Want an example of how out of hand a big state higher education system can get? And the degree to which those in charge are asleep at the switch? Thus:

The University of California must act quickly to restore credibility to its president’s office and to improve the governance of the 10-campus system if it is to preserve excellence in teaching and research, according to an external audit that the university commissioned.The report, prepared by the Monitor Group, a consulting company in Massachusetts, found that: the university’s budgeting methods are inadequate; the development and approval of capital projects suffer unnecessary delays; public-relations efforts have been unable to shape public views about higher education; the government-relations office has adapted poorly to changing conditions in the state capital; some basic human-resources infrastructure is lacking; and inadequate information-management systems prevent the university from providing timely reports to constituents. (The Chronicle of Higher Education, login needed)

Among other questions, one could ask the Monitor Group just how it measured “excellence in teaching and research” – or did it assume there is much excellence to preserve? Regarding U.C.’s “inadequate budgeting methods,” it would be interesting to know if the Monitor Group assessed the governing board’s efforts at controlling costs. As for the failure of p.r. campaigns “to shape public views about higher education,” let us acknowledge this glimmer of hope that apparently all of the people can’t be fooled all of the time. And, concerning the university’s inability to get “timely reports to constituents,” who ever said that transparency – providing the public with clear, accessible, meaningful data, and in particular data that helps people to ascertain university academic and financial performance – was ever management’s goal in the first place?

Audits like this one, and audits that dig more deeply than this one, should be conducted at all public higher education institutions.