minahkaypoh

As I wrote in a post yesterday, it is standard practice for both public and private colleges and universities to use tuition revenue to provide financial aid. The typical challenge for public institutions is that they don't generate nearly as much revenue as private institutions, and thus don't have as much to contribute to aid. Among public institutions, the other significant challenge to ensuring affordability is convincing administrators to focus aid on financial need, rather than academic merit. One of the strong points of Chancellor Martin's arguments for the NBP is that UW-Madison ought to be able to use tuition to support need-based aid, if it so chooses. It has chosen to do so recently, under the Madison Initiative for Undergraduates. I base that last statement on the clear upward trajectory of resources for institutional need-based aid (what she says is a 226% increase), shown in a graph provided by the director of financial aid, Susan Fischer, at a recent mee

Based on the tweets from today's student conversation with Chancellor Martin, there's a big myth running around campus: No, the average family income of UW-Madison students isn't $90,000. That number came from reports like these that were discontinued back in 2008. Why were they discontinued? Because the data they are based on is a train wreck. The information comes from students' self-reporting of their parents' income when they were in high school (reporting is done on the ACT questionnaire) and according to UW-Madison's office of academic planning and analysis 30% of UW-Madison students left the question blank (and that percent has been rising over time). Is it a high estimate? A low one? Well, what we know is that a study done by two La Follette professors using Census blocks to estimate income (better than student self-report most likely) finds that family income at UW-Madison for Wisconsin residents isn't very out-of-whack with Wisconsin family in

Check it out-- what the NBP looks like after Governor Walker exercises his line-item veto . How bad is it? Here's the remaining role of the faculty: "The faculty, subject to the responsibilities and powers of the board and the chancellor, shall participate in academic and educational activities." Period. The students? "shall be participants in the university." Is this the University of Wisconsin-Madison of YOUR dreams? UPDATE: Apparently Chancellor Martin is " not worried the Governor will line item veto his own bill ." Ok then, Scott Walker-- a man to be trusted. Hm....

I've been getting a lot of questions about what's happened at other states and other institutions. Trying to balance my "regular" work with this blog is tough, but here's a bit of info to keep the conversation going. University of Virginia (1) The proportion of students applying for financial aid and having demonstrable need is appalling low-- just 25%--and it has declined substantially over time (it was 38% in 2002). This despite a general increase in awareness of aid, more help filling out the FAFSA, and "Access UVA." The failure of needy students to apply to expensive institutions and to apply for financial aid after they enroll is one reason why financial aid isn't nearly as effective as it could be at promoting college attainment among low-income students. Academic preparation is another, but it's not as if that's gotten so much worse over time. The big change-- the sticker price of tuition. (2) Among students in the bottom 25% of t

I applaud Jon Alfuth of the Students for the New Badger Partnership for attempting to do something the UW-Madison Administration has not bothered to do -- share some models of affordability under the NBP . Jon asked me for my critique, so here are some big picture questions to ponder while I try and secure the numbers required for an alternative model (don't hold your breath, this requires figures beyond what Jon seems to have here and I don't see a UW source willing to provide them): (1) Why assume that tuition will increase at the same rate for resident and non-resident students? That seems very unlikely-- typically rates for nonresidents increase at twice the rate for residents (Don Hossler, 2005, "Students and Families as Revenue, p. 116). (2) Why assume the % of non-residents remains the same? Assuming the differential in tuition grows, this will likely tip the proportion of residents downwards, since the BOT will begin to find nonresidents even more attractive. D

While the last several months have been contentious ones, I think that the road ahead needs to include many more uncomfortable discussions. In particular, we need to have fierce conversations about two key issues that have received insufficient attention in the debate over the New Badger Partnership: (1) The public purpose of our flagship university (2) The way we spend our money Much has been said by UW-Madison administration about the need to compete on a global scale, not only with American universities but with those in Shanghai. We have also heard that the best way for UW-Madison to meet the needs of Wisconsin is for it to be the most competitive it possibly can be. Furthermore, we have been told that such a goal does not exclude other objectives, including the desire to be at least modestly accessible to all of the state's residents. (Just google "Biddy" and NBP and you'll get more than a dozen examples of each of these statements. Or simply get the tran

According to the Badger Advocates' new television ad promoting the New Badger Partnership, the number one reason this new policy is needed is "To keep tuition affordable and provide more financial aid." This claim is echoed in speeches by Chancellor Martin and her Administration , and maintaining or enhancing affordability is a central goal for the NBP articulated by student advocates . Can the NBP achieved its primary policy objective? Will it? The strong likelihood is no. Here, again, is why. (1) The value of financial aid depends on cost of attendance. The real cost of college attendance for students and families is the "net price " they pay -- that is, the cost of attendance minus financial aid. Since some students do not respond well to loans, many argue that net price is actually the difference between cost of attendance and grant aid. (2) The New Badger Partnership makes statements about the need to "keep tuition affordable" but it says no

UPDATED APRIL 26: Please also review comments on this piece over at Sifting and Winnowing . There is a critical element of the argument for the New Badger Partnership that has gone unquestioned for far too long: the faculty must get raises or else the university is going off the deep end. We are told by Chancellor Martin that upon arriving at UW-Madison, two of the strongest concerns voiced to her came from faculty who felt that their low pay was driving the departure of their colleagues, and from students who felt they were losing their valued professors. This theme is echoed in the voices of Students for the NBP , many commentators on discussion boards, and in faculty meetings across campus. Yes, the faculty salaries are low at Madison, relative to those at peer institutions, however you choose to define "peer." But it isn't clear that this is policy concern that ought to drive an argument for Public Authority. Instead, I suggest that the question is "What are

I'm supposed to be on "vacation" this weekend but when news like this comes out, it's hard to ignore.... Recently 10 UW department chairs wrote a letter in support of a policy (the NBP). They explicitly stated (at the end of paragraph one) that they did so independently: "We write on our own behalf and not as formal representatives of our departments." Yet they signed the letter with their names, titles (e.g. chair) and department names. Furthermore, the UW Administration -- and other advocates like Students for the NBP -- are promoting it as indicative of widespread support from faculty and "academic leaders" and do not clarify that those directors and chairs do not write on behalf of their departments and units. First, I'm confused. If these chairs are writing independently, and not as department chairs, why did they use their titles when they signed? Signatures from chairs are commonly interpreted as endorsements from departments, and

After recent reports of apathy regarding the New Badger Partnership, I've spent more time reading and analyzing the comments that are springing up like crocuses these days. While it's a darn shame that people don't regularly sign their names to web comments, or at least provide some description of their position relative to the institutions involved (e.g. are you student, staff, faculty, etc), absent a real live on-campus discourse, the virtual world is what we've got to work with. Here is my thematic analysis of commentary from the last month-- I'm focusing on that since it's possible that opinion has changed over time as the discussion has deepened. (1) Critics are primarily concerned about the behavior of Chancellor Martin. It seems that concern extends to what her actions foretell for a future under a public authority model that gives her additional power, as well as what her actions have done to relations between UW Madison and the state. While some hav

Want to work with a talented group of students and faculty, helping find ways to make Wisconsin public higher education more affordable? Then please consider joining the Wisconsin Scholars Longitudinal Study as an undergraduate or graduate intern this summer! The WSLS is seeking students who will commit to at least 10 hours/week of work for summer and fall 2011. The ideal candidates are responsible, trustworthy, and detail-oriented. Those studying sociology, psychology, economics, or political science are especially needed. Potential tasks include: (1) piloting a study of undergraduates using text-messaging, (2) interviewing students, (3) transcribing and coding interviews, and (4) Using STATA to clean, code, and analyze survey data. Interns will be included in regular biweekly staff meetings and social events. We offer class credit and/or pay based on experience. If you are interested, please email Alison Bowman at ambowman@wisc.edu by May 13. Include a resume and short descrip

Eliminating collective bargaining for Wisconsin public employees was all about balancing the state budget. Until it wasn't . Expanding the Milwaukee voucher program was all about equal educational opportunities for low-income children. Until it wasn't . Howard Fuller is absolutely right to threaten to "get off the stage" and refuse to strike a deal with the devil. “I will never fight for giving people who already have means more resources. Because, in the end, that will disadvantage and squeeze out the possibility of poor parents having some of these options,” said Fuller. This is not to say that Fuller won’t consider raising the income threshold to serve more of Milwaukee’s working poor. In the interview, he talks about aligning the requirements for entry into the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program with those of Wisconsin’s BadgerCare program, which provides health care to state residents who earn less than 300 percent of poverty. “That would capture over 80

As we move into the closing months of debate over Governor Scott Walker's budget bill, it is becoming clear that there's little appetite for the New Badger Partnership outside of Madison. That's not to say that the Wisconsin Idea Partnership is likely to succeed either. Instead, the state has begun a very important discussion about the future of public higher education. No one--whether pro or con-NBP-- seems to think what we're doing right now is working terribly well. And the metrics would seem to bear that out --our degree completion rates, access rates, affordability rates-- all are essentially mediocre. We can and must do better, and it's in that spirit that I will begin to propose some principles and prospects for reform. My proposals are grounded in the spirit of the Morrill Land-Grant College Act of 1862 that helped create the University of Wisconsin, and the Wisconsin Idea that helped sustain it. They are also grounded in decades of empirical research o

I have spent the last seven years afraid I'd become a cautionary tale . I have been repeatedly warned by older, wiser folks to reconsider my inclinations to do things that could threaten my chances of getting tenure: have a baby on the tenure-track (then have another), initiate a large-scale new data collection project, spend a lot of time grant-writing, write policy briefs and other non-academic papers, travel around the country for policy and practice speaking engagements, write a blog (and then two), and the list goes on and on. Of course, the most controversial decision I made was back in 2009 when I began to speak out loudly and frequently against the policies and actions of UW-Madison's Administration. For the most part, my advisers are tenured friends who simply want me to succeed. I have a tendency to get in my own way-- by saying "yes" to too many opportunities, wanting to have it all right now , and sometimes by starting to speak before I've finished

This is a very important day for the EduOptimists and our family. In honor of this special occasion (let's call it DDay), we offer a peek into our archives. I wrote this post on May 4, 2009. Since that time, I have grown ever more certain that the only way to ensure true sifting and winnowing is through tenure. On Wisconsin! Sara UPDATE: This afternoon the Divisional Committee of UW-Madison unanimously confirmed my tenure, which was previously confirmed with a unanimous vote by my department. ON WISCONSIN!!!!! Today was a big day. This morning’s paper ran a story containing quotes from me and from this blog that many of my colleagues will likely view as uncouth. Others will misinterpret it as desire for publicity and name recognition. These folks just don't know me like my family, and particularly my Poppa, does. To my mind, I had little choice but to do what I did. My University is moving in an untenable direction, one that makes middle-class folks feel good, whi

The following is a guest posting from Harry Peterson, a UW-Madison administrator from 1978-1990, Chief of Staff to Chancellor Donna Shalala from 1988-1990. Harry is also President Emeritus, Western State College of Colorado, Gunnison, Colorado The demand for Professor Bill Cronon’s emails by the Wisconsin Republican Party prompted the UW System Board of Regents to review its support for academic freedom throughout its history. At its April board meeting the Regents again was emphatic in its interest in continuing that tradition. This received virtually no notice in the media because it was not news. The Board of Regents has been supporting academic freedom throughout its history . It is one of its most important legacies. The board has done such a good job it is taken for granted. We know in our personal lives and in public policy that decisions can have unintended and unanticipated consequences, sometimes with tragic results. Goals that are pursued sometimes have the opp

Thank you to an anonymous source for passing this along .

In a recent post , I explained that there are viable ways to deal with significant budget cuts while providing a high-quality postsecondary education to students at UW-Madison and throughout Wisconsin. Here, I expand further on that option. There are several things that academics in the Research I world tend to hold dear. These include a low student/faculty ratio, autonomy to decide what one teaches and when, and a reward structure that emphasizes on research accomplishments over teaching accomplishments. I want to suggest that while these are important values in many ways, they come into conflict with undergraduate learning. To be more specific: (1) Keeping the student/faculty ratio small is intended to make sure students get a lot of attention from faculty. It's often interpreted to mean that classes are small and advising frequent, and thus is a marker of quality. Yet as many freshmen would attest, even when the ratio is low, classes are large and faculty interaction infre

I am under attack

The Badger Advocates have begun their work, and ladies and gents, it's not pretty. Wonder what the New Badger Partnership will really do to relations throughout the state and the image of UW-Madison? Look no further than the Badger Advocate's latest statement , slamming UW System President Kevin Reilly for misstating the size of the enormous budget cut planned for UW System. For pete's sake, Brandon calls President Reilly "intellectually dishonest" and accuses System leadership of stupidity! Had Brandon simply asked President Reilly why he said System was taking a $340 million cut instead of a $250 million cut, he would have gotten a very reasonable answer. The $250 million is a cut to System's operating budget, but there's another $90 million cut to the UW System in the 2011-13 budget, reflecting higher health/retirement contributions. It's money removed from System's budget because it's removed from their employees paychecks. Given the chal

One of the central claims made by proponents of the New Badger Partnership is that the policy will maintain or even enhance access to Wisconsin's public flagship by holding families making less than $80,000 harmless from tuition increases. That claim relies on several assumptions: (1) Families understand, or can be educated to understand, tuition discounting. In other words, you have to believe that all families in Wisconsin will come to know that the real cost of Madison will equal sticker price minus financial aid. (2) Increases in tuition will always be tied to increases in financial aid as part of a conscious financing strategy and not occur as a stop-gap measure in response to a fiscal crisis (for example caused by an unexpected decline in state contributions or shortfall in foundation funds). (3) Demand for a UW-Madison education is relatively inelastic. (4) UW-Madison will continue to have a significant capacity to price discriminate (e.g. to offer much bigger discounts

At a public forum on Madison's campus last night, Aaron Brower called the NBP "a pearl in a pile of crap." (Well, he said something a little stronger than "crap," but out of respect to kids everywhere, I'll use "crap.") I have the utmost respect for Aaron, whom I've called a friend for nearly 7 years, and so I spent the night thinking about his contention that perhaps Scott Walker is offering UW-Madison the NBP because he views it as the "economic engine" of his state. Like I said, I thought about it. Then this morning, the answer presented itself once again-- thanks to Walker's cronies at the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute. In Walker's view, life is "Madison versus the rest of the state." And as a senior fellow WPRI puts it in the National Review, "Right now, government employees in Madison run Wisconsin. It’s up to Scott Walker and legislative Republicans to wrest control back." No one said it expli

I have no idea whose sign this is, but on behalf of those who believe UW-Madison is a common good, thank you. UPDATED: Maybe this guy wrote it. A former Regent.

She must be at her wits end. Why else would Chancellor Martin take what could easily be a completely illegal action--lobbying her employees AND HER STUDENTS, using public email, to lobby politicians? I understand that in the past she has urged support of her initiatives by distributing cookies to students on Bascom Mall and scaring her deans with threats that she might be fired if her initiatives didn't pass. This, however, takes the cake. I seriously thought it was a scam when I first got it. I deeply wish it were-- scare tactics and coercive actions do not a leader make. And by the way, here are the rules according to UW System: "...Certain university employees holding highly visible positions, or those who serve in a liaison capacity with state and federal legislators, should be aware of the ethical and practical consequences of political campaign involvement as well as the basic legal issues, such as the application of state and federal lobbying rules to the activities