Despite strong market signals that they will continue to fail financially and/or fall short of achieving their missions, few U.S. universities have tried grading reform as a means of attracting more or better students. Structural barriersrooted in misaligned incentives stymie institution-wide reforms, while maverick professors often run afoul of students who prefer the relative ease of multiple choice and other memorization-based tests. The existence of top-down and bottom-up impediments at existing universities suggests that new higher-ed entrants, such as the University of Austin (Texas) and Reliance College (Chicago), will form the bulk of the vanguard of much-needed academic reform.
University presidents now stay on the job an average of just 5.7 years. Deans last on average only about five years and Provosts but three. The general strategy appears to be to quickly make superficial changes to secure a higher post at a higher-paying school, or to transition into a lucrative consulting gig or cushy faculty appointment in a professional school before retirement. Like Wall Street execs trying to juke quarterly numbers, university leaders prefer shallow reforms with catchy titles likely to appeal to relatively uninformed stakeholders.
University leaders prefer shallow reforms with catchy titles likely to appeal to relatively uninformed stakeholders.
