Are we using the same definition for the word "universities"? Maybe it's because I've worked for non-profits... but BUDGET?!? for a WEBSITE??!? BWAHAAHAAHAAA oh man, you slay me.
In my experience if a college has a website it's because the students who are still learning how to do things are the ones maintaining it... that or they've not updated their codebase in a decade or so.
It's certainly NOT the IT staff maintaining it -- they've usually got their hands full trying to keep up with student requests and keeping the college LAN/WAN up and running...
It's sure as shine not the educators handling it, though maybe it is... But to put that in perspective I'm used to thinking of colleges where their idea of teaching students how to make websites involves making them slaves worshipping at the throne of Adobe, vomiting up websites using every sleazeball WYSIWYG on the planet; Case in point up until last year the introductory course at the local State college here taught people how to use FRONTPAGE!
College websites are as a rule some of the worst on the planet - I've NEVER seen one that was worth a damn in terms of code, efficiency, design, OR accessibility.
Case in point, let's pull up "Keene State College" -- aka Kegger U which is just a quarter mile down the road from me.
Before even opening it up we have fixed metric fonts, fixed width layout, images for text, menus that are broken when scripting is disabled, color contrasts below accessibility minimums, shall I go on?
Peek under the hood, and HOLY MOTHER OF... Look Ma, FRAMESETS!!! What is this, 1997?
Of course you pop it open and... what the, there's only one ACTUAL content frame -- so what the devil is it USING framesets for?!? Answer? They're using FRAMES to center the content... WOW, that's dumbest thing I've ever seen.
Oh, but it gets better, open up the actual page begin served:
and we have a comment before the doctype so IE is in quirks mode, uppercase tags indicating it's just HTML 3.2 with a modern doctype slapped on it. Tables for layout, presentational images in the markup, presentational markup (probably why it has the tranny doctype), spacer .gif's, classes on meaningless tags instead of heading tags, non-breaking spaces for nothing, invalid forms that do not meet up to accessibility requirements (apparently never heard of FIELDSET, LEGEND and LABEL), imagemaps, and a dozen other decade plus out of date idiocy mixed with total ineptitude.
But that is Kegger-U... let's try someplace that really SHOULD be up to norms -- MIT.
Before opening it up -- fixed height layout, fixed width layout,fixed metric fonts, colors that don't meet accessibility norms due to an annoying transparency... Hmm, sounds familiar.
Tranny doctype -- so automatically decade out of date coding techniques. Header div for nothing, DIV for what should be SMALL inside the h1, form that lacks proper form elements, DIV around the form for nothing, DIV around the menus for nothing, classes on every LI for no good reason, heading tags on non-heading elements, vertical-break characters doing border's job, comment placement that explains why the content doesn't even show up in IE6, paragraphs around non-paragraph elements,
So the code is bloated trash... but more importantly even MIT is a miserable /FAIL/ at accessibility.
In fact, google "technical school" and open up the entire first PAGE of sites. They are ALL built with a "WCAG, what's that?" attitude.
... and people wonder why I think a college degree in IT is worth less than a sheet of bog roll. You'd think we were talking about a field where 3 years is obsolete and five years is the scrap heap -- in which case what the devil good is a four year program?
Much less I've never actually met a career educator who was actually qualified to actually be teaching others ANY computer related subject... and School websites are a surefire indicator of that. Most of them couldn't code their way out of a piss soaked paper bag with a hole in the bottom.