So, exactly how much more money should the UW be getting from the state?

A while ago I stumbled upon the the Commonfund Institute’s Higher Education Price Index (HEPI), which is self described as:

Compiled from data reported by government agencies and industry sources, HEPI measures the average relative level in the price of a fixed market basket of goods and services purchases by colleges and universities each year through current fund educational and general expenditures, excluding research. A more accurate indicator of cost changes for colleges and universities than the Consumer Price Index (CPI), HEPI is used primarily to project future budget increases required to preserve purchasing power.

And thought that it would be a good measure of how much exactly state funding has declined over the years. As nice as it is for the state to fund such things as increased research expenditures, the HEPI should help tell what the minimum amount the state needs to increase funding by each year in order to keep the same level of support for basic university functions. While it would never be a good idea to say that just because state funding has increased by the same amount as the HEPI that it is acceptable, it is a good approximate standard by which to guess the minimum increases the state should be making every year. It is a better standard against which to measure state funding than percent of the total budget. As we have gained more and more federal research money (we currently get the 5th most of any school) and solicit more and more private donors the state funding cannot reasonably be expected to keep increasing with these added sources of revenue.

In order to compare the HEPI to the UW budget and state funding I consulted the UW-Madison Data Digests, a great source of a wide variety of information about the UW. I entered all the data into spreadsheets and generated a couple of graphs displaying data from the years 1990 to the present. The years displayed on the graphs represent the budget years starting with the given year. Hence 1990 means 1990-1991 and 2007 represents the recently completed 2007-2008 school year. The choice of the year 1990 is really just an arbitrary year and chosen because that is as far back as the numbers available from the data digests go. The way I chose to compare the numbers was to graph the cumulative percent increases* over the 1990 level. The number on the left side of the graph is then the sum total percent increase since 1990. For example if 40 in 1999 means that the total has grown by 40% since 1990, so if the budget or value of the HEPI was 100 in 1990 it would be 140 in 1999. Thus the changes from year to year can be directly compared even though they differ in magnitude by hundreds of millions of dollars (sometimes even a billion). I would also like to point out that the HEPI is based of fiscal years, which are not the same as the budget years for the UW which cover the standard school year. The fiscal years used by the HEPI start and end October 1st of each year. As a result the dates are off by a couple of months and because the 2008 HEPI (corresponding to the 2007-2008 school year) won’t end until this upcoming October, I am using the preliminary estimate.

*calculated by taking the value subtracting the 1990 value then dividing by the 1990 level and multiplying by 100

The most striking thing that I first saw when looking at the graph was the dip in state funding starting in 2002. That’s right, state appropriations to UW-Madison actually went down for 3 straight years from 2002 until 2004. Up until that point they had stayed fairly even with the increases in the HEPI, with the exception of a slight dip in the mid to late 90’s. Another thing to note is that state funding in recent years has begun to catch up to the HEPI in recent years. The gap decreased from 36.02% of the 1990 levels in 2004 to 25.57% of the 1990 levels in 2007. Meaning that over those 4 years the increase in state funding actually outpaced growth in the HEPI by 10.45% of the 1990 levels.

Another aspect of the graph that struck me was that despite decreases in state funding, the growth of the total budget of the UW continued to out pace the growth of the HEPI. Two of the biggest increases in UW funding have been in increased money brought in from federal programs and through increases in private gifts and grants. The largest increase percent wise was clearly in gift money. The 2007 levels show an almost 300% increase from 1990, meaning the total money brought in has increased almost 4 fold ($116.4 million to $436.9 million).

I think the growth comparisons used in these graphs put a little bit more perspective on the shortage of state funding than percent of the UW’s budget. With such huge increases in private money and with federal money coming in a levels that out pace even the growth of the total UW budget, it is unrealistic to expect that money from the state ought to make up a constant percent of the total UW budget. Instead the HEPI provides a better of a reference point by which to gauge support from the state legislature. And so what is the answer to the original question posed by this post? Well, the model I have chosen makes the assumptions that state funding levels in 1990 were perfect and that the HEPI perfectly measures increases in the cost of higher education and thus increases in total state appropriations since 1990 ought to grow by the same amount each year as the HEPI. The first assumption is  fair because increases in state funding mirrored those in the HEPI for most of the 1990’s and never truly deviate very far until the 2002 budget. Using the HEPI is justified by its description above and is certainly better than expecting state funding levels to maintain a constant percentage of the total UW budget as argued above. Now for the dramatic conclusion, based off of this prediction method, for the 2007-2008 budget year, state appropriations should have totaled $536.2 million or $75.1 million more than the $461.1 million we did receive. I certainly would like to see that number be even higher in reality, and it definitely should be considering that undergraduate enrollment has increased since 1990, but I think this clearly demonstrates that the state is failing to provide tens of millions of dollars for basic educational functions.

Even they’re concerned

I know it’s a little old, but I just stumbled across this, from the University of Minnesota student paper, and I think it adds some great perspective to the UW discussion on low professor salaries.

While the University works to become one of the top-three public research universities in the world, current data show its average faculty salaries might not be high enough to achieve that goal.

Data presented Thursday at the Board of Regents Faculty, Staff and Student Affairs Committee rank the University’s average salaries as seventh in a peer group of 11.

“What it boils down to is a university’s ability to attract and retain top faculty,” John Curtis, director of research and public policy for American Association of University Professors said. “If the salaries are not attractive, the faculty members will look elsewhere.”

The average salary for full professors in the University’s peer group ranges from $104,700 at the University of Wisconsin to $142,000 at the University of California-Los Angeles.

The University falls in the middle at $121,270. With associate professors, the University’s rank moves up to fifth.

Curtis said one way an institution can improve its ranking in areas of teaching and research is to invest in faculty salaries and benefits.

It also reminds me of comments made by Biddy Martin about the increasing competition for faculty members.

“I think it’s absolutely essential to keep pace with peers when it comes to salaries,” she noted. “It’s always good to be at the median when that’s possible. I don’t yet know enough about the salary situation here to comment specifically on Wisconsin.

“But what I will say is that we’ve entered a period of extraordinary competition, not only nationally but internationally, for the best faculty. And that’s a result of the fact that there was a hiring bulge in the ’60s, when universities in the United States expanded and that large bulge of people who were hired in the ’60s are now hitting retirement age. So the competition to hire the best faculty over the next 10 to 15 years is going to be extraordinary, and it’s important that a university can be well-positioned to compete for the best minds.”

And you thought Nass was bad

At least he makes coherent arguments. I think I might have found someone even worse:

State Senator Glenn Grothman (R-West Bend) is raising concerns about Biddy Martin’s support for bringing domestic partner benefits to UW faculty and staff. Grothman says it’s disappointing that so soon after the voters of Wisconsin rejected same-sex marriage in a Constitutional amendment, the new leader of the Madison campus would take such a divisive issue to the taxpayer.

Martin, currently provost at Cornell University, will become the first openly-gay chancellor for the Madison campus. She has expressed her support for trying to bring the benefits to the UW in order to help keep quality staff members from leaving for other universities that make them available.

I have yet to address is the issue of domestic partnership benefits UW staff members on this blog and in light of the recent selection of Biddy Martin as chancellor I think there will plenty of opportunities for that later. What I would really like to point out is the ridiculousness of the arguments he uses to justify his position. As much as I disagree with his positions, there are some legitimate arguments to make in favor of them. He just doesn’t happen mention any of them.

To say the passing of the constitutional amendment a some kind of referendum that supposedly means people don’t support domestic partnership benefits for UW staff is a statement that flat out doesn’t make any sense. Gay marriage and domestic partnership benefits are clearly two different things that, while related, are different enough that people can have varying opinions about both of them. In fact a clear majority of Wisconsin residents supported domestic partnership benefits in 2001

Domestic partner benefits were once controversial, but today it’s becoming unusual not to provide them. More and more employees expect it, and the public supports equal benefits. A 2001 statewide poll of 600 people conducted by Chamberlain Research Consultants found a majority (59 percent) of Wisconsinites support domestic partner health insurance coverage for gay couples. The sheer number of companies offering the benefits also suggests that most of them have decided domestic partner benefits help their company’s image rather than hurt it. This is a mainstream business practice, and there’s really nothing controversial about it.

And I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to say that the number of people who support domestic partner benefits has probably increased over the past 7 years. To criticize to the chancellor for trying to do what she thinks is best for the university is also absurd. It shouldn’t be the job of the chancellor to base their decisions on politics, that’s ought to be left to the politicians.

His comments on domestic partnership benefits aren’t even the worst of it.

Grothman also criticizes Martin’s interest in increasing faculty salaries. He says university leaders shouldn’t be talking about pay hikes during these difficult economic times.

I can’t imagine a statement that would show someone was more out of touch with the UW than that one. Readers of this blog should know very well by now the arguments for increasing faculty salaries. They are everywhere, I’ve even pointed out how raising them would SAVE us money, so I won’t spend my time repeating them.

The idea that the chancellor shouldn’t be at least interested in a proposal to improve the university is preposterous, regardless of the reason. I might have missed the memo on this one, but I would say having a chancellor who is discussing ways to improve the UW is probably a good thing. Not wanting to raise taxes to fund a pay increase is one thing. Saying one of the most pressing concerns of the university shouldn’t be discussed is another. If he had his way I guess we wouldn’t be trying to increase private donations to increase salaries. Or trying to take more proactive approaches to retaining professors. Both things that could only have a positive effect on the economy of Wisconsin and would cost the state 0 extra dollars. I expect more from an alumni of our law school.

He is not even criticizing potential solutions to some of the UW’s problems. He is saying that they should not even be talked about at all. Elected officials who are so out of touch with what is best for this university and the state of Wisconsin as a whole as to suggest that we shouldn’t engage in a dialog about how to fix them don’t deserve to hold office at all. Luckily, Senator Grothman is up for reelection this fall, though at this point he only has one challenger, independent Greg Dombro. A quick google search reveals that the opposition in the Wisconsin blogosphere is pretty well organized there is a blog entirely devoted to criticizing him and a post on another blog detailing some of his worst votes. It might be time to start doing some campaigning this summer residents of Sheboygan and Fond du Lac.

Would this fulfill the ethnic studies requirement?

Somehow I don’t think so, but if it were brought to UW it might be the first proposal ever that Steve Nass would favor increasing UW funding to support.

That the University of Colorado is raising $9 million to endow a professor of conservative studies is rather delicious in its ironies. It smacks of affirmative action and casts conservatism in the syntax of departments decried by conservatives for decades: women’s studies, gay studies, African American studies, Chicano studies and so on.

Furthermore, the idea of affirmative action for conservatives seems gratuitous. These other groups may be oppressed, but conservatives run whole wars, black site prisons, sprawling multinational corporations. In fact, if these other groups are oppressed, it’s conservatives who are the oppressors, which may render faculty meetings a bit tense.

AFT-Wisconsin union president Bryan Kennedy on a UW faculty union

Over the past week or so this blog has started to discuss the issue of the collective bargaining for a faculty and academic staff union. The original article that inspired the post features comments from the AFT-Wisconsin union president Bryan Kennedy. In an email correspondence, I asked him how the issue affected students and this was his reply:

For the past decade, the University of Wisconsin has been slipping in its national ranking. This is due in part to the system’s inability to attract and retain top-notch faculty and academic staff. The UW system has dropped to the fifth quintile nationally in terms of faculty and academic staff salaries. In order for our children to continue getting the kind of stellar educational experience that the UW system has been known for, the university is going to have to examine how it funds and how much it funds those who teach.

A integral part of improving the working conditions on campus and in boosting compensation packages lies with faculty and academic staff being able to advocate for our own needs through collective bargaining. Without the right to form a union and to work with the strength of a union to meet our needs, we as faculty and academic staff will never be able to adequately address issues of morale, low pay, and lack of professional advancement. We currently have no seat at the table in these discussions. Students should be concerned when they see their best professors and top-notch researchers leaving the UW for other states where public education is more highly valued as evidenced by those states compensating their faculty and academic staff sufficiently. Any candidate for UW Chancellor should embrace the concept of faculty and academic staff unionization because it will empower those who will work most closely with the chancellor.

While I think our faculty ought to have the right to unionize and collectively bargain, I am still skeptical that collective bargaining would be successful in raising faculty salaries and the research cited at the bottom of my original post backs me up. I think the administrators of the university fully understand that we need to pay our professors more, the UW is a private company that profits by keeping the wages of its workers low. The problem lies not in the lack of desire to increase salaries but in the lack of available funding. I can’t see how collective bargaining would convince the state to increase funding or entice private donors to give more money to up professor salaries.

However, I think there are benefits to unionizing. One would be in the potential to improve faculty input in the governing of the university over the current Faculty Senate. As for whether there needs to a better structure for input from faculty, I have no idea. Kennedy’s comments above make it seem like that is the situation, but yet I never heard it expressed as a concern from anyone during the chancellor search. Another potential benefit to a union would in more organized and effective lobbying efforts in the state legislature. That, however, is something that definitely needs improvement on all fronts, not just from the faculty.

That same research I cited before on unions in higher education provides further evidence that the benefits of unions are in areas other than increasing wages:

The current focus of unions in higher education is to do interest-based bargaining.⁵⁹ The idea behind this concept is to go beyond the industrial mindset of negotiating only for salary and benefits to that of bargaining for appropriate resource allocation to achieve educational goals that help the faculty and students.⁶⁰

A faculty union with collective bargaining rights might be good for the UW, especially if professors want them as this letter suggests, just don’t expect it be the answer to our sub-par faculty salaries.

It’s not us, it’s you

For all the talk about fixing relations with the state legislature on the UW side of things lately, you’d think that everything was our fault and to fix things all we need to do is apologize for whatever we did. Then they would begin to fork over the millions of dollars in funding that the UW needs. Unfortunately, it’s not quite that simple. However, one Assembly Democrat thinks that the majority of the blame for the strain in relations lies on their side and that things might be about to change with the coming Assembly elections this fall.

If Democrats take control of the Assembly this fall, they could change the tone of the relationship between the UW System and state Assembly. Democrts need three seats to take the majority.

But Vinehout said the issues will remain the same no matter who controls the Assembly.

“Both Republicans and Democrats need to address these problems,” she said.

But Rep. Sondy Pope-Roberts, D-Verona, the ranking Democrat on the Assembly Education Committee, said she expects relations between the Assembly and the UW to thaw — not because of the arrival of Martin, but because she expects a change in Assembly leadership.

“I don’t think it’s the chancellor’s problem,” she said. “I think it’s who was steering the ship” in the Assembly.

I definitely agree with the part about the blame being significantly on the side of the state legislature. While Chancellor Wiley might have not been the best at dealing with the state legislature, but they aren’t cutting funding simply because they didn’t like our choice of chancellor. I think there is much that could be done as far as lobbying efforts on behalf of both UW-Madison and the UW System as a whole, but that the strain in relations was as much a result of who was in control down at the far end of State Street as who was in control on our end. No matter how good a chancellor is at handling relations, I don’t think people like Steve Nass are ever going to be convinced to change their views on funding higher education. If you are unfamiliar with Rep. Nass’ views on the UW, I really recommend this Isthmus article.

As for the Democrats taking control of the Assembly, I don’t have any predictions to make at this point, but there are 99 districts and the Democrats only need to pick up 3 seats, so it is a definite possibility. The filing deadline isn’t even until July 8th, so at this point we don’t even know who all of the candidates are.

Biddy Martin is the next UW-Madison Chancellor

She may have not been my first choice, but the callings for “Biddy or Blank” were answered. I have to say I can’t complain about the choice.

Carolyn Martin has been named the next UW-Madison chancellor, pending Board of Regents approval, an informed university source told The Capital Times.

Martin, the provost at Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y., is expected to be officially approved at the next Board of Regents meeting June 5-6 at UW-Milwaukee. A Board of Regents search committee and UW System President Kevin Reilly decided Tuesday to offer the job to Martin.

[Edit] I know College Jeopardy is over, but I have one last question. What do the President and CEO of the Wisconsin Alumni Association, the Director of the University Research Park, a member of the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation Board of Trustees, the President of the University of Wisconsin System, a former president of the UW System Board of Regents, Chancellor Wiley and Suchita Shah have in common?

…

They’re all important enough to have their comments on Biddy Martin displayed on the official “Comments about Biddy Martin” page of the chancellor search website.

Suchita Shah

UW-Madison student and member of the UW-Madison Chancellor Search and Screen Committee

(Biddy Martin) was definitely energetic and passionate about the job, about students and about the university experience. Her level of intellect and her ability to analyze and understand all aspects of the university was amazing. Even if we didn’t necessarily agree with her, she could convince us of the importance of her view to the future of the university in the long term.

She emphasized that retaining professors and improving campus climate as a whole would be important not just to professors and staff, but it trickles down to the students as well. It makes our experience here better.

(Students) want someone who can energize us and who is transparent in their leadership style, and (Martin) definitely has both those qualities. She appears to be very inclusive in her decision-making. I think she can really connect to every facet of the university community, especially students.

Also check out how it’s one of the 3 comments highlighted on the main chancellor search page.

Differential tuition for engineers a good idea – if the money is used properly

An idea that has been talked about as one solution to help alleviate some of the universities financial woes is getting a vote from the Board of Regents.

The University of Wisconsin-Madison is reviving a proposal that would require engineering students to pay $1,400 more in tuition than other undergraduates.

The Board of Regents is expected to vote on the proposal next week. If approved, tuition for engineering majors would go up $600 next fall and $400 in each of the following two years.

The College of Engineering will not be the first to implement differential tuition, business majors already have to pay an extra $500 a semester. In case you didn’t already know, I am an engineering student and despite not wanting to pay those extra couple of hundred dollars a year, I think it is a necessary change for the College of Engineering. As several of the chancellor finalists have already pointed out, our tuition is very low in comparison to our peer institutions and our College of Engineering is the only one in the Big 10 to not charge extra. The one condition I place on my endorsement of this differential tuition is that they need to use the money to increase the number of sections they offer of high demand courses. The money is coming directly from students and thus should be used exclusively to improve the education of all students. I can’t think of a better way than increasing the offerings of the most popular courses. The article makes it seem as though that is exactly what a significant portion of the money will be used for.

The engineering proposal is expected to eventually generate $3 million per year. The money would go toward hiring more engineering faculty to teach high-demand courses and updating the curriculum to reflect technological advances.

There are several courses in the College of Engineering that either are requirements for every engineering student or a significant portion of them. The most notable example of this that I can think of is a class called EPD 275: Technical Presentations. Every engineering student is required to take this class and as a result getting into it can be a nightmare. The recommended course sequence suggests taking the class the first semester of sophomore year. But, the reality is that it takes a minimum of junior standing to stand a chance of getting into any section of the class. Having tried to get into the class the past two semesters, I can speak on this from personal experience. The curriculum demands of getting an engineering degree makes trying to graduate on time a scheduling nightmare. I have 128 credits required to graduate. 16 of them are general education requirements, including the humanities, social sciences and ethnic studies requirements. The remaining 112 are basically entirely required classes divided between engineering, math and science classes. As a result of the number of required class and the number of prerequisites for some of the classes, not being able to fit a single class into your schedule as early as freshman year can mean pushing back graduation by an entire year. The student testimonial from the article rings very true:

Senior Craig MacKenzie, a civil engineering major, said he favors the plan as a way to increase funding. He expects to graduate in December but said he could have graduated this month if required courses were offered more often.

So if raising tuition means increasing scheduling flexibility and as a result allowing engineering students to graduate earlier, then it is a necessary change that would benefit every single engineering student. Other improvements like retaining the best professors, increasing funding for research and improving labs are great, but they only affect those students who take classes with those professors or those particular lab courses. Thus the extra money ought to be spent with improving high-demand course offerings as the highest priority.

And besides, when you’re getting the highest paying job with just a bachelors, you can afford to pay a bit more while you’re in school.

Chancellor selection down to 3 choices

Tim Mulcahy, who spent 20 years in Madison before leaving to become vice president for research at the University of Minnesota in February of 2005, has withdrawn his name from consideration.

“I was deeply honored to be selected as one of four finalists for the position of chancellor at UW-Madison, an institution with which I have long personal and professional ties and where I count many friends and colleagues among the faculty and staff,” he said in a statement. “However, after carefully considering my personal and professional interests I made the difficult decision to withdraw my name from consideration and notified the selection committee of my decision. … In the end, my personal desire to enjoy quality time with my wife, children, and grandchildren, combined with my professional interest in advancing a wide range of initiatives I have started at the University of Minnesota, led me to this decision.”

An interesting decision this far along in the process, it was his choice to fill out an application and come interview, but he wasn’t my first choice anyways.

1 Month Anniversary

One month ago, on April 27 at 1:46 pm I made my first post on this blog. Back then I never realized how much I would enjoy blogging or how much of my life it would begin to consume. 31 days, 34 posts, 111 comments and 3,816 hits later it has exceeded all of my expectations. Now that there have been enough posts for everyone to get a good idea of what this blog is all about, I have a favor to ask of all of you. As this is my first attempt at blogging, I would like to have some reader feedback. What do you as a reader like or dislike about my blog? I’m not promising to change anything, it is my blog after all, but I would still like to hear what people think. Any and all feedback would be appreciated. Comments left on the blog or emails sent to fearlesssifting@gmail.com both work equally well. Thank you in advance for the feedback.