework is not exactly implemented and followed by their sub-college. The MFHEA is under pressure to apply highest standards on quality assurance vis-a-vis ENQA / EQAR. There are much safer options if a degree from Malta is a choice of preference...

Woolf requires all of its constituent colleges to use its LMS/record system, presumably to comply with this. But you're right: if MFHEA isn't impressed, that doesn't matter.

[Eleanor]

---

That's not quite what Woolf says they're doing, but I suppose ultimately it only matters what MFHEA thinks.

Agreed. With "accredit" I am responding/referring to Maltus' post from Oct 18.

[artem]

Woolf requires all of its constituent colleges to use its LMS/record system, presumably to comply with this. But you're right: if MFHEA isn't impressed, that doesn't matter.

This is not true. As a current student, I can say that Neoversity uses its own LMS

---

Well I guess most legit schools would give you a certificate of enrollment for free, since you need it to claim benefits like getting an ISIC or getting a student's healthinsurance. At my distancelearining university it is free of charge each semester.
I understand that woolf is for-profit - but 60 bucks for a sheet of paper sounds like a rip-off.

You can order a paper version of the enrollment letter for free once per year. Also, digital versions of documents like transcripts, student card and other are free.

[SteveFoerster]

Woolf requires all of its constituent colleges to use its LMS/record system, presumably to comply with this. But you're right: if MFHEA isn't impressed, that doesn't matter.

This is not true. As a current student, I can say that Neoversity uses its own LMS

Are you sure it's not white labeled, with Woolf on the back end? (It's not that I don't believe you, it's just that that would be a change from what Woolf has said before.)

[artem]

Woolf requires all of its constituent colleges to use its LMS/record system, presumably to comply with this. But you're right: if MFHEA isn't impressed, that doesn't matter.

This is not true. As a current student, I can say that Neoversity uses its own LMS

Are you sure it's not white labeled, with Woolf on the back end? (It's not that I don't believe you, it's just that that would be a change from what Woolf has said before.)

No, they use their own LMS system. The same one they used before they started working with Wolf. GoIT, the owner of the Neoversity brand, provides many types of courses in addition to university programs. I have been familiar with them for a long time.

[SteveFoerster]

Fair enough. TIL.

[Tomas]

I paid little attention when founder was talking about software, only remember it being used for record keeping at very granular level (even quizz results?), and for any changes to learning materials for accreditation purposes.

Regarding validation through RPL...to me students are students of Woolf, Woolf makes admission, they study at a way too independent college but they study Woolf program effectively. And while they technically study at platform of another institution, it is effectively Woolf material and could be to some extent under Woolf management technically (eg. in terms of student progress being tracked by Woolf, which might be translated to tests done by Woolf even if displayed on another platform - though that part I am not sure about, I could have misunderstood the details or whether it is a fact or just a possibility with their software).

Woolf is making advances, but so is MFHEA in toughening whole system.
We will see in April.
(Not an excuse for them, but while they got "requires improvement" for eight standards, there was no "doesn't meet the standard" - which is what I read on reports of other institutions and believe might be a level below "requires improvement").

I am a bit worried seeing SHS Studienzentrum Hohe Warte as one of their new colleges.

[Maltus]

I paid little attention when founder was talking about software, only remember it being used for record keeping at very granular level (even quizz results?), and for any changes to learning materials for accreditation purposes.

Regarding validation through RPL...to me students are students of Woolf, Woolf makes admission, they study at a way too independent college but they study Woolf program effectively. And while they technically study at platform of another institution, it is effectively Woolf material and could be to some extent under Woolf management technically (eg. in terms of student progress being tracked by Woolf, which might be translated to tests done by Woolf even if displayed on another platform - though that part I am not sure about, I could have misunderstood the details or whether it is a fact or just a possibility with their software).

Woolf is making advances, but so is MFHEA in toughening whole system.
We will see in April.
(Not an excuse for them, but while they got "requires improvement" for eight standards, there was no "doesn't meet the standard" - which is what I read on reports of other institutions and believe might be a level below "requires improvement").

I am a bit worried seeing SHS Studienzentrum Hohe Warte as one of their new colleges.

Well on page 8 of the auditreport the auditors state, that Woolf only meets 3 of 8 standards, which implies they missed the others. What also bugs me, is that woolf in no standard seems to be above average: No best practice in any point.

What's the problem with SHS? Do you know anything concrete? I mean they are from Austria and obviously they can't make it to get the Status for Privatuniversität, which many Institutes have who offer CE-Masters (which are not in the European System and so not equal to Masters from other countries). So there might be a problem with the quality

[Tomas]

I have only quicky skimmed through couple of texts about them, universities they worked with in the past and how such cooperation went, etc. Recently Signum Magnum College (also accredited on Malta) ceased cooperation with them. Don't remember all sources but one of the main ones was https://www.fernstudium-infos.de/topic/2...utschland/


Regarding colleges - while the former post was my own thoughts, here is how founder explains it (in a webinar organized by Constructor University): colleges legally sit at Woolf's address and are sponsored by companies (like Upgrad). Sponsors get the right to propose students, faculty, curriculum, but Woolf decides. Legal details are done on case by case basis, depending on actual jurisdiction where college is active. Sponsors are then something like service management provider to the college.