News: Top story
UW cash 3rd in nation
Research spending increases while grad proposal sparks talk
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Kyle Mianulli:
- Finishing touches leave Randall prepped for puck (February 1, 2010)
- Year of the Tigger! (February 1, 2010)
- Ad hoc report denies reform (January 25, 2010)
- Restructuring no longer dire (January 17, 2010)
- Snow fight set for today (December 9, 2009)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
The University of Wisconsin announced another jump in research expenditures this year — as well as the earning of another top three national ranking for research institutions —amid contentious talks about the proposal to significantly restructure the graduate program.
According to statistics compiled by the National Science Foundation, a $41 million jump in expenditures from the fiscal years 2007 to 2008 brought UW’s total to $881 million, making it the third largest research enterprise in the country for the second year in a row. Johns Hopkins University and the University of California at San Francisco were the only schools to beat UW in the ranking.
Other than Johns Hopkins, UW is the only school in the country to rank in the top five every one of the last 20 years, according to Dean of the graduate school Martin Cadwallader.
This jump in expenditures and high national rankings was not unexpected, even considering Provost Paul DeLuca Jr.’s recent proposal to restructure the graduate school, a response to what he has called very serious and threatening situations with the current organization, according to Jill Sakai, UW spokesperson.
“It’s not a big surprise to use that we are ranked so high, but it’s always something that we are very proud of,” Sakai said. “It’s a good indication of the quality of the faculty and staff and students here.”
UW also ranked second overall for federally funded research expenditures at public universities. Federal sources comprised more than half of the total research expenditures, with $474 million coming from competitive grants and other federal sources, according to Cadwallader.
A main motivation for DeLuca’s proposal to restructure the graduate program is that the current structure has hindered the university’s ability to lobby in Washington for federal grants, a sentiment that has been questioned by some faculty.
Sakai said she thinks UW’s success in garnering federal funds indicates researchers here remain very competitive in the federal funding landscape, as they have been for years.
“The question I think a lot of people have is since this structure has worked well for us, don’t we want to take a close look at the implications before we change the way we are doing things?” atmospheric and oceanic sciences professor Grant Petty said last week.
Cadwallader declined to comment on whether he believes the graduate program needs the type of restructuring being proposed, though he did say he thinks it is always good to examine such things, especially when you are on top.
“I’d rather do it [now] than when we’re in some kind of free-fall or something. It’s all good to me that we are taking a look at it,” Cadwallader said.
In addition to a series of town hall meetings being hosted by DeLuca for the campus community to provide input, a special committee to examine the proposal is being formed by the University Committee; a similar committee has also been appointed by the Academic Staff Executive Committee.
“I’m just sincerely interested in what comes out of all of this. … I’m going to remain open to what these various groups come up with,” Cadwallader said.
— Signe Brewster contributed to this report.
3 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Top Classified Ads (view all)
Place your classified ad online and have it show up here. Your ad will hit thousands of viewers a day!
DON'T READ ME! Too late. If you're reading this, guess how many other people are reading it. See... advertising in The Badger Herald does work!
IP hash: 1bc489c8
Why doesn’t the UW set up a lobbying organization to fight the state legislature? Grant money is great, but if the state isn’t willing to provide salaries at the same rate as competing (and lesser) universities, how does it expect to keep talented faculty? We rank near the bottom of the big ten in average faculty salary, but our profs are 3rd in the nation at getting grants. Comeon.
Tuition remission is also a problem. The UW used to let grad students go to school for free if their faculty mentor brought in enough money that the overhead from their grants was a good deal for the U. Then they simply cut that program, essentially increasing the cost of doing business for all science labs.
IP hash: 519c6cb8
what a terrible headline
IP hash: 3bf083b7
Is an increase in spending necessarily a good thing? Couldn’t additional spending increases be indicative of wasteful spending? Just a thought on the alternative implications of this topic.