Recently, the Associated Students of Madison used segregated fees from the Internal Travel budget to send four UW-Madison students to Washington D.C. for the United States Student Association’s (USSA) Annual Legislative Conference.  The foci of the conference were student loan debt and student voter access.  Wisconsin students are extremely familiar with these issues.  Graduates from the state rank above the national average with student loan debt at $27,000.  Students throughout the UW system have worked diligently to ensure student access to the polls in the face of restrictive Voter ID laws (though that may have been taken care of).

To address the threat of doubling student loan interest rates this summer, never-ending tuition increases, and a student loan default rate of 20%, the USSA conference included workshops, trainings, strategy sessions, and direct actions. Conference programming covered the TRIO, SEOG & Pell grants, HR 4170 (the Student Loan Forgiveness Act), and the 2012 Get Out the Vote campaigns to name a few.

Back home in Wisconsin, the Associated Students of Madison recently participated in a Lobby Day organized by United Council at our state capitol on February 6^th to lobby for increased financial aid funding for the Wisconsin Higher Education Grant, and adherence to shared governance through the Task Force on UW Restructuring decisions.  We took to the state capital because we knew that if we didn’t, legislators would make decisions without us—decisions that affect our families, our wallets, and us.

Decision-making without proper information or experience—the kind that takes place daily in the state legislature—also occurs in the halls of Congress. While a number of influential non-student voices advocate for increased tuition in our state capitol in Madison, Wisconsin, thousands more lobby for the same issues in our nation’s capitol in Washington D.C. And they are much more per$ua$ive.

I agree with those who say that we are not doing enough on the local level, and that a reinvestment of our time and energy in our own state and in our communities is long overdue.    However, we must also be pragmatic about the forces that are against us.  To clarify, when I say “us,” I mean students, in Wisconsin and across the country, and our families, who are paying too much for a college education that we hope and expect will get us a job in this economy.  Whether or not our education prepares us for that job is another story.

Those who are successful at legitimizing issues do so through lobbying, media, grassroots organizing efforts, and money.   For example, Sallie Mae spent over $3 million on lobbying in 2011. One way that groups with more energy than money can bring attention to the student loan bubble is through direct action and civil disobedience on the national stage.  These actions build the pressure and attention necessary to publicize the issues. We must also continue lobbying efforts at home, creating K-12 community programs to ensure students have the educational resources they need to financially prepare for college, and holding Financial Resource Fairs on campus to educate our peers.

If we accept that the money students pay is money that can be used to serve the greater interests of the students, then it’s perfectly legitimate to use those funds to bring attention to the issues that most affect students, such as the debt load. Without the large resources of lobbying firms and big corporations, the most judicious use of student monies is to fund actions that garner the most publicity and have the highest impact at home and in Washington.

There are too many myths about students and our college experiences that are being presented to our decision-makers.  I have heard all too many times that college students don’t work hard enough, and that all we do is party on Spring Break.  We cannot let this be the prevailing rhetoric, nor can we allow these misinformed anecdotes to form the opinions of our decision-makers or our nation. Instead, let’s tell them that 300 of us from Florida, Michigan, Virginia, California, Massachusetts, Oregon, Washington, New Jersey, Colorado, and Wisconsin gathered during Spring Break at our nation’s capital because student loan debt has exceeded 1 trillion dollars.

We’re fired up, and we won’t take it anymore.

Allie Gardner
Chair of Associated Students of Madison

For decades, the price of higher education has been rising at colleges and universities nationwide, and relatively few students and families have done so much as sniff.  While occasional concerns about affordability have been expressed, that message has been quite soft when compared to the loud statement uttered by the millions who walk onto college campuses every year, despite rising tuition and fees.  In other words, actions speak louder than words.  Colleges and universities are able to say: if we are truly charging more than you want to pay, why do you keep buying it?

Times are changing, as some students are informing themselves about why college costs so much– and where the money is actually spent. Some are aware that part of the costs are offloaded onto students in the form of student fees, fees which in many places students have no choice but to pay, and have no control over.

UW-Madison is a bit unusual– it has segregated fees, but it also has a renowned shared governance structure which gives students strong input into how those fees are spent.  This is a model that has helped shape the character of the institution and is among its finest attributes.

Unfortunately, a challenge to shared governance may be upon us.  Recently, the Student Services Finances Committee of the Associated Students of Madison voted to reject a request to increase spending of the Wisconsin Union and Recreational Sports.  Before approving the request, the SSFC wanted more information about how those funds would be spent.  In other words, students demanded transparency and accountability, beyond the high-level look at spending they are typically provided.  Absent that information, they declined the request.

On Tuesday, Interim Chancellor David Ward, a chancellor who has been demonstrably sensitive to issues of affordability and the cost-effective use of resources, overruled that veto.  I admit, I have not spoken to Ward to ascertain his reasons. But whether I would agree or disagree with his reasons are beside the point, which is fundamentally about process.  Shared governance leans heavily on adherence to process — it is time-consuming but is essentially what the concept is all about. And according to the written process, Ward was to consult with SSFC before overruling their decision — according to both Sarah Neibart (head of SSFC) and Allie Gardner (head of ASM) he did not.

Given a climate in which faculty, staff, and students have good reason to be concerned about allocation of scarce resources (since every day many of us observe it being allocated in inequitable and ineffective ways), and given the generally low morale due to stagnant and declining compensation, it is more important than ever to preserve the aspects of this university which make it special to its constituents. Shared governance is exactly that. Strong protection of shared governance is an inexpensive way to keeping the University’s laborers integrated, involved, and effective. It is essential.

A positive result of this action would be a renewed discussion about the types of reporting that students, faculty, and staff can expect to receive from the administration regarding the allocation of monies generated from tuition dollars. Rigorous assessment of the impacts (the delta) resulting from spending (not the outcomes), can help move this institution through hard times– and we should all be supportive of that.

This is what I and several other students heard as we sat in the spectator gallery of a state Capitol hearing room. We were floored by the disconnect from reality that Mohs displayed. What’s worse is that it was not an isolated incident. It accurately reflects the task force’s primary mode of action: charting a course via anecdote.

As college students, we’ve been trained to back up our arguments so we waited to hear the statistics, data and research that members of the task force would use to argue for major changes in state law, not the least concerning of which is the flexibility to increase tuition, which threatens access to a college degree for all Wisconsinites.

Unfortunately, I cannot relay any statistics, data or research presented by the members. None was provided. However, at least 10 different anecdotes were given by task force members that day. Who do these anecdotes come from? Where did Mohs get his ideas of what students are like these days? They’re not from any study I’ve seen.

The studies I have seen show that more than three-quarters of students say they can’t afford to go to school without working. Another study documents how students paying their way through school would need to work 70 hours a week just to make ends meet.

At UW-Madison, Wisconsinites are paying tuition that has doubled since 2001. The average amount of debt that students graduate with has increased by 30% in the past decade. The average master’s student in 2010 graduated with nearly $40,000 in debt.

Administrators argue that increasing tuition is the only means to deal with severe state budget cuts that threaten the quality of education. They claim that increasing tuition will allow for increased financial aid, but even as financial aid has gone up, student debt has continued to skyrocket and middle-class families have been cut out of the university. Graduation rates and retention rates continue to be average. Increasing tuition, especially at a time when families can’t afford to pay more, will result in sticker shock that keeps away those who need a college degree the most.

The Task Force on UW Restructuring should be using its time to refocus the state and UW on the needs of Wisconsin students and families. It should be working to open the university doors to all Wisconsinites, instead of protecting the prestige of UW. It should be focused on rebuilding the relationship between our communities and the universities in them and reprioritizing public investment in UW.

We need structures in place to solicit involvement (not just feedback) from students, faculty, staff and community members from small business owners to farmers and middle school teachers. Administrators should only be granted the ability to increase tuition if they can demonstrate it won’t destroy our ability to build a competitive 21st-century workforce.

Access is the priority, which means we need to set measurable criteria to even consider allowing for tuition increases. Tuition should not be allowed to increase unless it can be linked to a decrease in average student debt and an increase in the amount of low- and middle-income students being admitted and graduated.

There is plenty of work to do. The task force needs to stop offering anecdotes and starting doing its homework.

Clearly, the task force members don’t understand what our needs are in Wisconsin. Give the task force members your recommendation by writing to your state legislators about what they need to be doing to ensure that UW is serving its students and the state.

Allie Gardner, originally from Sun Prairie, is a junior at UW-Madison and is chair of the Associated Students of Madison.  This article, which originally appeared in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel,  was reprinted here with her permission.

Truth be told — and I doubt that many of the commission members would disagree, many of the options cited in the report are more or less analogous to those available to shipwreck survivors stranded in a lifeboat far out at sea:

• “As shown by the Greek philosopher Zeno,  scarce rations may be extended indefinitely by distributing exactly half of what remains on each successive day.”
• “Consumption of leather articles such as belts, wallets, and shoes  provides a welcome, if temporary, relief from the physical sensations of starvation.”
• “Even when drinking water has run out, under no circumstances should survivors succumb to the temptation to drink seawater or urine.  Those who disregard this advice may partially mask the flavor by mixing in a tablespoon of  Crystal Light Raspberry Ice Tea mix.”
• “When rescue remains an unlikely prospect even as morale and physical well-being continue to plummet, take a discreet look around you and identify the fellow survivors least likely to be in any condition to put up a spirited fight.  As a rough guide, one such individual will adequately feed ten for several days, or up to a week in cooler weather.”
• “Sleep with one eye open.”

Please note:  these were not actual commission recommendations.

One actual commission recommendation in particular, however, stands out as providing more than just superficial and temporary relief.  Indeed it was precisely this recommendation that was singled out by “On Campus” reporter Deborah Ziff at the Wisconsin State Journal.  Paraphrased, it goes like this:

• “Increasing the percentage of out-of-state students admitted to the University can significantly increase total tuition revenue without the need for politically untenable increases in tuition rates.”

Yes!  This is self-evidently true, and in recognition of its potential importance for the future of the university, I wish this option had been as prominent in the actual commission report as it was in Ms. Ziff’s very short article.  I therefore would like to take this opportunity to propose the following refinement:

1. To be more in line with our national peer universities, the University of Wisconsin-Madison and  the University of Minnesota should agree to terminate their unusual tuition reciprocity arrangement and to charge full out-of-state tuition to each other’s residents.
2. The above reciprocity arrangement should then be replaced by a new one in which the two universities each agree to reject their own in-state applicants while giving preference to those from the other state.

The logical result of this arrangement will be that UW-Madison’s student body will soon be made up entirely of Minnesota residents and other out-of-state students, all paying $25,421 tuition per year rather than the $9,671 paid by in-state students, while Wisconsin students will all go to Minnesota and elsewhere.

If we conservatively estimate that 25,000 in-state students currently on the UW-Madison campus would soon be replaced by out-of-state students paying $15,750 per head more, that represents $394M in new revenue to the University of Wisconsin-Madison.  All without raising tuition rates.

The logic and spirit of this proposal are completely consistent both with recent trends in  state support for our university and with reason 3 in the very first paragraph of this official explanation of UW-Madison admission policies.  I cannot imagine why it would not be universally embraced by politicians and administrators alike as an innovative and far-reaching solution to the university’s current budget woes.

In this political climate, the Faculty Senate, Academic Staff Assembly, and Associated Students of Madison Student Council have all passed resolutions support a new social compact between UW-Madison and the state of Wisconsin. The new social compact endorses a renewed financial commitment to funding UW System from the state in exchange for the fulfillment of UW System and UW-Madison’s mission to provide a quality, accessible education for all Wisconsinites. In passing this legislation, the three shared governance bodies have voiced vehement concern about the fiscal crisis that UW-Madison and UW System now face and have asked to be part of the solution.

In the Academic Staff Assembly, one member raised the quintessential question whenever a deliberative body takes a stance on an issue over which they have no direct power: what does passage of this resolution actually do? Why should we pass this value-driven resolution if we lack the teeth to enforce it?

My answer to the gentleman who spoke at the Academic Staff Assembly is simple: give the new social compact some teeth. The power of lofty resolutions such as the new social compact derives from its ability to be shared. As students, staff, faculty, and community members of the great institutions of UW System, we can empower these ideals of access to quality higher education and enrichment of communities across Wisconsin by infusing our stories of why UW-Madison matters to us. To make these resolutions relevant and powerful, we must share our stories with state legislators and encourage our neighbors to do the same.

Students are doing just this. On March 6, join the United Council of UW Students for the statewide lobby day. United Council will begin the statewide lobby day with a press conference to advocate for the Wisconsin student agenda, one major component of the social compact that all members of the UW-Madison community now officially support.

-BPH

Today one of our core values is at stake—something that should concern all of us who are committed to the future of our college, UW–Madison and Wisconsin. I am talking about declining state support for postsecondary education and its devastating effect on our young people and their opportunities.

Undergraduate education at UW–Madison is paid for by a combination of general program revenue (GPR)—derived from state taxes—and tuition, paid by students and families. In 2001, GPR funding for UW-Madison was $370 million and tuition revenue was $277 million. Ten years later, GPR has fallen to just $279 million, while tuition revenue increased to $400 million (all figures adjusted to 2010 dollars). As a result, tuition increased from $5044 per year in 2001 (2010 dollars) to $8987 in 2010. (These numbers do not include the $47.5 million cut imposed in the 2011 budget.) The state also gives UW money for special purposes, but these funds cannot be used directly in providing undergraduate education.

When the state fails to support the university, the university gets the needed revenue by charging students and their families more. This is a pretty straightforward relationship, but I am not sure that the implications are always clear. When the state cuts the budget and tuition increases, fewer students from middle-class and financially pressed families can afford to attend UW–Madison.

Here at CALS, we are especially aware of the effects on Wisconsin’s rural families. Rural per capita income is 20 percent less than in metropolitan areas, and 40 percent of CALS students demonstrate significant financial need. What is the future for CALS if a greater proportion of kids interested in careers in agriculture and natural resources cannot afford to come to Madison? Indeed, what is the future of Wisconsin’s rural communities?

We also can’t pretend that the quality of undergraduate education won’t suffer. Less revenue means fewer degree programs, especially in production agriculture, and fewer courses dedicated to agriculture. The time it takes to finish a degree will lengthen. And it will be harder for people with moderate incomes to afford to come here.

Supporting our agricultural communities means supporting public higher education in Wisconsin. The UW System is the provider of affordable, accessible opportunities to earn bachelor’s degrees, and we at CALS are the provider of the specialized knowledge needed to excel in careers in agriculture, natural resources and the life sciences. When state cuts make it harder for rural kids to attend CALS, the economic vitality of our rural communities is diminished.

How we fund a college education at UW is up to the people of Wisconsin—and in any policy debate it’s important to have all facts on the table. My hope is that, as we move forward, undergraduate education gets the attention and resources that our young people and our state deserve.

Thanks to all of you for your support of our college.

On Wisconsin.

William F. Tracy
Interim Dean
College of Agricultural and Life Sciences

Reprinted with permission from WALSAA Express December 2011

Rise in Sticker Price at Public Colleges Outpaces That at Private Colleges for 5th Year in a Row, by Beckie Supiano, October 26, 2011

The average price for tuition and fees at public four-year colleges was $8,244 for in-state students in 2011-12, up from $7,613 in 2010-11, an 8.3-percent increase. That percentage change drops to 7.0 percent if California—which had a 21-percent increase in tuition in that one-year period—is excluded.

Here in Wisconsin, in-state tuition and fees for the University of Wisconsin-Madison for the fall 2011 semester totaled $4,832.50, compared with $4,491.60 for the fall 2010 semester; in-state tuition and fees for UW-Milwaukee for the fall 2011 semester totaled $4,337.70, compared with $4,075.63 for the fall 2010 semester.   In percentage terms, the increases are 7.6% and 6.4%, respectively.

The basic message in this is that UW-Madison’s in-state tuition is still well below the national average, but the percentage increase is comparable to that experienced elsewhere.  In short, like elsewhere, the investment by the state of Wisconsin in making higher education affordable for all of its citizens is being dialed back.

We already knew this, of course.  But the latest massive hits to the UW-System budget, not reflected in the above figures,  are virtually certain to sharply accelerate the cost increases.    In fact,  if current trends continue, we can expect to see the distinction between private and public institutions become almost meaningless.

Is this really what the citizens of Wisconsin want?

In the past week, I have attempted to make a list of the immediate and long-term implications of this new law for the employees of UW-Madison.  We need to keep track of all the effects of this law so that we can literally show the members of the legislature who supported this bill exactly WHY we were screaming back in February “This bill does not repair the budget!  And this bill does not help the people of Wisconsin!”

As a TA at UW-Madison, I am concerned about what this means for me when I return to work in August — I have no idea how this law will affect my life in the near or distant future.  But I do know that my union no longer has the right to bargain with the State of Wisconsin about anything other than my salary (which by law can now only be raised to match the rate of inflation, meaning that although we haven’t been bargaining for a pay raise in years, now we legally can’t even ask for one).  Other questions I have about the implications of this law for me as a UW employee include:

1. What does this mean for my healthcare coverage?
2. What does this mean for the grievance procedures, workload limits, sick leave, and emergency family leave policies that were granted to me in my contract?  Do I even have a “contract” now?
3. How can we as graduate student workers make our needs and desires known and recognized?  And who should we be trying to make our needs and desires known to (i.e. the administration, politicians, lobbyists, etc.)?
4. What does it mean now that the TAA can no longer charge non-members for the cost of representation (i.e. the TAA can no longer collect dues from non-members even though they will be representing them in salary negotiations) — this surely means that the TAA will struggle in raising funds, which makes me wonder how the staff and volunteers for the TAA  will be able to work towards protecting things like my salary, healthcare, workload limits, etc. when there is no money – but who will they be “bargaining” with now that they won’t be “bargaining” with the state?
5. What does this mean for my tuition waiver?

I am also concerned that people may not realize how MANY people working for the UW are affected by this law – in addition to graduate student workers, this law will affect the lives of classified staff, academic staff, non-reps, and the faculty.

Additionally, I am concerned that the effects will not all be felt at the same time (unlike in February, when we all felt attacked at the same time with the introduction of the bill).  Many things will change as a result of Wisconsin Act 10, and these changes will not all happen at once, making it difficult to keep count of all the impacts of this new law, and difficult to support each other when we’re all being attacked from different sides at different times. Two already-observable implications of this law include the revoking of academic staff and faculty members’ right to unionize (which they just won) and the decision by UW system to prohibit all UW employee organizations (unionized or otherwise) from collecting dues as of August (as discussed in the S&W article).  But it’s only July.  Who knows what changes in working conditions will occur for UW employees between now and the start of fall semester.

Wisconsin has not lost, however.  Wisconsin is still very much in this battle, and we need to do more than just look back to the protests of February and remember the feelings of solidarity — we need to vote, we need to stay united, we need to ask questions, and we need to keep turning to each other for support and help — Please share the ways in which this law impacts you, your friends and family, and please continue to speak out and up and QUESTION those who make decisions with inconceivable ramifications so that we can combat these attacks on our rights and livelihoods with empirical purpose and unrelenting solidarity.

- Alyson S.
Graduate student teaching assistant

This Bloomberg article documents how that model has worked out for other universities, and it’s not a pretty picture:

Schools Find Ayn Rand Can’t Be Shrugged as Donors Build Courses

If you support the public authority and believe that private donations will be an important source of new revenue, please explain to the rest of us how we will avoid the same fate. Or at least explain why we should embrace that fate.

Either way, it’s past time for more honesty, more facts, more figures, less wishful thinking, and fewer empty platitudes.

- GP

The state is steadily defunding us and that’s simply inevitable, so the only thing we can do is accept even more draconian cuts in exchange for some modest leeway in managing our own resources. That’s the best we can do and we have to fight for it.

Smart, engaged people on campus are arguing vigorously and explicitly for just this position, if mostly only in the echo chamber of the campus. And the chancellor is spending most of her time and a ton of resources and staff time to push this, not to mention the help of the mysteriously-funded Badger Advocates. She and her staff are incessantly begging us to do the same.

This seems to me, frankly, insane. Fight for an extra $30 million cut to our base budget? With not even a whispered promise of insurance against future cuts? When nothing in the public authority actually makes up that gap in any future projection? Get real. What a weak, timid position. Can anybody be excited about striving for such an outcome?

All the talk about fighting has me thinking about what would actually be worth fighting for – or rather, continuing to fight for.

• I’ll fight for increased understanding of the real value of public higher education, not its benefits to corporations but as an engine that creates a better society through genuine economic opportunity and better understanding of the world around us.
• I’ll fight for affordable, accessible public higher education that every single qualified person in this state can get without incurring ruinous debt.
• And to make that happen, I’ll fight for improving state funding. It’s not that we “can’t afford” accessible public education. State budget problems reflect a failure to get fair contributions from the most privileged among us and from corporations.
• Right now, with the crew in charge of state government, actual increases aren’t going to happen. So, until they’ve been relieved of their duties, which I’ll also fight for, I’ll fight to minimize the cuts they’re making.

When the cards are really on the table, and they are now, what are you really willing to fight for?