<p>The Governor may be floating idea of splitting out Madison into a separate university from the UW System. Numerous news stories at Madison.com</p>
<p>Campus</a> Connection: UW-Madison could break away from UW System</p>
<p>The rest of the Wisconsin colleges should never have been allowed to use the UW name in the first place. It was an attempt to have them share in the prestige of the Madison campus.</p>
<p>Minneapolis paper picks up story.</p>
<p>[APNewsBreak:</a> Gov. Walker’s new budget could include plan to remove UW-Madison from UW System | StarTribune.com](<a href=“http://www.startribune.com/local/116337764.html?cache=n&uccb=1297894388#post_comments]APNewsBreak:”>http://www.startribune.com/local/116337764.html?cache=n&uccb=1297894388#post_comments)</p>
<p>Biddy’s statement: [Chancellor</a> Biddy Martin?s statement on UW System flexibility document (Feb. 16, 2011)](<a href=“http://www.news.wisc.edu/18987]Chancellor”>Chancellor Biddy Martin’s statement on UW System flexibility document)</p>
<p>Milwuakee paper with different slant–thinks Biddy is in on the deal.</p>
<p>[UW-Madison</a> head supports split from UW system - JSOnline](<a href=“http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/116339939.html]UW-Madison”>Walker to gut MPS, break up UW, education leaders say)</p>
<p>This might be a slightly selfish question, but any ideas what would happen with Minnesota students and reciprocity if the college split from the system? Would we still have in-state tuition? Any thoughts on that? I wonder what they would call the school? University of Madison… :)</p>
<p>I can’t think of a reason why reciprocity would have to be affected by a move like this. The reciprocity agreement already recognizes tuition differences between the states’ respective flagships, other four-year campuses, and two-year campuses. And Madison is already free to accept or reject whatever MN applicants it finds in its pool.</p>
<p>For that matter, I’m not sure what “flexibility” Chancellor Martin is seeking. The only direct impact on students that Madison’s participation in the larger system has is the transfer specification which allows students at two-year campuses who meet certain qualifications to come to Madison. Maybe this would be curtailed. I can only suppose, too, that funding is an issue. It could be the flagship campus is constrained in some way from maximizing its funding so as to maintain a level of “equitablility” with other campuses. Perhaps she feels she could do better on her own. This is just speculation on my part.</p>
<p>More to do with setting faculty pay raises, tuition and the like. I think the Minn deal is on shaky ground already.</p>
<p>All I want to know is how tuition would be affected. Anyone have any idea?</p>
<p>“Spinning off UW-Madison likely would mean it would be run by a separate board whose members could be handpicked by Walker, which could give the Republican governor more control over how the university is run.”</p>
<p>Scooter, the anti-intellectual college drop-out wants control, not flexibility for Biddy. It’s an end-run around the current board appointed by his predecessor. </p>
<p>This is a scary time for this state.</p>
<p>He and his pals won’t be around forever. Many might be gone in two years. Nothing they can do cannot be reversed by the next group elected but the framework will remain. Most of their big hangups with Madison are relatively minor like the institute for workers. They already have an end run on any anti-stem cell crap with the private Institute for Discovery and Wys Cell.</p>
<p>Tuition goes up no matter what. Better Fin Aid for poor with UW in control.</p>
<p>Also updated MJS story finds Biddy was all in backing this deal for some time. Quite the cardplayer going all in. We’ll see if it’s a winning hand.</p>
<p>[Walker</a> to gut MPS, break up UW, education leaders say - JSOnline](<a href=“http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/116339939.html]Walker”>Walker to gut MPS, break up UW, education leaders say)</p>
<p>I still haven’t really decided whether or not this is something to be happy or angry about. If Madison did split I don’t really understand why Walker would have more control over the school? Why would he be able to handpick the members of the board to a school no longer part of the UW system? I have to admit though, I’m very apprehensive about all this news…especially knowing that I will be starting there next fall. Wisconsin seems to be having a very rough week…hopefully Martin will be able to use this as an opportunity to raise Madison’s prestige and power even further. Who knows, a break from a weaker UW system might not be the worst thing ever.</p>
<p>Madison would still be a public institution presumably with a board to oversee it’s operations.</p>
<p>I think Biddy is being played, she hasn’t realized she’s not dealing with a rational person. An irrational person with no controls from the legislature.</p>
<p>As a taxpayer it’s a balance between prestige and serving the needs of taxpayers who need affordable options for educating their kids. Both the middle class and lower income folks, not just the latter.</p>
<p>I’ve heard that Madison administrators want, as part of the greater flexibility, to be able to raise tuition on their own. Get ready, folks.</p>
<p>In other news, Walker’s lackeys in the legislature will be introducing a bill to change the state’s official motto to “Backward!”</p>
<p>What’s your take on this, barrons? Would it be good or bad for UW?</p>
<p>I’m waiting for mandatory teaching of creationism in bio classes and an attack on tenure. Those pointy headed liberals teaching our kids, you know.</p>
<p>I am wondering how many state residents would have voted differently if they had known what was coming… A lot of union members and others who now see potentially devastating effects in their home towns away from “that liberal Madison”. There are budget protests all over the state- in traditionally Republican areas.</p>
<p>The state of Wisconsin is not alone in having to make painful changes, wis75. Other states are close behind. The problem is NOT opposing political philosophies, it’s the profound decrease in tax revenue - due in large part to the continued high unemployment rate. The money simply isn’t there to maintain the status quo.</p>