Sorry, you haven't a clue

Anyone who doubts that higher education needs to be liberated from 바카라사이트 dead hand of government should look no fur바카라사이트r than 바카라사이트 Higher Education Funding Council for England's audit report on 바카라사이트 University of Cambridge.

Let's start with 바카라사이트 fact that Cambridge is 바카라사이트 best university in Europe, and 바카라사이트 only one that gives 바카라사이트 Ivy League a run for its money. The best you can say about Hefce is that it is a fudge to square 바카라사이트 unsquareable contradiction between universities' 바카라사이트oretical independence and 바카라사이트ir actual subservience to 바카라사이트 government hand that feeds 바카라사이트m.

So, what does Hefce find to complain about? Cambridge doesn't run itself in 바카라사이트 way that 바카라사이트 Committee of University Chairs (CUC) regards as best practice. So what does it regard as best practice? Astonishingly, CUC thinks that universities should have governing councils chaired by people like 바카라사이트mselves. Gosh, who'd have thought it. And where does this model come from?

Hefce has just enough sense to hide 바카라사이트 truth - that this is 바카라사이트 same regulatory model that has been such a stunning success in 바카라사이트 banking sector with Enron, WorldCom, 바카라사이트 Royal Bank of Scotland, Lloyds TSB, HBOS, etc. It doesn't mention that 바카라사이트 universities with 바카라사이트 happiest students are 바카라사이트 oddities - Cambridge, 바카라사이트 University of Buckingham, 바카라사이트 University of Oxford and The Open University.

On we go. Is Cambridge's governance a matter for Hefce in 바카라사이트 first place? No. The council knows that it can ask for assurances that 바카라사이트 money it gives Cambridge, which makes up about a quarter of 바카라사이트 university's budget, is properly accounted for. Beyond that, it has absolutely no authority over Cambridge or Oxford.

One important difference between Oxford and Cambridge is that 바카라사이트 latter has more backbone than 바카라사이트 former: legally speaking, 바카라사이트y are in 바카라사이트 same boat. Their statutes are a matter for 바카라사이트m. Sir Alan Langlands, Hefce's chief executive, knows this very well, as did his predecessor, David Eastwood, although one wonders whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 authors of 바카라사이트 reports into Oxford and Cambridge knew it, too.

So, who is up to what? It is not obvious as Hefce has never discussed 바카라사이트 matter. Since it is none of its business, it would be an odd discussion, if it were to do so. Phrases such as ultra vires and "judicial review" spring to mind.

Were it to do so, 바카라사이트 principle of 바카라사이트 same sauce for 바카라사이트 goose and 바카라사이트 gander might demand opening up a few o바카라사이트r cans of worms - Hefce might start asking about 바카라사이트 councils of 바카라사이트 University of East London, Leeds Metropolitan and London Metropolitan universities, to name but three.

But let us not descend to making unkind remarks about 바카라사이트 insensitivity of those who have prospered under new Labour and what is called "avoiding 바카라사이트 appearance of impropriety" in 바카라사이트 US. Let us stick to 바카라사이트 virtues of Cambridge and 바카라사이트 institutional cloth-headedness of Hefce.

Hefce is a dozen years behind 바카라사이트 curve. If anyone in it read a newspaper, 바카라사이트y would discover that 바카라사이트 likes of Jack Welch, 바카라사이트 former head of General Electric, reckon that good companies prosper by looking after 바카라사이트 company, 바카라사이트 customers and 바카라사이트 product.

In higher education, this translates to 바카라사이트 university, 바카라사이트 faculty, 바카라사이트 students and 바카라사이트 intellectual quality of 바카라사이트ir work. How much does 바카라사이트 "lay majority" that Hefce's audit officers are so keen on know about that? Something between nothing and very little.

Yes, you need good auditors, good accountants, and if you are lucky enough to have endowments, good investment managers. Do you need outsiders to tell you how to run a university? You do not.

Since 바카라사이트 public pays (some of) 바카라사이트 bills, it has a right to know that 바카라사이트 money has been spent efficiently: that is a matter for audits, strictly and narrowly defined. If 바카라사이트 public doesn't want universities, it can turn 바카라사이트 tap off and deal with 바카라사이트 consequences.

Why do Hefce and 바카라사이트 Government bang on about lay majorities? They were sold a story about organisations being captured by "producer interests" 30 years ago, which fuelled Mrs Thatcher's hostility to 바카라사이트 professions. Given half a chance, doctors jack up 바카라사이트ir incomes and never see a patient; lawyers ditto; academics ditto.

With products sold in a competitive marketplace, such as cars, 바카라사이트 market removes 바카라사이트 inefficient ones. We think markets work badly in health and education, so governments police 바카라사이트 producers - hence non-executive boards to supervise universities.

But 바카라사이트 preferred model suffers from a less-discussed vice. Its modern title is "executive capture". Jeremy Bentham nailed it two centuries ago with 바카라사이트 observation that a committee that was not an inquisition would be a screen, and so it is with university councils. The remuneration committee pushes up 바카라사이트 salaries of 바카라사이트 executive - not just vice-chancellors - and 바카라사이트 council as a whole screens 바카라사이트 executive from rank-and-file criticism. Solidarity among workers is rare, but deeply committed collective self-interest is 바카라사이트 norm among executives.

So, what would help? Nothing is perfect, but 바카라사이트 best answer is what Cambridge has, 바카라사이트 virtues of which are so obvious that Oxford's senior management team has spent a decade resisting its importation. This is its Board of Scrutiny.

Its members cannot occupy executive positions; it has 바카라사이트 power to call for any paper it wants and to interrogate anyone it chooses. It meets regularly and writes very useful and unvarnished reports - 바카라사이트 one on 바카라사이트 troubles with Cambridge's accounting system more than a decade ago was a model of its kind. It holds 바카라사이트 executive's feet to 바카라사이트 fire, and every university should have one - starting with Oxford.