To prevent fraud, we should conduct academic performance audits

Drip … drip … drip. Again there are newspaper stories about fraudulent behavior in American higher education.

There have been indictments — with perhaps more to come — concerning families that have bribed college officials to accept family members. Recently, U.S. News & World Report removed Oklahoma University from this year’s rankings of colleges and universities because the school had overstated alumni participation in donations — one of the performance measures that determines a school’s ranking. And just the other day, a high school was exposed for fabricating student applications, inflating grades and inventing activities in order to make their students more attractive to elite colleges and universities.

Each of these nefarious acts is not a new development. According to my research of newspaper reports, the Oklahoma University case is the 23rd such instance of falsified data since 2008 that has involved overstatement of such indicators as the number and quality of applicants, the selectivity of the admissions process, the job success of graduates and the donations by alumni.

While the schools found to have acted dishonestly may suffer a reputational loss, there is really a larger issue involved: Each instance of misbehavior casts suspicions on non-offending schools and works to undermine public confidence in our institutions of higher learning.

How much responsibility rests with the colleges and universities, or should all the blame be placed on wrongdoing individuals or employees? Typically, when cheating is discovered, the school, at the direction of its trustees and senior administrators, will turn to an outside law firm to investigate the matter and to recommend corrective actions. This, in my opinion, is management after the fact. I wonder how many university presidents of schools not mentioned in the recent bribery scandal reacted to those instances

by ordering a reexamination of the relationship between the admissions, fundraising, and athletic departments — the organizational units that played a role in the bribery cases.

There is another approach. It requires that a school act to minimize the potential for improper behavior. I propose that colleges and universities begin using what I have called an academic performance audit. Conducted by an outside organization accustomed to performing audits, the academic performance audit would stand alongside the financial audit now required of these organizations as a testament to the school’s adherence to good management practices.

Auditors would review the procedures being used to collect, aggregate and publish information from internal units on key performance indicators. An auditor’s report documenting that the released information is complete and accurate and academic decisions are being based upon established criteria could give confidence to all stakeholders, most notably parents, perspective students, alumni and others thinking of donating money; bond holders; accrediting bodies; ranking organizations; boards of trustees and others.

Moreover, a reasonable fear that an auditor might actually review original files or data entries would mitigate the incentive for university officials at any level to falsify information or act inappropriately.

Some might claim that such an audit is yet another cost and activity imposed on higher education. It’s hard to disagree. But the cost in dollars and time should be seen against the benefits a performance audit would bring to a school and to higher education overall.