<p>Well, our new Guv has been generating more press than the Packers. The latest is a possible plan to separate UW Madison from all the other UW schools. This is something UW-Madison has been working on for years. Take less state $$$$ for more freedom. Obviously it could all backfire but Chancellor Martin appears to have gone all in on the deal. No gift baskets from the UW System head next Christmas.</p>
<p>UW-Madison</a> head supports split from UW system - JSOnline</p>
<p>barrons - All the “government-speak” in the article makes it hard to understand what the underlying issues are. I mean taking them at their word, who could be against “increased flexibility at lower cost?”</p>
<p>I think that means lower cost to the state. The main underlying issue is that Madison wants to set pay and give raises to profs as it sees fit. Same for tuition. In many cases there is money to give raises BUT the state says no–everyone from the DMV clerks to the top UW prof gets the same raise %–or lately nothing. When you are bring in three times your pay in research grants that actually pay your salary you wonder why that is. People who were 100% fully non state funded still had to take furlough days at no pay.</p>
<p>Updated article with more background. BM was backing the deal behind the scenes. She’s a shark.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/116339939.html[/url]”>http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/116339939.html</a></p>
<p>Well if the mandates are imposed upon independently funded positions as well, then why not ask the state to adopt a rule to eliminate the apparent unfairness of said salary restrictions for those specific jobs?</p>
<p>I think salaries are just one of the issues. Clearly, UWM wants greater flexibility and freedom to grow so that it can remain the respected campus it is today. Many schools are heading in that direction, since state regulations are seen as burdensome while state tax money is just a (constantly shrinking) fraction of their funding.</p>
<p>I think you’re correct Katliamom, but there would be political consequencess, notwithtanding increased flexibility and freedom. Knowing how politicians love to nit-pick and micromanage and grandstand, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Wisconsin legislature began to growl if if the proportion of state residents at UW-Madison declined as a result of independence. And university presidents always listen to Governors and influential legislators because independence or no, the state government carries the biggest purse in town. We’re not just talking about direct subsidies. State universities benefit from all kinds of public largess.</p>
<p>That’s the case whether or not a campus is independent. But most politicians are not that interested in individual pay of professors and other such trivia if they are not paying it. They only get excited about instate percentage and a few departments that might be seen as ultra liberal hotbeds. And they get that already. I don’t see much change in OOS percentages for undergrad. The current cap is pretty workable.</p>
<p>Please see the UW-Madison site for more discussion on this. barrons isn’t in WI and doesn’t get all of the local news. There is current protesting all over the state about other budget proposals affecting public employees at all levels. There is a lot more going on, especially with the new governor trying push his budget through rapidly- not giving much time to study issues.</p>
<p>This is a trend at state flagships. This is about control. Right now, state flagships are owned by the citizens of the state. The citizenry elects a legislature and a governor. Member of the Board of Regents or Board of Governors are appointed. At the end of there are crude tools, but the people own the university. This is an effort to get the ownership of the unversity away from the people and into the hands of a board of directors of a non-profit.</p>
<p>The government had the right to control and run the state U’s when they actually provided a significant portion of the money to run them. That is no longer the case at most flagships where at most 20% of funding comes from the state. Some such as UVa are closer to 10% and all trends indicate further declines. State flagships are much more large non-profits than state entities. Even buildings no longer are state funded. They are privately funded.</p>
<p>Agree with barrons - in Colorado some universities are considered ‘enterprize zones’ or something to that effect - allowing them to become more business-like in an effort to bring in outside revenue. </p>
<p>If states won’t (or can’t) fund schools - that’s the better alternative than the schools being shut down or completely gutted of any quality programs/professors.</p>
<p>Really Barron – so after the government helped acquire the land and the buildings, and many are now paid for, the schools can take that property and not be accountable to the government? Just becuase new buildings may not be funded, what gives the academic world the right to take property? The legislatures were elected. Of course they have the right to control. </p>
<p>I do not have a lot of faith in the academics to keep tuition low.</p>
<p>Ktliamom – I dont see schools being shut down.</p>
<p>“Ktliamom – I dont see schools being shut down.”</p>
<p>Programs are being shut down all over the place. Shut down enough programs, the school loses in prestige, loses faculty, students and will eventually face demise. </p>
<p>I also don’t see schools “taking” anything from the government. In fact, the bigger, good ones (such as UWM) generate wealth: look how many former sleepy college towns are now well-to-do communities that include research centers and high-quality employers. States should encourage academia to grow and thrive - it’s in their own interest.</p>
<p>Nobody said not accountable. Just not micro-managed and overly controlled in relation to the funding. Most of the buildings built in the last 30 years and all the dorms and other non-academic buildings were built with private money–not state. And the schools gets all the maintenance and utility costs–again much of which are paid with non state funds. </p>
<p>I’d give the state 4 seats on a 9 member board, 4 seats to those appointed by UW with the final one picked by both groups of 4. That’s fair rep for the contribution.</p>
<p>Sometimes colleges can save money by being freed from state regulations, such as human resource regs and purchasing regs, and having to wait for state approval before they issue bonds, etc. Public universities also are fearful of legislators doing earmarking - such as providing funding, but it must be used for the veterinary program.</p>
<p>This same approach was taken in Va. a few years ago. At the request of the larger universities (including UVa), they were given more flexibility on state regulations and approvals in return for decreasing state funding.</p>
<p>The UW-Madison question is part of the hugh budget ruckus going on right now in Wisconsin. The public employees are mad as all get out about the new governor’s proposals as they concern state workers. The story and the governor are making the rounds on the morning talk shows today. Well, you can’t criticize the guy for making typical political election-year promises. Apparently the new governor is attempting to do exactly what he proposed in the campaign.</p>
<p>UW also fulfills a mission to the state residents not in college. It provides many services statewide, including agricultural information among others. People outside this state may not realize how much this U is involved all over our state. UW is so much more than just a place for on campus college students it would be hard to justify removing it from state control.</p>
<p>When ‘state control’ becomes ‘state strangulation’ everyone loses.</p>
<p>Many universities “removed from state control” do the same as Wisconsin does now. Giving campuses the flexibility to be more reactive and competitive does not mean they stop providing services to the state. Often, it means they can be MORE beneficial to the community.</p>
<p>Katliamom, don’t land-grant colleges already satisfy this role?</p>