http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2013/dec/18/scott-walker-early-years/ describes Walker at Marquette.
He attended from fall 1986 to spring 1990, and left in good academic standing as a senior, according to the school. His campaign said in 2010 that he had a 2.59 GPA and 94 credits (out of 128 needed to graduate; Marquette considers a student a senior at 92 credits).
Hmm…
I welcome any concrete data that would rectify a student’s academic history. Thanks for providing the link. If Marquette claims he was in good standing and left of his own accord, then fine – he left without a degree.
That said, this remains an extremely convoluted, and unclear story. I hate to be “that guy”, but some of these accounts still do not reconcile. Specifically, the second, quoted clause sounds much like an historical precedent, given the voluminous, documentary evidence that now comprises SW’s public record:
Murphy had written to Moore saying the trashing of the Tribs “could be considered just an election-year prank,” or “an attempt to muffle the press and prevent readers from getting the message somebody didn’t like [sic].”
[…]
We sought out Murphy and Moore to learn what became of the law-enforcement probe.
‘Federal law (FERPA) prevents me from disclosing any student education records, which includes conduct records, without a student’s specific consent," said Moore, now dean of students at LaSalle University. "Therefore, I am not able to respond to your inquiry.’
Murphy, who is retired, told us she didn’t recall the outcome.
So we sought files regarding the case from Marquette.
Marquette officials told us that even if they once existed, records regarding disciplinary actions unrelated to academics are destroyed two years after a student or his/her class graduates, per the student handbook. Students who have completed a penalty for non-academic discipline are returned to good standing.
If anything, Scott Walker’s words and motives require very careful scrutiny. And a growing number of Wisconsinites seem to be realizing such.
I understand fully why the University of Wisconsin community reacted strongly to Walker’s drafting. And I also understand that anhydrite is not exactly connected to reality if he or she thinks that the support base that elected Walker three times in Wisconsin has shrunk significantly.
Why don’t we have a real discussion about the battle line Walker wanted to draw? The University of Wisconsin is a glorious institution, a world-class (or nearly so) university, an honest-to-God center of scholarship and learning, much more resembling Oxford or Harvard than, say, my local public directional. It’s one of the absolute gems of public universities in the U.S., along with the Universities of California, Michigan, Virginia, North Carolina, and a few others. Wisconsinites should be proud of it. It’s a gift Wisconsin has given to the world, and it has helped generations of Wisconsin citizens get access to the most sophisticated education possible.
And why, exactly, or how much, exactly, should the taxpayers of Wisconsin be willing to pay to maintain that type of institution? (I don’t know how much they do pay now. I know that many of its peers receive comparatively few public dollars anymore.) Most of the actual needs of the people of Wisconsin could be met by an institution that resembled the University of North Dakota more than the University of Michigan, much less Oxford and Harvard. Why should Wisconsin have the largest and arguably best Sociology Department in the world? Couldn’t Wisconsin get by with an handful of people with high teaching loads, offering Introduction to the Social Sciences to business and education majors? If people want liberal arts, why not let them pay for Lawrence or Beloit, or the University of Chicago or Northwestern? (Or Michigan.)
Walker’s drafting was an attack on scholarship, on the Western tradition of what a university should be. He was implicitly saying, “Screw the search for Truth and the betterment of mankind. We want our kids trained efficiently for decent jobs that they can perform in-state. Nothing more.”
I want the University of Wisconsin to remain as it is, but I think the know-nothing position represented by Walker and his ambitions needs to be taken seriously and debated, not mocked or shifted to character assassination. Why should Wisconsin have a great university?
This doesn’t only apply to the flagship and maintaining a world class university. The budget cuts and the mission statement changes apply to all 13 4-year campuses and the 13 two-year campuses(our CCs) of the UW system. Together they educate 180,000 students each year in all areas of the state. Wisconsin has a great public university system as a whole and as a WI taxpayer I want to keep them all strong.
Madison will have one of the smallest state funding hits with an 11% decrease, UW-Whitewater the highest at 19%.
@JHS, your comment about me being out of touch with reality is a bit of a broadside, no?
To be clear, my final line on the previous post was referring to a growing number of Republicans in Wisconsin who have spoken out against the recent proposals in the media. That was not specified, and the burden lay on me. I don’t recall stating anywhere that the base is shrinking significantly – can you point that distinction out in my posts?
I concur: it is distressing indeed Walker was elected three times. The most recent election, to me, was perhaps most telling of the current climate. And that no matter how coarse and antithetical to the foundation of academia, this political climate must somehow be reckoned with. What concerns me most, and I believe I did mention this, is that faculty are already being scared off from a great institution.
And yes, the entire UW system – which serves a great many people throughout the state – is under attack.
By the way, I do think JHS proposes some of the tough questions that need to be addressed in some form (albeit with a healthy respect for the insitution in question). For this I am grateful.
Others here know better than I the current taxpayer percentage alloted the UW. I know it is quite small, compared to even a couple of decades ago, when I was a student. I actually believe that is one counter-argument – such a comparatively small percentage of state monies now go to UW. I think some feel, as do I, that this does not provide adequate grounds to demand such profound shifts in the insitution. The thicket of autonomy-related issues then comes into play, and it is not a clean playing field.
There are thousands of issues in an election and only 2 viable candidates. No one agrees with either candidate on all the issues. People vote based on weighted importance of the issues. You can’t extrapolate election results to people’s feeling on a particular issue. And the opposition had weak candidates in those elections.
If the future of the state is just maintaining the slowly declining status quo, Wisconsin’s future is in deep trouble. It needs the UW as presently and historically constituted to have any real hope. BTW most other UW system campuses do provide exactly the type of education JHS alluded to. Higher teaching load education with few frills to provide basic graduates for existing jobs at a modest cost…
Speaking as the resident of a state lacking a flagship of this caliber when it comes to the liberal arts…I really wish we had one.
What? Are you saying that you don’t instinctively prefer mediocrity to excellence???
I can understand being concerned about budgets, but I can’t imagine anyone seriously complaining that their state flagship is too good. I think that it makes sense to peel back the veneer of Walker’s complaints and try to see what’s really behind them. I can’t imagine that all of this is some kind of reflexive hostility to the idea that state universities should do their best instead of settling for being barely adequate. Mocking and character assassination won’t help, but neither I think would taking something so seemingly irresponsible at face value without trying to get at the root of what’s causing it.
“I can’t imagine anyone seriously complaining that their state flagship is too good.”
Oh, I can. This came up a lot in the context of law schools and the affirmative action cases in the Supreme Court. One of Michigan’s defenses was that it needed total admissions freedom in order to be an ultra-elite law school. (FYI for the non-lawyers, Michigan Law is even more prestigious in its field than the university is generally.) The other side of the argument amounted to, “Who the heck cares whether you’re an ultra-elite law school or not? What’s that got to do with the needs of the State of Michigan?” And that side largely won.
I think the question of the UW justifying its existence now, sadly, becomes one of the core issues. Both Dmitri and Hannah raise good points. This justification is being forced on the UW, per Hanna’s Michigan example. And Michigan had the sense to move closer to a quasi-privatized model decades ago, as well as cultivating their professional schools to a nationally elite levels. For reasons mentioned on this forum before, Wisconsin has dragged its feet on creating a more independent, autonomous entity for itself. Including the very notion of “elite”, which doesn’t sit well with some of the state’s residents. Yet now, a belligerent administration sits down the street from the UW, with its risk and vulnerability exposed.
It’s as if the opponents in this case come from two radically different languages and worldviews. Thus some sort of common negotiating concessions and goodwill are very hard to come by in this conflagration. The saving grace may be how deep and wide the UW experience and pride has touched upon those in the state. While the conservative base may (or may not) ultimately back away from SW – and from some of the articles and responses I’ve read this past week, there are those who voted SW in again, and who have belatedly recognized his true motivations – UW alums and beneficiaries of all stripes seem to be mobilizing their best efforts to thwart the extremity of these proposals.
What may be self-evident to those of us who prize the methods and rewards of first-rate research, and higher education in general, is turned on its head by a belief system that scorns these very pursuits. Instead, it views them as an offensive obstacle that must be removed at all costs. To confront this rigid mindset, it may be useful to address Walker’s side in the language they resort to most often: that is, crass profits and rewards. The UW now creates roughly $11 billion per annum that benefits the state (somebody please correct my numbers if they are wrong). Does UW not, in a sense, “own” this? How much have Walker’s initiatives created for the state? Not even close, I presume? Then on what basis can you prescribe such drastic changes, and presume they will create anywhere near these results? This likely comes down to convincing the legislature to vote down the proposals, rather than shifting the drafters.
While it may prove a difficult battle to win on those (or any) terms, that kind of offensive on the UW’s behalf may be more effective than attempting to defuse some of the rigidly tactical belief systems that fuel these proposals. Also, political pressure shouldn’t be underestimated, given Walker’s national aspirations right now.
@DmitriR – Follow the money. Scott Walker and his ilk are friendly with interests who don’t like much of anything that’s publicly funded, especially if people start talking about taxing the very wealthy a little more to pay for it. Plus, higher education is a multi-billion dollar industry, and Scott Walker and his ilk are friendly with private sector interests which would love to get their hands on UW and other successful publics. This “drafting error” may be the opening salvo in a campaign to de-value UW so that eventually the taxpayers can be persuaded to sell it.
Also, ideologically, Scott Walker and his ilk are just implacably hostile to education and science. See the vaccination debate.
@anhydrite, UMich isn’t semi-private in governance (the way that PSU, Pitt, and Cornell’s contract colleges–and I believe some of UVa’s professional schools–are). That’s why MI residents get a great deal from UMich considering how much MI contributes to UMich’s budget these days.
If UW-Madison manages to get the type of governance structure that PSU has, however, long-term, I have to think that that would be better for UW as they would essentially become a private institution that gets money from the state in return for providing an in-state discount. It may be worse for WI residents, however, as UW-Madison in-state rates would approach PSU’s (high) in-state tuition rates.
Hanna is correct. Wisconsin is a weird state where excellence is not something to be pursued or even noted (outside sports anyway) . Being just above average is just fine with many. There is even antipathy to anyone or thing that tries to stand out from the crowd. You will often see letters complaining how the “average UW prof makes twice or three times as much as the average Wisconsin worker” and mean it to be taken as a serious point.
But in this case the Gov overplayed his hand and there has been a barrage of facts and support not seen before supporting the UW both from the papers and leading business types.
I have gone from doom and gloom on this to thinking that the UW has a real chance finally to change the conversation from what it costs to what it does for the state and nation. That had not been the case for many years.
Thanks for the correction, PurpleTitan. I had thought that in part due to Michigan’s professional schools rising in stature for several decades during the 20th century, as well as the long-standing higher OOS tuition.
I’ve never imagined UW would split its colleges into a Cornell-type model, but from what you describe about PSU’s model, it could work nicely. I know keeping in-state tuition low has become almost like a mantra for Wisconsin, but I’m personally more concerned about retaining high-quality faculty, departments and resources. PSU still remains a draw for many in the region, despite its tuition.
Speaking of faculty retention: wasn’t it just a few months ago that the Morgridges donated $100 million, specifically earmarked to recruit and retain top faculty (endowed chairs, etc.)? I haven’t read anything about them this week, but jeez… were I in their position right now, I would not be happy.
Also, @LasMa’s succinct explication above really nails Walker’s modus operandi better than I could. Frightening and deliberate, they are.
http://www.wpr.org/uw-madison-receives-largest-ever-donation-100m
Yes, and their total donations benefitting Wisconsin are at $388M and counting!
Michigan has more direct government involvement in its governance structure than Cornell, say, but it is more independent of the state financially than Wisconsin is, or at least that’s my impression. Michigan can, and does, threaten periodically to go private, and that would clearly be an option if the relationship with the state broke down further. The state government might have the raw power to stop that, but it would have a hard time exercising that power if it were taking a Scott Walker-like position.
I’m not sympathetic to Walker in the least. I WISH he would lose his support and get humiliated politically for this. I’m just tired of hearing that Walker has gone too far this time and the people are going to rise up and reject him. It didn’t happen in the past, and I doubt it’s going to happen now.
Walker is in a race with Chris Christie to fill the role of “anyone but Jeb . . . but not you, Rand.” This move plays into that game perfectly well.
The PSU model is unfavorable for lower and middle income PA residents with both high tuition and poor in-state financial aid. Also, in PA, the transfer pathway to PSU (main) goes through the PSU branch campuses, which are more expensive than community colleges used as the transfer pathways in some other states.
Of note, although I have no idea about the history, Michigan’s endowment is impressively large for a public. At $9.47 billion, it’s almost 5 times the size of Wisconsin’s $2.02 billion. Large endowments–I think Michigan’s is the largest for s public–provide some shield against capricious state governments.