minahkaypoh

Updated May 30, 2011--and again June 1 I've been watching as UW Madison moves into the post-NBP phase of life ( wait, there is life after NBP ?). In particularly, I'm finding the (re)framing of recent events by NBP proponents both fascinating, and disturbing. Spin is, to some degree, expected. We can't blame Chancellor Martin for trying to save face, or Governor Walker for that matter. What I didn't expect, and what upsets me most, is the self-righteousness evident in those who proclaim "we accomplished something here." Something, they claim, UW System did not. Could not. Would not. Sad and short-sighted, perhaps, but not surprising. On the other hand, a recent tweet from a Madison student stopped me in my tracks. On Saturday he wrote, "No #UWNBP. Disappointing. Looks like we have to be tied to the poor decisions #UWSystem makes." Surprised at his statement, I responded, "Ever been to System? Ever met anyone there? Why do you follow blindly

The New Badger Partnership is -- reportedly-- dead. In the meantime, the Legislative Fiscal Bureau has just released its analysis of what Public Authority would look like if the NBP were passed. The report is quite interesting, and in particular I think the following points are worth highlighting: (1) Despite the Chancellor's claims that what she wanted was "part of a national trend" the governance structure Madison asked for was quite unusual, when considering arrangements in other states. "Attachment 1 provides an overview of the governance structures of institutions that are similar to UW-Madison in terms of size and federal research and development funding. These institutions are all public or "state-related" institutions with large student populations, high six-year graduation rates, and federal research and development expenditures above $400 million in 2008-09. As shown in the Attachment, these institutions have a variety different governance st

I know we in Wisconsin are sick and tired of hearing about Virginia....but please bear with me, because a new report out of UVA will likely resonate-- especially with my UW-Madison readers. A new Lumina Foundation-funded report from the Miller Center and the Association of Governing Boards of Colleges and Universities, based on a December 2010 meeting about "how to maximize higher education’s contributions to the American economy" makes the following provocative statement: The past few decades have seen far too many colleges and universities engage in a rush toward elite status. The more selective an institution is, the better. The more research money it collects, the better. The higher it ranks in national and international publications, the better. But what has the race for status contributed to the public good? It is possible to build state institutions that are noted in U.S. News & World Report and national rankings of research universities but ignore the needs of

Evidence-based decision-making requires data. We can disagree over the merits of using evidence to make decisions and we can also worry about the quality of the data collected, but if we hope to ground decisions in facts we need data. As all higher education researchers know, there are enormous barriers that prevent the use of data in decision-making about program effectiveness. Think it's difficult to study the k-12 system? Come over to the dark side sometime, where de-centralized colleges and universities get to act independently when making decisions about granting data access, and nearly all find some convoluted way to hide behind FERPA . Oh FERPA, that big hairy monster that claims to protect students' rights by shielding them from the benefits of evidence-based practices. Paying skyhigh tuition to your college while assuming they have ensured the way they teach actually "works"? Think again--- in all likelihood, the only people who've looked at the data

When citizens seek to solve social problems, they are much more effective if they work together rather than alone. This basic, sensible idea is also known as "collective efficacy." And it is what must be inculcated in Wisconsin residents if we are to preserve our world-class public higher education systems. Our willingness to act, when needed, for one another's benefit, generates long-lasting effects. Unfortunately, there is a strong impulse to turn inward when threatened, to focus on self-preservation rather than community preservation. Solutions for issues like the fiscal challenges facing the University of Wisconsin System will not emerge if we follow leaders with imperious styles who seek to "win" no matter what the cost. Regardless of the specific policy agenda, the process of policy formation is essential since it dictates the terms of the debate. This may sound exceedingly feel-good, but it is also deeply pragmatic. The savings that will accrue to indiv

On April 25 I blogged about the claim made by some NBP proponents that the policy change was needed in order to stem the tide of faculty turnover at UW-Madison. In that post I referred to some data from a 1999 report, which at the time was all I could locate on the web. I have now had the opportunity to examine more recent data (UW-Madison faculty have access to it at the APA website) and here are some updates: (1) In the prior post, I claimed that there hadn't been much change over time in turnover rates at Madison. As I said, I was looking at data up til 1999 and it showed a rate of about 5 or 6% (based on number of leavers divided by total number of faculty). The more recent data shows even lower turnover rates since that time-- no doubt due in large part to the efforts of UW Administration and the fact that the 2005-07, 2007-09 and 2009-11 biennial budgets provided High Demand Faculty Retention Funds (HDFRF) to address recruitment and retention issues. In the graph below, th

Remarkably, one of the topic's of yesterday's blog post (and another I wrote two years ao)-- the limited learning taking place on many college campuses-- is the subject of a New York Times op-ed today. Titled, " Your So-Called Education ," the piece argues that while 90% of graduates report being happy with their college experience, data suggests there's little to celebrate. I urge you read it and its companion op-ed " Major Delusions ," which describes why college grads are delusional in their optimism about their future. We don't regularly administer the Collegiate Learning Assessment at UW-Madison, the test that the authors of the first op-ed used to track changes in student learning over undergraduate careers. From talking with our vice provost for teaching and learning, Aaron Brower, I understand there are many good reasons for this. Among them are concerns that the test doesn't measure the learning we intend to transmit (for what it do

In recent days, an NBP proponent accused me of hoping to "McDonaldize" UW-Madison. He made this accusation because I dared suggest that the university is not operating as productively as it could be. Our per-pupil spending is lower than at many of our peers, and especially lower than privates, he says. Sure, that's true. But frankly, it's about as relevant as my son proclaiming that he should have two desserts after dinner just because other kids at preschool regularly have three or four! Mistakes made by other institutions don't justify our own. We can, and must, do better. Lately our attention has been drawn to one particular trend in higher education-- the disinvestment of the state from higher education. Let me add to that three others: (1) time-to-degree is up at the majority of public colleges and universities, (2) socioeconomic gaps in college completion rates are stagnant, and (3) most students are not registering any learning gains over four years of

There's much ado in Madison today about the news that the Koch Bros. made a $1.5 million gift to the economics department at Florida State University accompanied by numerous strings , including significant power over faculty hiring. Over at Sifting and Winnowing , professors and students are debating whether or not we should be concerned about this event given the potential the New Badger Partnershi p creates for changing the rules of the game at Madison in ways that could increase authority of a governor-appointed board to make such decisions based on pure economics. One writer, "Patrick," contends that the FSU incident is no big deal, because "I was under the impression this kind of thing has been going on basically forever in one form or another no matter where the funding comes from. Maybe attaching explicit strings to funding like this is a bit more open than usual, but I don’t understand how it’s any different." To some extent, Patrick is right: donors o

Here's perhaps the only thing I like about the New Badger Partnership: it's got people talking about reforming public higher education in Wisconsin. The downside is that the terms of the conversation are constrained by its leadership: right now it's a conversation about how a single, expensive institution can continue to have lots of money to do its work. The state needs to transform this into a broader conversation about creating a more sustainable model with which to provide public higher education to all state residents. That requires far more than a few "flexibilities" or the creation of yet another governing board. There are fundamental issues we have neglected to tackle for far too long. And these issues make university administrators and faculty members very uncomfortable, for they strike at the core of the enterprise. The trick is how to "strike" at the core in a way that transforms it into something better, rather than something awful. Here

UW-Madison is a rock star. Look at how we stack up in nearly every ranking imaginable ! It is a public Ivy , and there is no objective indication that the model that built this institution has stopped working, causing a consistent downward slide. Indeed, its own press office notes that it " continues to be lauded " and the Badger Herald reports the same from key members of the Administration. Now consider this: For the last 18+ months, University Administration has spent an enormous amount of time trying to change the way UW-Madison is governed and financed. They've pushed a plan that includes no specific, demonstrable cost savings . And their efforts have consumed enormous resources, including but not limited to a preponderance of the time and attention of all Bascom Hall leaders (at least 10-12 people, if not more), their staff, deans and other administrators, faculty from across campus, and graduate and undergraduate students. Plus all of those media resources (tow

Several critics of the New Badger Partnership contend that the policy will accelerate the development of UW-Madison as an elitist institution. In response, proponents of the policy ask "what's wrong with being elite? Madison is elite." Both are right. The words "elite" and "elitist" mean different things. Many people are clearly confused about the difference. In a discussing a column by a UW-Madison alum concerned about his alma mater's latest moves," badgertom " writes "You call UW-Madison elitist. But clearly they are the very best."' As recent events have starkly highlighted, Madison is both elite and elitist. The first is a good thing--it means that Madison is a objectively a top performer, excellent in many ways. The second is not-so-good, since it means that Madison is exclusionary, focusing on preserving its own privileges at the expense of others. I think evidence of both abounds, but unfortunately much of the

On the subject of public higher education, with whom do you agree? Person A: " Since most of the financial benefits of college go to the student, he or she should pay a large portion of college costs. Even with the large tuition increase, [our tuition is] well below those of many other prestigious flagship public universities. The ... bureaucracy is bloated, teaching loads are low, and most of the budget goes for noninstructional expenses. Most attendees come from moderately to very prosperous families that can shoulder this extra burden. Lower income students are largely protected by ...financial aid policies and by an increasingly generous federal student assistance program ." Person B: " The budget situation facing the university... is truly dire. It’s been a long time coming, and while they could have done more to restructure costs to reduce what they now will get from students, no amount of resource planning could have forestalled a crisis at this level. That said,

It seems that the advocates for the New Badger Partnership have a new strategy-- attack UW System Administration. That attack's been inherent in many comments over the past few months, but now the language is downright offensive. What's most startling is the lack of knowledge these critics of System Administration seem to have about the organization itself. It's typically described as expensive and bloated--common critiques of all those opposed to centralized government. So let's get educated about UW System, shall we? This is part 1 of a new series.... Fact #1: The total budget in 2010-2011 for all of UW System was about $5.6 billion. Of that, nearly half (48%) was allocated to UW Madison. Just 2.7% went to UW System Administration ($15 million). Fact #2: In 2010-2011 40% of all state monies for UWSA went to UW-Madison, and just 8.3% ($9.8 M) went to System Administration. Fact #3: While in Ohio Senators are expressing concern about real potential bloat-- $3 b

THE FOLLOWING IS A GUEST POST SUBMITTED BY GRANT PETTY , PROFESSOR OF ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC SCIENCES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON I'm angry. I'm angry with Biddy Martin for using her bully pulpit to short-circuit a serious, informed, and balanced discussion of the choices -- and hazards -- we face as an institution. I'm angry with many of my fellow faculty for uncritically accepting a one-sided sales pitch that promotes a very specific, pre-determined outcome while failing to acknowledge the numerous profound risks and unknowns and failing to allow for consideration of possible alternative strategies. Damnable myth: "The choice is between public authority and the status quo. If you oppose splitting UW-Madison from the UW System, then you oppose gaining the flexibility to deal with shrinking state support." Fact: Supporters of the NBP keep trumpeting "flexibility" as the reason why we need to support the public authority, and they refuse to