One of the things you learn in the "real world" (i.e, away from airy-fairy university), is that if noone is held accountable, then everyone will do what they want. This applies to lecturers at universities moreso than the general public.
Why do I say this? Well, coming from the ACT's college system (which, in my opinion has one of the best methods of grading people I've ever seen), into uni is a shock. No scaling, no standardisation, and the lecturer's word is final. For those of you not from Canberra, I'll give you a quick run-over how it works.
You do your units, and are marked on them, by your teacher. Everyone doing that unit then does a standardising test, and marks are scaled according to that appropriately. If the test is hard, then everyone does bad, and the marks are scaled up. If the test is easy, then (most) people do well, and the marks are scaled down.
In year 12, you then sit a scaling test, which everyone at an ACT college sits. Your entire school's marks are scaled according to this. I believe they also use some input in the equation from last year, so that the scores this year correlate somewhat to the scores last year.
How is this different from uni? In uni, you sit an exam for every unit. Sometimes the exam is even worth 100%. The exam can be set as hard as the lecturer likes. If you don't score between 45-50, you fail. Even if everyone does bad, it doesn't matter (take AI for example).
How does this relate to accountability? Well, lecturers are free to do as they please, and aren't held accountable.
I'll take COMP2310 for example. A lot of people fail COMP2310. It's a combination of difficult course content, poor lecturers, poor tutors, and a killer final exam that's worth 70%.
Even though this course has such a high fail rate, and likely receives extremely poor CEDAM feedback, nothing is done. Lecturer's don't get fired because they get bad CEDAM feedback. I doubt they even get a rap over the knuckles. And because the lecturers know there's no consequences for bad feedback and a high fail rate, they have no incentive to improve.
One of our lecturers, Lynette, is constantly asking "what's the value-add?" I ask this question at uni all the time. Why the hell am I here? I did AI because I thought I'd get valuable insight out of it. Instead they straggled together the worst researchers they could find with content that's half-related to the unit. What's the value-add? Half the time was spent on logic bullshit that I'll never use ever again in my entire life. I did COMP3620 because I wanted to learn about Artificial Intelligence (read: NEURAL FUCKING NETWORKS), not first-order logic, situation calculus, Prolog and probability theory. I hate researchers and academics. Fucking morons. You are regarded by how many useless research papers you publish. You can't even make teleportation work. The real innovations happen during wartime.