I use this blog to talk about my thoughts on state funding for our public university quite frequently. And I’ve found, especially amongst my more liberal friends, this is a concept that seems almost foreign in a sense, as if they had not considered it an option when looking at issues like domestic partnership benefits. As I drive home, over and over again, other public schools like UVA and Michigan have blazed a path Madison will eventually need to travel down if we want to continue growing as a university. Perhaps it would end the entropy occurring in our US News rankings.
Less state funding does not mean we’d become a Marquette, it just gives UW-Madison a more efficient way to conduct its business. We’d still have ties to the state legislature, just as Michigan has, and continue to serve the state as outlined in the Wisconsin Idea.
I found this quote while searching for a totally different blog post and I think it is a brief way to summarize my position. It comes from what appears to be an online forum dedicated to colleges. One of the posters wrote:
If the UW were a corporation the state would now have a minority interest. They are a stakeholder but so are the alums who fund much of those new buildings, scholarships and even salaries now to the tune of an amount equal to state support. So is the Federal Government and the taxpayers of the nation who provide far more to the UW than the state does now. So are the OOS and instate students who provide more in tuition and dorm revenue than the state provides in support. Overall the state is a 20% or less partner and they should start acting like it. A prime example of state govt micromanaging the UW is the entire benefits for domestic partners issue. The UW can fund them out of non state sources but the state refuses to even allow that. Stupid and tragic.
15 Comments
March 31, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Most of the “campus elite” as you call them, are too into the dogma of being a public school and don’t know the simple economics.
March 31, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Too substantial of a post?
March 31, 2008 at 6:10 pm
No, I’m just still speechless that you used the word “entropy’ in a non-chemistry setting. Bravo.
Good point about the micromanagement by the State. Who gives Nass et al. the control over our System when they have the “minority interest?” (Ok, other than the state statutes.) CB, do you know if other schools that have adopted a state-assisted (vs. state-supported) financial model (like Michigan) have also gained some independence from micromanagement? At what point does the State get to stop dictating miniscule details?
I would think if we explicitly changed our funding approach we would have to change the administrative approach as well, yes? Which would be a good thing in most cases.
March 31, 2008 at 6:38 pm
760 Verbal, d00dette. Maybe not your Harvard scores, but pretty good. Even if I RIGHT like an 8th grader on the blog (in order to produce content quicker).
Anywho, I couldn’t find exactly what you’d want, but the market would seem to indicate the above is correct. I mean, how can you threaten UW over issue “x” if the punishment is money, when we can just say “fine, our endowment/fundraising will cover it!”
This is interesting as well:
From Breneman, David. “Peering Around the Bend: The Leadership Challenges of Privatization, Accountability, and Market-Based State Policy”. Association of Governing Boards. Washington, 2005. http://milproj.ummu.umich.edu/publications/financing_pub_univ/
Please take this to the Chancellor cmte!
March 31, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Great point Suchita! I would assume that yes, the statutes do give the state a degree of influence, but the implication here is that such an influence will wane as the state becomes less and less responsible for the university. That statement is made without any research and is an assumption, so if it sounds stupid, that’s why.
CB,
I was musing on your earlier posts regarding Michigan’s alumni strategy. From the links you posted and my own research, it seems as though creating an uber-agressive alumni outreach program is one of the best long term solutions. Michigan actually hired a professional fundraiser, paid him an exorbitant amount of money, and got ridiculously good dividends, in the billions neighborhood. I can’t remember if it was you or another outlet that was saying it, but presentations by professors to alumni, a chancellor with a focus on making alumni feel important, etc. seems perfect because it will mitigate any necessary tuition raises while increasing our independence from a legislature that blows 652 mllion dollars more than it actually has.
I’d also like to thank, in addition to Rep. Nass, Rep Joan Ballweg for opposing civil unions for university faculty. She says she represents the “traditional” viewpoint on campus that she says is held by rural students. Way to screw the university because of your thinly veiled religious agenda. Way to go, Joan, way to go.
March 31, 2008 at 8:49 pm
I think the most effective way to defend against the state threatening to decrease funding would be to reply by offsetting any decreases in state funding with increases in in-state tuition. I would venture to guess that most reasonable people would understand that when the state is no longer offsetting as much of your tuition as they used to its only fair to pay more. That also gives the university a way to play hardball with the state legislature. We’d be raising tuition in their constituents and pretty clearly be able to link that raise back to the actions of the state legislature.
March 31, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Regents set tuition and know their sugar daddy’s at the end of State Street wouldn’t approve. I don’t think the relationship is Regents —-> State, but State —–> Regents when it comes to playing hardball.
A lot of evidence to suggest out-of-state tuition hikes work. I know this would pwn the shit out of you Patrick, but for many OOS students here, they can afford Michigan-level tuition.
March 31, 2008 at 9:39 pm
CB, Michigan’s constitution gives their University some pretty unique powers, or at least very different from Wisconsin, and has a 150 year history behind it:
http://bentley.umich.edu/exhibits/regents/history.php
Furthermore, remember that much of the Federal money that technically appears in the UW budget can’t be used for just anything. (Actually, same thing with most of our external support. Most of the money through the UW Foundation is earmarked at least a little bit.) So what’s the fair way to account for it?
March 31, 2008 at 10:30 pm
I realize that it won’t happen, but it would be nice. and help keep my tuition from rising.
OOS tuition hikes may work in terms of raising money, but they fail in terms of getting me to attend school there.
April 1, 2008 at 1:51 am
but you’re unique; most would still come here and pay more
April 1, 2008 at 1:52 am
More private funds, in any way, shape, or form, will provide more comfort to our endowment and budget, regardless of the constitution
April 2, 2008 at 4:21 am
cb, your call for more market involvement and private action at uw-madison is nothing short of bigotry and stupidity. the only people hurt by these plans are the low-income students. If you keep this up, someone should take this blog away from you. no one has the right to spew such bad suggestions and you may unfairly influence campus and city journalists
May 4, 2008 at 6:18 pm
[...] included is an interesting argument that bolsters the voices of those already calling for increased privatization. Wisconsin is limited in its ability to use private, non-taxpayer money to supplement [...]
May 16, 2008 at 12:51 pm
[...] As I’ve said before: [...]
July 4, 2008 at 6:52 pm
[...] included is an interesting argument that bolsters the voices of those already calling for increased privatization. Wisconsin is limited in its ability to use private, non-taxpayer money to supplement [...]