University of Missouri system President Gary Forsee (AP Photo/Kelley McCall)

In late January, this page recommended that the University of Missouri system “subject itself to a broad, independent performance audit without delay.”

The editorial proposed that “everything should be on the table: how the system is organized administratively and academically; how to measure the productivity of faculty and administrators; strategies for eliminating wasteful duplication of programs and services and controlling the growth of personnel and other operating costs.”

It argued that “outside auditors could help break through institutional inertia” by conducting “a review in which nothing is held sacred except the principle that Missouri students should have access to a high-quality, affordable education.”

Maybe it’s a sign of the end days, but two weeks later, university President Gary D. Forsee responded to the challenge with two words: “Game on.”

Mr. Forsee told his board of curators that he wants the audit to be completed by December. He says Missouri’s public universities, including the four campuses of the University of Missouri system, have a head start, pointing to a strategic planning outline published in October.

Indeed, the strategic plan sets forth dozens of logical ways of measuring progress in areas such as student diversity and achievement, scientific research and discovery, faculty development and productivity, economic development and serving local communities.

But the key to the initiative will be whether it reaches Missouri parents struggling to send their children to college.

Leaders of Missouri’s public university system have limited influence over fickle lawmakers who have failed to provide adequate, predictable funding. But they have broad discretion over how the system is organized and staffed, what programs are offered at various campuses and what facilities each maintains.

The audit must answer the question of what factors are driving the increased costs of a basic college education. In the last two decades, those costs have increased even faster than health care costs. What controls can be put in place to help manage costs while still providing a quality education?

Mr. Forsee, a former CEO of Sprint Nextel, says that, after a year on the job, he has been impressed with systems Missouri’s public universities already have in place for measuring and promoting efficiency.
He specifically points to how new programs are subjected to repeated evaluations over five years to see whether they are meeting specific “business case expectations” that measure whether the results of an initiative justify the expense.

He also cautions that “costs” of each program must be evaluated against the benefit each brings. Benefits don’t have to be financial; they can be in areas such as increased prestige and new opportunities for students, faculty and staff. One example: Investing in research and development programs.

One of Mr. Forsee’s primary focuses will be shaping programs and curricula — and collaboration between university disciplines — to meet the needs of Missouri’s most dynamic employers. Just as students must be “college ready” when they first enroll, they need to be “employer ready” when they leave, he said.

These are all good points. They reflect the complexities Mr. Forsee must harmonize as the head of a university system with many moving parts. A university cannot be a glorified trade school. It must provide a whole education, imparting great ideas and training minds for critical thinking. It must be a place where scholars can do great research.

But the system will not thrive, and might not survive, if it fails to offer a basic, quality college education that Missouri families can afford.