In Inside Higher Ed‘s otherwise balanced and comprehensive review of the NBP and its remains, one statement stands out as demonstrably false and ultimately self-serving: Near the end of the very long article, on the issue of continued state support for higher education, Martin says, “We have laid the groundwork for increased investment in higher education when the economy in Wisconsin begins to grow again.” Read the rest of this entry »
Review of NBP Controversy in Inside Higher Ed
June 7th, 2011System and Madison: A little data
June 1st, 2011Bashing System and the Regents has joined football, hockey and basketball as a major sport on the UW-Madison campus, including in (often grossly insulting) comments on this blog. As Sara Goldrick-Rab has just pointed out (here), players in this game often have no data of any kind.
One theme is that System bleeds state funding to Madison, diverts money from the flagship to other campuses and that as budgets get cut, Madison suffers disproportionately. There’s evidence on this: the non-partisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau has just provided vast amounts about higher ed funding in Wisconsin. (Here are the links, with a little context.) #690 lays out the material on public authority. Check out this passage from paragraph 10 (p. 4):
When adjusted for inflation, state funding provided for UW-Madison and for all other UW System institutions decreased from 1990-91 to 2010-11. Over that period of time, state funding for UW-Madison decreased by 2.8% while state funding for all other UW System institutions decreased by 6.8%. At the same time, enrollment at UW-Madison increased by 1.5% while enrollments at all other UW System institutions increased by 23.4%. When these increases in enrollment are controlled for, state funding for UW-Madison decreased by 4.2% while state funding for all other UW System institutions decreased by 24.4%.
As I understand this, over the last 20 years, Madison has had a tiny increase in enrollments while other campuses have grown by a quarter, yet other campuses have been hit far harder by budget cuts.
The dead parrot has finally fallen off its perch.
May 26th, 2011Three weeks ago, S&W contributor Joe Salmons shared his conviction, apparently based on his conversations with key lawmakers, that Public Authority was already dead.
Despite that spreading belief, which was also shared by Paul Fanlund of the Capital Times and others, lobbying for the NBP continued unabated, with one observer likening the Public Authority to Monty Python’s dead parrot.
Subsequently, the “compromise” proposal was floated that UW-Madison remain within the System but get its own Board of Trustees, an idea that was sharply criticized by almost everyone who knew anything about it, including former UW-Madison adminstrator Harry Peterson.
A report this afternoon by the Cap Times’ Todd Finkelmeyer seems to make the deaths of both the Public Authority and the two-boards proposal official:
With that news, the closing comments from Joe Salmon’s May 5 post seem worth reposting: Read the rest of this entry »
Whose University? The Decline of the Commonwealth, and its Meaning for Higher Education
May 20th, 2011At the American Law Institute Annual Meeting in San Francisco last Tuesday (May 17), the keynote speech was given by Mark G. Yudof, President of the University of California.
In his speech, he addresses changing perceptions of the role of the University as a “public good” and the consequences of those changes for higher education. Among his closing remarks, he says
…state governments should rededicate themselves to supporting these universities’ core functions, not least because core functions will probably never get enough from private sources. In so doing, state governments demonstrate a public commitment to, and understanding of, the universities’ societal value.
Here in Wisconsin, we have heard disappointingly little from our leaders in higher education and in government on “universities’ societal value.” It is the opposite of leadership to point helplessly at political and cultural trends and to argue for meek acceptance of “inevitable” cuts in State support.
Dr. Yudof’s entire speech may be viewed here (jump to minute 5:30 if you wish to skip the introduction by his host).
A DRAFT of his prepared remarks is reproduced below for reference (the actual speech differed in minor details but not in substance): Read the rest of this entry »
Commentary on the creation of a separate governing board for the UW-Madison while UW-Madison remains within the UW System Administration
May 20th, 2011[The following article was provided to legislators this week by Dr. Harry Peterson. It is reproduced here with his permission. - Ed.]
I understand that there is no significant legislative support to break away the UW-Madison from the UW System and provide the UW-Madison its own governing board. I have been told that a “compromise” approach would provide a governing board for the UW-Madison and have that university remain in the UW System.
I do not know with whom such a “compromise” would be struck, but, this idea fails badly and is seriously flawed. Read the rest of this entry »
The drama to come.
May 18th, 2011Act One of what appears to be a very long drama will soon be over. It began with the presentation of a Rorschach-like document, New Badger Partnership Plan, to which audience members, somewhat magically, were able to project whatever values, aspirations and ambitions- including pay increases- that they desired. Later, a new more ominous character, the Public Authority, entered the scene, played by the Governor with (or without depending on who is recounting the story) the collaboration of the Chancellor. This character had an inherent element of villainy and was less well-liked by many observers. Read the rest of this entry »
More on the “sorrows of academic corporatization.”
May 13th, 2011The latest issue of The Nation brings us the following article
In addition to the other issues raised, many of which have been well-covered, I find the following excerpt interesting:
As Gaye Tuchman explains in Wannabe U (2009), a case study in the sorrows of academic corporatization, deans, provosts and presidents are no longer professors who cycle through administrative duties and then return to teaching and research. Instead, they have become a separate stratum of managerial careerists, jumping from job to job and organization to organization like any other executive: isolated from the faculty and its values, loyal to an ethos of short-term expansion, and trading in the business blather of measurability, revenue streams, mission statements and the like. They do not have the long-term health of their institutions at heart. They want to pump up the stock price (i.e., U.S. News and World Report ranking) and move on to the next fat post.
When pro-business ideologues run universities. Case study: Texas
May 13th, 2011As noted in a recent post, Department of Administration Secretary Mike Huebsch asserts that Public Authority would bring “a free-market approach to the university system similar to that of a corporate business.”
Ideologically, Huebsch is (by his own admission) joined at the hip with Scott Walker, so we can safely take this as an authoritative statement of what the governor’s office really wants for UW-Madison.
The Public Authority may be legislatively dead (or at least on ice), but we would do well to keep Scott Walker’s ultimate objectives in mind as we contemplate any “gifts” offered to UW-Madison and/or the UW System by the GOP-controlled state government.
And we would do especially well to study the example of Texas, where the struggle for ideological control of two university systems is coming to a head, as described in an exceptionally disturbing report by the Chronicle of Higher Education Read the rest of this entry »
Free market universities and global trade treaties: Unintended consequences?
May 11th, 2011The General Agreement on Trades and Services (GATS) is considered among the crown achievements of the Uruguay Round of the negotiations and talks of the World Trade Organization, entered into force in January 1995. I am not expert in international trade, but to my understanding, GATS aims to bring the benefits of globalization to the service sector of our economy. For a quick overview, see http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/gatsqa_e.htm Read the rest of this entry »
Nailed to its perch
May 11th, 2011Please, I beg you, stop talking about public authority as if it were still viable. It’s DEAD, really truly dead. And people are finally saying as much in print. Paul Fanlund, for instance, writes in today’s CapTimes:
Martin adamantly rejects that her version [= public authority] is doomed. “It is not my impression that legislative support is minimal,” she wrote in answer to that assertion. “I believe legislators are continuing to consider the issues and debate different possibilities,” claiming “significant momentum over the past weeks.”
Well, I’ve been looking for legislators who support Martin’s plan as written. I’m still looking.
He concludes that it’s “time to punt”. That’s gently put.
Are we going to see the Chancellor searching her Bascom office (maybe in the next Zooniversity video?) like Bush did in the Oval Office for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction? No, I know what it reminds me of … Monty Python‘s dead parrot routine. I wish to register a complaint about public authority. This plan is dead. It’s stone dead. Definitely deceased. It’s passed on. It is no more. It’s expired and gone on to meet its maker.
Can we get on to the real work now, like trying to save the extra $30 million base budget cut we’re taking under this scheme?