财务评价方法和制度的意义.pdfVIP

INSTITUTIONAL FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT: Methodology and Meaning Hans H. Jenny, The College of Wooster, Ohio ~ = ~ = = = ~ u = - ~ = = m = ~ = ~ = ® = = = j = - ~ = - = ~ = = ~ = = = = ~ = ~ = = ~ ® R = = u = = ~ = = = = = ® ~ = ~ = m ~ 1 = = = ~ = ~ = ~ ® = = ~ = . . . ~ . = . . = = . , = = = = . . . = . . . w J I . m = . . . . . ~ . . = = . . n.= = ~ . = = . = = = = = , l ® = ~ . . = = , = = = = e M ~ ° . . ~ = = = . ~ . = = H ® This paper responds to the fourth annual report by W. John Minter and Howard R. Bowen on Independent Higher Education Financial and Educational Trends in Indepen- dent Higher Education, 1978. Primary thesis: established financial reporting does not tend to do justice to a sound assessment of the financial condition of colleges and univer- sities. Because the latter belong to the service economy, we must know more than we do about changes in quality. Such studies also must say how well institutional objectives are being achieved. College presidents and deans hove tended to provide researchers with overly optimistic information. When they later see that Bowen and Minter report this very fact, they complain that their conclusions are not gloomy enough. Such double standards damage realistic program assessment efforts. The blame fails on the respon- dents and not on the authors. Neither can the authors be blamed for shortcomings in fi- nanciai accounting ignoring the total cost of institutional activity. If accounting practice were based on a total cost concept the news about higher education finance would more ne