<p>
[quote]
MADISON, Wisconsin (AP) -- University of Wisconsin-Madison has long been an attractive target for elite schools like Harvard and Stanford looking for top academics. But now other public universities are among the faculty poachers, and school administrators are worried.</p>
<p>Dozens of professors have left in the past two years, and Chancellor John Wiley said a growing number are going to schools that traditionally could not compete with the state's flagship university. More than 115 professors reported receiving outside offers last year, the most in 20 years and more than double the number from five years ago.</p>
<p>Administrators at Wisconsin, traditionally ranked among the nation's top public schools, say some departments are in crisis because of the losses. They worry about the school's quality and ability to draw research dollars.</p>
<p>Faculty say the departures accelerated as professors' salaries hit rock bottom among their peers and morale sagged amid state-imposed budget cuts.
<p>Duh? The state of Wisconsin loses a lot of human capital. To wealthier schools. Also, this could have an effect on what is taught at the school and what classes the students can take.</p>
<p>it certainly is a problem for the university loosing faculty and that is what the article is about.</p>
<p>and as the article mentioned, top researchers not only bring their own talent to the university but the ability to generate sponsored research to the university that financially supports the department.</p>
<p>loosing key faculty also disrupts grad student mentoring/advising and co-sponsored research with other university faculty.</p>
<p>the losses can be far greater than they seem on the surface.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why is this a problem? One school's loss is another's gain.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's pretty obviously a zero-sum game for Wisconsin. Or any other school, for that matter.</p>
<p>In the grand scheme of things in the US, it probably doesn't matter a whole lot (the human capital is still there), but for the students and other beneficiaries of the university, it's a pretty big deal.</p>
<p>I'm reluctant to use sports metaphors, but... the easiest way to build a winning team is to buy experienced, proven talent. Ask the Yankees. It's more difficult to draft rookies and build a winning team out of them, but it can be done. If Wisconsin isn't paying top dollar to veteran faculty, perhaps they need to do some seriously clever recruiting.</p>
<p>In addition, is there any real evidence that senior faculty offer a superior educational experience to students? I can see that the university might regret losing the "prestige" of these faculty, and the research money spent in conjunction with their grants, but is there real proof that this will negatively affect students? Maybe this is a chance for the university to unload expensive old fogies and bring in some new talent. There is no shortage, I believe, of eager young PhDs in most fields. I don't have any facts here, just random speculations.</p>
<p>I read it quite differently. They lose high-priced research-oriented faculty to other "lower-ranked" state schools (Pitt, Rutgers, etc. - which, by the way, are NOT wealthier) and replace them with lower-paid go-getters who are working to make a name for themselves.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>It is essentially a press release for a lobbying campaign to create a retention fund for professors.</p></li>
<li><p>Wisconsin faculty salaries have been frozen for four years. Are they going to lose people under those conditions? Duh! But there's no evidence of any considered prune-the-expensive-wood, grow-cheap-wood strategy. In fact, the article implies that many of the slots cannot be filled because of budget issues. (But . . . it's a lobbying piece, so take that with a grain of salt.)</p></li>
<li><p>The research dollars angle looks like blowing smoke. The hardest-hit departments are in the humanities and social sciences that don't bring in a lot of outside reasearch funding. (One would bet that there's a way around the salary freeze for self-funding science researchers anyway.)</p></li>
<li><p>Real proof that this will negatively affect students? How about the kid who has to find his third senior thesis advisor? Not to mention stranded grad students. Of course students (at Wisconsin) will be negatively affected.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>But of course profs are moving from school to school. Those same profs who left their grad students at Wisconsin moved to Pitt where they have no relationship with current grad students.</p>
<p>I think JHS was correct. This was a release by the school while the state budget was being heard and a key vote was taken yesterday. The UW got virtually everything it asked for including a special $10 million faculty retention fund. Three tenured profs have already been hired to backfill Poli Sci-all from Harvard. Yes it hurt to lose some good people but it will be fixed. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Those same profs who left their grad students at Wisconsin moved to Pitt where they have no relationship with current grad students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>At least in the sciences, it's not uncommon for a senior professor leaving one school for another to bring along an entire "entourage" of junior colleagues, postdocs, AND grad students. </p>
<p>Of course, this can cause a lot of family stresses for many of the junior members of the team, if they have spouses and kids with roots in the old community.</p>
<p>Whereas it is not uncommon for faculty to leave for (metaphorically) sunnier climes, seldom can a university dump senior faculty who don't want to go. These folks would be the last recruited. The typical faculty recruited are those nearing their peak production years after spending some time advancing their careers. It is very difficult for a university to lose this type of faculty member. Historically, the top research privates did this to replace retiring faculty, or other faculty leaving for peer institutions. What is different about Wisconsin's plight is that schools they have not considered peers are able to recruit their faculty. This is indeed a major blow. The state flagship U is often a major source of intellectual capital for a state, a decline in its ability to fulfill that role hurts everyone in the state.</p>
<p>Every school ranked 50-100 wants to be in the Top 50. They have enough money to offer some very big numbers to a few stars in order to make a splash. There was an article recently that said how the improved communications today allow faculty to survive and thrive at what were considered outposts 30 years ago. They can easily work with another person 3000 miles away on research.</p>
<p>UW has been, like many public universities, on a boom and bust trajectory for years. About 10 years ago or so, there was talk about hiring 50 new profs from a new fund earmarked by the state legislature to commemorate the centennary of UW's founding. A couple of years later, UW suffered not only a hiring freeze but also an admission freeze. UWA also suffered boom and bust, depending on the state of Boeing and the lumber industry. U Mich has also been vulnerable to downturns in the auto industry.</p>
<p>If you look back 10 years UM had more state funding than UWis. Now UW is about $100M ahead (Madison only) It will pull another $50 M ahead over the next two years if trends hold. UM has had to make it up the gap through tuition and will continue to do that.</p>
<p>i think this is potentially a big deal depending on the institutions involved. Institutional resources IS a competitive advantage and those schools with the cash will use it to improve their position. The issue of declining state funding is familiar to all of us and these types of faculty defections only add to that sense of urgency for states to get off their tails and start funding colleges again at a respectable level. Otherwise, this trend will have legs and that does not bode well for underfunded colleges.</p>
<p>"Whereas it is not uncommon for faculty to leave for (metaphorically) sunnier climes, seldom can a university dump senior faculty who don't want to go."</p>
<p>Well that is unless hurrican katrina hits your uiversity in which case you can take the opportunity to dump any tenured professor you want and anybody else who was ever a trouble maker. It was a great opportunity to put the fear of God into the rest of the faculty. Just ask Tulane how it is done. Only problem is the best profs don't like working in that climate and head elsewhere. The exodus has been on going. NOLA is a tough enough place post-katrina without added stress from a ruthless administration who wants to run the place like a third world factory.</p>
<p>It is not a loss to the country as a whole but it does cost students, especially grad students. Tulane wasn't the only one to take advantage of the situation to clean house of expensive old tenured profs and uppity younger ones. LSU Health Sciences, Loyola, and the other NOLA schools were just as bad if not worse. Tulane just happens to be the biggest name.</p>
<p>No doubt cuts had to be made at all the schools but frequently the financial exigency was used as an excuse to cut tenured profs and keep non-tenured profs. It was the biggest axing of tenured faculty in history.</p>