February 15, 2008: Mark Yudof, "Are University Systems a Good Idea?"

7/29/2019 February 15, 2008: Mark Yudof, "Are University Systems a Good Idea?"

1/4

Are University Systems a Good Idea? - Chronicle.com

Search The Site

More options | Back issues

Home

News

Opinion & Forums

The Chronicle Review

Commentary

Forums

Live Discussions

Careers

Multimedia

Chronicle/Gallup

Leadership Forum

Technology Forum

Resource Center

Campus Viewpoints

Services

From the issue dated February 15, 2008

Are University Systems a Good Idea?

advertisement

Article tools

Printer

friendly

E-mail

article

Subscribe

Order

reprints

Discuss any Chronicle article in our

forums

Latest Headlines

U. of California Is Expected to Name Mark

Yudof as Its President

The university's search committee

recommended on Thursday that Mr. Yudof,

chancellor of the University of Texas system,

replace Robert C. Dynes, whose term was

marred by criticism over the California

system's compensation practices.

q Mark G. Yudof: In His Own Words

Colleges Face Aid Reductions as Banks

Retreat From School-as-Lender Program

Students May Need a Grounding in

Agriculture as Much as in the Liberal Arts

A Visit Home Nudges a Security Guard Into

Philanthropy

By MARK G.

YUDOF

Life was simple

before World War

II. After that, we

had systems.

Rear Admiral

Grace MurrayHopper

Physicians and

biologists speak of"systems biology"

and engineers of"systemsengineering." Theidea is integration.If you manipulate apatient's potassiumlevel, you had

better worry aboutthe impact on other

organs and bodilyfunctions. If youwant a morepowerful heater inyour car, you

should think aboutthe whole electrical system.

In higher education, the term obfuscates as much as it enlightens. There are many different types of collegeand university systems in our country sometimes even within the same state. The system-level office ofacademic affairs in California, for example, plays a greater role in faculty appointments, promotions, andcompensation than that office does in other systems. Some systems centralize legal services, facilities

construction, and budget preparation, while others do not. Meanwhile, research on the subject is anemic,largely consisting of factoids organized by state. Few, if any, studies have evaluated whether our systems asthey operate today are actually a good idea.

Subscribe Day pass

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v54/i23/23a03701.htm (1 of 4)3/22/2008 2:21:59 PM

Go
http://chronicle.com/searchhttp://chronicle.com/archivehttp://chronicle.com/http://chronicle.com/http://chronicle.com/review/http://chronicle.com/review/http://chronicle.com/commentary/http://chronicle.com/forums/http://chronicle.com/live/http://chronicle.com/jobs/http://chronicle.com/multimedia/?navhttp://chroniclegallup.com/http://chronicle.com/leadershipforum/http://chronicle.com/technologyforum/http://chronicle.com/resourcecenter/http://chronicle.com/campusviewpoints/http://chronicle.com/help/http://chronicle.com/cgi2-bin/printable.cgi?article=http://chronicle.com/weekly/v54/i23/23a03701.htmhttp://chronicle.com/cgi2-bin/printable.cgi?article=http://chronicle.com/weekly/v54/i23/23a03701.htmhttp://chronicle.com/emailer.php?article=http://chronicle.com/weekly/v54/i23/23a03701.htmhttp://chronicle.com/emailer.php?article=http://chronicle.com/weekly/v54/i23/23a03701.htmhttp://chronicle.com/subscribe/?src=A71LAChttp://chronicle.com/help/copyright.htmhttp://chronicle.com/help/copyright.htmhttp://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/board,39.0.htmlhttp://chronicle.com/daily/2008/03/2207n.htmhttp://chronicle.com/daily/2008/03/2207n.htmhttp://chronicle.com/daily/2008/03/2206n.htmhttp://chronicle.com/daily/2008/03/2204n.htmhttp://chronicle.com/daily/2008/03/2204n.htmhttp://chronicle.com/daily/2008/03/2198n.htmhttp://chronicle.com/daily/2008/03/2198n.htmhttp://chronicle.com/weekly/v54/i28/28a00801.htmhttp://chronicle.com/weekly/v54/i28/28a00801.htmhttp://chronicle.com/subscribe/?src=A81LAQhttp://chronicle.com/services/daypass/?urrhttp://chronicle.com/services/daypass/?urrhttp://chronicle.com/subscribe/?src=A81LAQhttp://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/opinion.che/;sz=160x600;num=99996?http://chronicle.com/weekly/v54/i28/28a00801.htmhttp://chronicle.com/weekly/v54/i28/28a00801.htmhttp://chronicle.com/daily/2008/03/2198n.htmhttp://chronicle.com/daily/2008/03/2198n.htmhttp://chronicle.com/daily/2008/03/2204n.htmhttp://chronicle.com/daily/2008/03/2204n.htmhttp://chronicle.com/daily/2008/03/2206n.htmhttp://chronicle.com/daily/2008/03/2207n.htmhttp://chronicle.com/daily/2008/03/2207n.htmhttp://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/board,39.0.htmlhttp://chronicle.com/forums/http://chronicle.com/help/copyright.htmhttp://chronicle.com/help/copyright.htmhttp://chronicle.com/help/copyright.htmhttp://chronicle.com/subscribe/?src=A71LAChttp://chronicle.com/subscribe/?src=A71LAChttp://chronicle.com/emailer.php?article=http://chronicle.com/weekly/v54/i23/23a03701.htmhttp://chronicle.com/emailer.php?article=http://chronicle.com/weekly/v54/i23/23a03701.htmhttp://chronicle.com/emailer.php?article=http://chronicle.com/weekly/v54/i23/23a03701.htmhttp://chronicle.com/cgi2-bin/printable.cgi?article=http://chronicle.com/weekly/v54/i23/23a03701.htmhttp://chronicle.com/cgi2-bin/printable.cgi?article=http://chronicle.com/weekly/v54/i23/23a03701.htmhttp://chronicle.com/cgi2-bin/printable.cgi?article=http://chronicle.com/weekly/v54/i23/23a03701.htmhttp://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/opinion.che/;sz=250x250;num=11117?http://chronicle.com/commentary/http://chronicle.com/http://chronicle.com/help/http://chronicle.com/campusviewpoints/http://chronicle.com/resourcecenter/http://chronicle.com/technologyforum/http://chronicle.com/leadershipforum/http://chroniclegallup.com/http://chronicle.com/multimedia/?navhttp://chronicle.com/jobs/http://chronicle.com/live/http://chronicle.com/forums/http://chronicle.com/commentary/http://chronicle.com/review/http://chronicle.com/review/http://chronicle.com/http://chronicle.com/http://chronicle.com/archivehttp://chronicle.com/searchhttp://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/opinion.che/;sz=120x90;ptile=1;num=22348?


2/4


Help

Contact us

Subscribe

Day pass

Manage your account

Advertise with us

Rights & permissions

Employment opportunities

We know that higher-education systems are phenomena of roughly the last 50 years. There were state boardsof regents as early as the 18th century and branch campuses of state universities by the late 19th century, butthe idea of a "rational system" for higher education emerged after World War I. Frustrated state policy makersthought that public universities were not taking advantage of coordinated planning opportunities and

economies of scale, and that they spoke to legislators with too many voices. After World War II, themovement toward organized systems gained further momentum as states established campuses in underservedareas to meet the growing demand for higher education.

The turning point was the creation of the 1960 Master Plan for Higher Education in California, with its tieringof graduate, undergraduate, and community-college educational opportunities. Following the success of theUniversity of California, a movement toward systems washed across the country. Every legislator and chamberof commerce leader, so it seemed, wanted to create a Berkeley in his backyard. Sometimes campuses were

planned and created to populate the system. At other times, as in my home state of Texas, pre-existinginstitutions were cobbled together with new campuses to create systems that were more a result ofhappenstance and politics than the orderly integration of complementary institutions.

Part of the effort involved what has become known as "branding." Bringing institutions into the fold identifiedthem with flagship universities that had built splendid reputations. Systems were also supposed to helpcolleges share resources and increase coordination. In addition, they had the potential to improve quality

across a range of institutions and to strengthen political support.

In some cases, the systems resulted in better-coordinated degree programs and improved educationalstandards. But usually California was emulated in form, not substance. For example, California gave its centralsystem office extensive authority over facilities, faculty hiring and promotion, budgets, and more. Many otherstates adopted similar structures but continued the old patterns, such as making appropriations directly toindividual campuses and decentralizing decision making.

What's more, the food fight over legislative appropriations and other scarce resources did not disappear. Theflagships felt threatened by the wannabes and their advocates. The up-and-coming institutions complained thatthey were not securing the resources to catch up. Rather than generating more political support, the addition ofnew campuses often amplified local and regional conflicts.

Indeed, in the rush to create new systems, legislatures had often not sufficiently grappled with criticalquestions: Is a campus better off standing alone or as part of a network? Are system bureaucracies just onemore impediment to progress, or can they be beneficial? Which businesses, if you will, should systems be in,

and which should they abandon?

The fundamental question is the one that I asked myself in 2003 after I became chancellor of the University ofTexas system: Can the operations of a system truly add value to the work of the campuses? I have found thatthe answer lies in three related propositions:

1. Systems usually contribute more to emerging institutions than they do to flagships. System people areno smarter or more experienced than those at the campuses, and usually there are fewer of them. They are also

farther from the campuses and less knowledgeable about local circumstances. That said, flagship institutionsgenerally have the knowledge and capacity to make and carry out most of their own decisions, as approved bytheir boards. In contrast, emerging institutions often lack the personnel, programs, and experience of the

flagships and may look to the system for assistance on academic-program development, fund raising, capitalplanning, and other matters.

http://chronicle.com/help/?navhttp://chronicle.com/contact/?navhttp://chronicle.com/subscribe/?src=A71LABhttp://chronicle.com/services/daypass/?navhttp://chronicle.com/services/?navhttp://chronicle.com/advertising/?navhttp://chronicle.com/help/copyright.htmhttp://chronicle.com/help/employment/http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/opinion.che/;sz=120x90;ptile=1;num=22348?http://chronicle.com/help/employment/http://chronicle.com/help/copyright.htmhttp://chronicle.com/advertising/?navhttp://chronicle.com/services/?navhttp://chronicle.com/services/daypass/?navhttp://chronicle.com/subscribe/?src=A71LABhttp://chronicle.com/contact/?navhttp://chronicle.com/help/?nav


3/4


One caveat: Everyone, or nearly everyone, has a boss. Legislatures, subject to the limits of their stateconstitutions, have broad authority over higher-education policies, as do governing boards. All publicuniversities should follow those policies, whether related to academic programs or not even if people on thecampuses think they are misguided. System administrators may be chosen to compel compliance with suchpolicies, irrespective of each campus's administrative capabilities. They might be required, for example, to

monitor and set targets to improve graduation rates a matter of considerable concern to governing boardsand elected leaders.

2. A system's role should expand when it comes to broad organizational issues that concern the entire

enterprise. While system officials should usually leave teaching and scholarship to each institution, even the

most mature and capable campuses can sometimes benefit from support in certain management areas. Forexample, a robust accountability system, overseen from the center, is part and parcel of an efficientadministration. Similarly, a system may be better positioned, as an entity external to the campus, to investigate

allegations of impropriety, like the recent student-loan controversies involving inappropriate relationshipsbetween financial-aid offices and lenders.

Systems can also act as honest brokers, encouraging cooperation and collaboration among their campuses. Leftto its own inclination, each campus would have its own computer backup facility. It would order all of itssupplies. It would have its own technology-transfer office. Significant economies of scale can be found inseveral areas, like sharing electronic library databases or using uniform definitions of accounts and other

common standards to assess financial performance.

In our system, for example, three campuses share a technology-transfer office; a group of universities hasadopted one software system for tracking registration, financial aid, and other student matters; and ouracademic-health campuses jointly purchase equipment and supplies. We project those steps will save $250-million over the next decade.

A university system can also invest in certain priorities and measure the impact of those investments. Besidesour accountability system, we require each campus to assess and compare student learning. In recent years, we

have also allocated $100-million for faculty start-up packages, primarily for equipment and facilitiesrenovations to our campuses, as a means of attracting and retaining outstanding professors and a way togauge how well each institution is doing so.

The system can also speak as one voice to gain support among legislators, other policy makers, and the public.

In Texas we produced a privately financed 13-part series that aired on public television, depicting how publicuniversities help solve critical social, economic, environmental, and health problems.

3. A system that adds value will differentiate its services among institutions. Although multicampuscollaborations can provide substantial savings, complete centralization would backfire especially in ahighly heterogeneous system of many campuses with various missions and resources. What is helpful toemerging campuses is often more of a hindrance to established, first-tier universities and medical centers. Onesize does not fit all.

Fund-raising operations, for example, are as highly differentiated as the campuses themselves. Some are in

need of significant consulting services. Campuses take advantage of system services in areas such asreorganizing their personnel and operations to build a stronger capacity for fund raising, recruiting

development professionals, and handling other basic growth areas. Such services are in high demand bysmaller and midsize campuses. Larger campuses with mature operations prefer to have assistance inprofessional-development opportunities, financial support, the loosening of traditional policy restrictions, and



4/4


other areas that will allow them to become more nimble and innovative in their approaches to secure moredonations. The system's focus should be on providing genuine help and not adding cost and complexity.

The promise that higher-education systems would completely resolve the messy interplay among colleges, andbetween them and political leaders, has largely gone unfulfilled. But systems can be useful if system andcampus leaders, and their governing boards, are willing to allocate authority in ways that add value to carefully

delineated activities. Perhaps Larry Faulkner, a former president of the University of Texas at Austin put itbest: System administrators should recognize that a system office is not a university, and campus presidentsshould recognize that theirs is not the only college in the system.

Mark G. Yudof is chancellor of the University of Texas system.

http://chronicle.comSection: CommentaryVolume 54, Issue 23, Page A37

Copyright 2008 by The Chronicle of Higher Education | Contact us

User agreement | Privacy policy | About The Chronicle | Site map | Help

Subscribe | Advertise with us | Press inquiries | RSS | Today's most e-mailed

Home | Chronicle Careers | The Chronicle Review

http://chronicle.com/help/copyright.htmhttp://chronicle.com/http://chronicle.com/contact/?foothttp://chronicle.com/help/useragreement.htmhttp://chronicle.com/help/privacy.htmhttp://chronicle.com/help/about.htmhttp://chronicle.com/search/guide/http://chronicle.com/help/?foothttp://chronicle.com/subscribe/?src=A71LADhttp://chronicle.com/advertising/?foothttp://chronicle.com/press/http://chronicle.com/help/rss.htmhttp://chronicle.com/news/topemailed.htmhttp://chronicle.com/http://chronicle.com/jobs/http://chronicle.com/review/http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/opinion.che/;sz=728x90;ptile=2;num=22348?http://chronicle.com/review/http://chronicle.com/jobs/http://chronicle.com/http://chronicle.com/news/topemailed.htmhttp://chronicle.com/help/rss.htmhttp://chronicle.com/press/http://chronicle.com/advertising/?foothttp://chronicle.com/subscribe/?src=A71LADhttp://chronicle.com/help/?foothttp://chronicle.com/search/guide/http://chronicle.com/help/about.htmhttp://chronicle.com/help/privacy.htmhttp://chronicle.com/help/useragreement.htmhttp://chronicle.com/contact/?foothttp://chronicle.com/http://chronicle.com/help/copyright.htm

Documents

February 15, 2008: Mark Yudof, "Are University Systems a Good Idea?"