OPINION & EDITORIAL
Transfer agreement bad for UW
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Emily Friedman:
- Tenure at paper teaches, changes (May 10, 2007)
- Straight or gay, hire either way (May 3, 2007)
- Tragedy provides opportunity to re-evaluate nation's violent culture (April 19, 2007)
- Anti-abortion methods go too far (March 29, 2007)
- 'Don't ask, don't tell' hypocritical (March 15, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Does this mean we get a baseball team? (April 25, 2006)
- Board should reconsider MATC transfer stance (April 28, 2006)
- State should help Minnesotans pay (February 27, 2007)
- Students need, deserve better secondary education before college (February 1, 2007)
- Over the borderline (January 29, 2007)
by Emily Friedman
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Are you a high school senior with a bad GPA? Is your resume blank because of your lack of extra-curricular activities? Is the University of Wisconsin-Madison your dream school, despite your slim chance of getting in? Don't worry, just apply to the Madison Area Technical College and tough it out for two years, and then you'll enjoy guaranteed admission into UW-Madison.
As a result of last week's "Transfer Contract" agreed upon by UW-Madison Chancellor John Wiley and MATC President Bettsey Barhorst, this could be actual advice given to weak students disappointed with their college options come this fall.
The specifics of the agreement include guidelines for students who wish to transfer to UW-Madison. They must complete at least 54 credits and have a 3.0 GPA. According to the press release issued by the university, those students with a GPA of a 2.6 or higher will still "receive special consideration."
Ms. Barhorst is pleased that the contract now gives MATC a "guaranteed on-ramp" into UW-Madison. She is also certain that this agreement will increase the number of degrees awarded to minority students. I can only imagine that Mr. Wiley is just as happy — the administration has now made a public step toward increasing the diversity on campus, an issue that has plagued the school for years.
This contract raises an important question about the true intent and consequences of the deal.
The agreement offers students an obvious loophole into a university that prides itself on having a highly selective admissions process. Students who did not do well enough in high school to apply to UW-Madison during their senior year of high school are sure to utilize the MATC arrangement to their advantage, by applying there purely to transfer out as soon as possible. After all, why wouldn't they? Students would potentially be able to spend two years in the heart of Madison and immerse themselves in UW-Madison student life before they are actually enrolled.
The qualifications to transfer to UW-Madison are not as challenging as they seem, and — for a student who knows that they will guarantee acceptance to a leading university — will certainly not be hard to achieve within two years.
I do not think that all students will use this arrangement that way, but I do believe that it raises an issue yet to be addressed by either signing party. While the contract boasts of giving deserving students the ability to attend a better university and receive a better degree, what happens when students overrun MATC purely to get into UW-Madison? Where then, will the deserving students go who want MATC but have now been pushed out?
A solution to this problem could be reached by merely focusing more attention on the integrity and quality of an MATC education. This agreement seems to validate the stereotypes of an MATC education being less than perfect — and also makes it seem that it is okay for students to believe that the neighboring UW-Madison graduates are sure to be more successful in the long run. Instead of sending this message to prospective students and current MATC students, why not help MATC become a better school that eventually will not be considered only a stepping stone into UW-Madison?
Emily Friedman (ecfriedman@wisc.edu) is a junior majoring in journalism and legal studies.
Anonymous (April 26, 2006 @ 7:44am):
Did you ever take a break from your studies and extra-curricular activities back in high school and think about your classmates who actually had to take part-time jobs to make ends meet? Did you think that some of those kids worked their fingers to the bone just to afford MATC?
Now you sit there, silver spoon in mouth, telling hard working students that their education and potential degree from MATC is worthless. I can see Madison has really made you into a good, well-rounded person.
Anonymous (April 26, 2006 @ 8:00am):
This has to be one of the more ignorant editorials I have read in this paper. I think the author ought to FULLY research the intent of this transfer agreement rather than projecting her opinion that it's only a "backdoor" into UW, which bythe way was not the main intent of this agreement. Thsi agreement is along time coming and to feel threatened by it is a knee-jerk response
Anonymous (April 26, 2006 @ 8:02am):
Quit the whining. Other good public schools (every University of California campus, for example) have had guaranteed transfer programs for decades.
A UW-Madison diploma isn't just a certificate that you were a decent student in HIGH SCHOOL. (Who cares? Sorry, but it really isn't very hard to get in here.) If that's all you have, then you really haven't accomplished much here. No employer will look at your resume and say: "Gee, she got into a somewhat competitive college straight out of high school. We've GOT to hire her..."
You're forgetting the most important fact about UW-Madison. It's a PUBLIC school. That is, it exists to serve the PUBLIC. You know, the taxpayers who foot the bill? The goal isn't to create some exclusive club so you can feel special and elite and removed from the riff-raff at MATC who [gasp] might not have done as well in high school as you did (or who are trying to make college more affordable by paying MATC tuition instead of UW tuition for their first two years.)
Anonymous (April 26, 2006 @ 9:58am):
Unbelievable. The State of Wisconsin's public univerisity doesn't serve to aid your ego Emily. Get over yourself. There are plently of deserving transfer students who have worked harder and are better prepared to succeed than a suburban kid who sleep walked to a 3.4 GPA and was admitted because his parents and conselors made sure he had the right marketable extracurriculers.
UW already has a connections program with two-year colleges across the state. Meanwhile, the State of Wisconsin (remember, we are talking about a public insitution that serves the needs of this state...its called Wisconsin Idea. You might want to check that out) has a vested interest in getting retaining more bachelor degree holders. Its probably the single most pressing economic development issue in the state...and its directly related to your tuition bill. Read Economy bad: No state support for UW...higher tuition....more opportunities for the Badger Herald to critize Administration and State Government.
Anonymous (April 26, 2006 @ 12:47pm):
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that most people who are opposed to the transfer agreement believe it is a lowering of standards that does little to make UW a more competitive school. To transfer from any other school you need a 3.0, and even still may not gain acceptance. Someone could have a 2.8 at Northwestern or Michigan and automatically not get in, while someone from a tech school can not only automatically get in with a 3.0, but receive special consideration if you have a 2.6.
In reply to the post at 7:44 this morning, your first paragraph is completely ridiculous. You basically argue that certain people didn't get into UW since they didn't have time in high school to take part in the extra curriculars that would have apparently granted them automatic admission as they were too busy working so they'd be able to afford MATC. Interesting that now due to the auto-transfer they will have no trouble affording UW.
Anonymous (April 26, 2006 @ 1:26pm):
Yes, but, anonynmous from 12:47, does the agreement make it less competitive? This agreement has nothing to do with lowering standards. UW has always accepted transfers. This is a more formal articulation between these two schools and it has been due for decades. One would be hard pressed to find a major public university that does not have some transfer agreement with a junior/community/technical college. UW was way behind the times in this issue. It has nothing to do with lowering the standards. Also 12:47, two years of UW tuition is cheaper than four years of UW tuition--do the math
Anonymous (April 26, 2006 @ 2:16pm):
Every transfer student that I've ever met has felt the need to prove themselves to show that they belonged. They worked harder than most of us, cared more, and treated class as something more than a pesky obligation that got in the way of partying.
Getting into UW-Madison isn't that big of a deal. This weekend, Mifflin Street will once again show that there's a large number of complete idiots who somehow survive the admissions process.
Anonymous (April 26, 2006 @ 3:52pm):
This agreement is a bunch of BS.
Don't worry though, none of the MATC students will last more than a semester at UW.
Anonymous (April 26, 2006 @ 4:25pm):
I know plenty of MATC students who have lasted way longer than a semester and have gone on to graduate, get professional degrees, etc.
I cannot believe how ignorant and elitist some members of this campus are.
Anonymous (April 26, 2006 @ 4:33pm):
What's most disturbing about the MATC agreement is the automatic entry at just 3.0 -- maintaining a 3.0 at UW isn't hard; I can't imagine it takes much more than a pulse at less challenging institutions including MATC. If you want to get the top crop from MATC to come here, great. But the requirements need to be a little higher than a B average at a B-rated school.
Anonymous (April 27, 2006 @ 7:07am):
Maintaining at 3.0 at any college isn't hard when you don't have any other responsibilities. Add to that working full-time, taking care of a family, etc. and then we'll see how easy it is to maintain a 3.0
Anonymous (April 27, 2006 @ 7:11am):
I am betting that the general ed curriculum at MATC is similar to UW. Those "only takes a pulse" statements regarding passing MATC courses are arrogant, verging upon stupid. UW ain't Harvard, either, by the way.
Anonymous (April 27, 2006 @ 12:29pm):
I could work 3.0 jobs and raise 3.0 children and still get a 3.0 at MATC.
Anonymous (April 27, 2006 @ 3:13pm):
"Getting into UW-Madison isn't that big of a deal. This weekend, Mifflin Street will once again show that there's a large number of complete idiots who somehow survive the admissions process."
Check the stats, the "complete idiots" at Mifflin are usually not UW students.
Anonymous (April 27, 2006 @ 3:24pm):
Betcha a semester of UW tution that you could not 4.0 MATC with no job and mom and dad footing the entire bill, which is prolly the case now.
Anonymous (April 27, 2006 @ 3:49pm):
"It's a PUBLIC school."
Not A public school, THE premier public school in the Midwest.
"anonynmous from 12:47"
Figures a supporter of MATC wouldn't be able to spell "anonymous" even on a web page where it appears several times.
One last point I'd like to make. We really don't have much to worry about, as most MATC students lack the motivation to want to attend UW anyway.
Anonymous (April 27, 2006 @ 6:26pm):
I think the University of Michigan might disagree with a portion of the last post.
Anonymous (April 28, 2006 @ 2:30pm):
I think you are wrong for feeding into the stereotype that MATC students are not as intelligent as you are or that they are not as motivated as you are to succeed. It is also wrong to say that just because these students didn't attend UW right after high school that they should never feel good enough to attend later.
Some students were less fortunate in high school. Perhaps some had to work instead of participating in extra curricular activities. Or maybe some attended a school where teachers didn't care enough to motivate and prepare them for college. Or maybe some did have the grades to get in to UW but they chose MATC to save some money because Mom and Dad weren't forking out money for their tuition.
Either way, does this mean that these students should feel inferior? I know many students at MATC that work harder than UW students because they want their education more. Just because they might not have met the UW requirements in high school does not mean that they shouldn't be given a second opportunity to succeed and prove that they do have the drive and motivation to earn a UW education.
Get off your high horse, do a little research about MATC and you will find that there are actually many positive things to say about MATC and their students instead. These students will work twice as hard for their UW education because they truly want it, they're not there to party or live the "college" life. Plus, they will constantly feel the need to prove themselves worthy, and will have no problem doing so, since people like you continuously feel the need to try to bring them down.
Maybe you should spend less time passing judgment on MATC students and use your prestigious UW education to open your mind and change your negative elitist attitude.
Donna Larson (April 29, 2006 @ 3:57pm):
I am not a student at UW or MATC but my daugther was. She attended both "schools". She received a 3.86 in hight school (well above your required 3.0), a 3.78 at UW Madison, and a 4.0 at MATC. The reason she obtained a 4.0 at MATC is because the instructors took time to "instruct" and didn't have to pay a student teacher $7.00 an hour to do it for them.
Hey Emily, get off your "my parent pays for everything and therefore I'm the best" attitude. I welcome you into the real world Emily. I would bet that you will fail long before many of the MATC students I know.
By the way Emily, my daughter worked 2 jobs, went to school full time and completed an internship all at the same time as earning a 4.0, how about you?
Anonymous (May 1, 2006 @ 9:54pm):
"I think the University of Michigan might disagree with a portion of the last post."
Perhaps. Michigan is probably a better school than UW, but it's not by much. After UW, no other school in the Midwest even comes close. So, as the unquestionable #2 public school in the Midwest, Wisconsin shouldn't lower its standards the way it has.
Anonymous (May 2, 2006 @ 12:07pm):
We're #2
Scot V (May 5, 2006 @ 10:18am):
From reading this post I only heard comments from UW students. I think it's important to hear from some MATC students. UW students believe they have "earned" something just by being admitted to the school. I have news for most of you. You will not all graduate. Last time I check UW does not even come close to the national average for percent of students graduating. MATC students put in just as much time and effort in their classes. I know, I've graduated from both university systems. UW classes are only more difficult because you don't get the one-on-one relationship with the professors. MATC professors MAKE THEMSELVES AVAILABLE.
Secondly why would you think taking students from a 2 year program would somehow reduce the academic level of UW? Last time I checked a 3.0 at a tech school is much better than a 3.0 out of high school. MATC students are more prepared for life at the UW and therefore should INCREASE the level of academics.
UW student's get of you high horse, and welcome your new classmates. MATC students prove you're worth it.
UW community stop acting like you are the only school in WI people from Marquette may get upset.
Anonymous (May 8, 2006 @ 7:13am):
UW is just another Big Ten university. Most of the private schools in this state are more academically challenging. Don't see why Emily is worked up over this.
Anonymous (May 19, 2006 @ 3:26am):
Ok, time out...
Most of the posters on this story are missing the point and getting far too personal in their attacks on the author. Since when is it ok to bash the character and make assumptions about their upbringing based on an OPINION story in a STUDENT newspaper which is allocated BARELY a page to form an argument?
Still, in just a page, I can tell what Emily's point is, and it isn't an "elitist" one, one that claims an MATC degree is worthless, one that only serves to "aid her "ego," or one that only stems from her "my parent pays for everything and therefore I'm the best attitude."
As an undergraduate at UW-Madison, I feel no superiority to those who attend MATC or any other university in Wisconsin. I agree with many of you that the work some transfer students put in at their former institutions before coming here to enrich our fine campus is exemplorary. But I agree with Anonymous at 4:33pm on April 26th that the point of the story is the "cut-off" ruling that any GPA above a 3.0 at MATC will grant a transfer student automatic admission into UW-Madison.
What makes MATC so special? Why are there not automatic cut-offs for other public or private Wisconsin universities? What about co-curriculars or jobs out of school? Are there no extrenuating circumstances where a student with a 2.9 GPA could be granted admission into Madison? Isn't it unfair to grant precious admission space to an MATC transfer student with a 3.0 GPA when a student from UW-Milwaukee, Carthage College, UW-Parkside, St. Norbert's, etc. has a 3.8 GPA with outstanding co-curriculars? I think THESE are the questions which this article raises, NOT blatent assumptions that UW-Madison students are automatically superior to all others.
Assuming otherwise makes you just as narrow-minded as you claim Emily is being when she writes this article.
Anonymous (May 23, 2006 @ 8:20am):
operson who juts posted on May 19: you need to read what Emily wrote again. By the way, you DO feel superior. Admit it.
Joel Ninmann (May 30, 2006 @ 4:31pm):
To anonymous on May 23. I posted that other post. I have read Emily's article. Multiple times. I read it once more just to be sure.
I agree with you that SOME points made in the article make her sound "elitist" and "superior." Especially the first paragraph. But I think many of these points are made to sensationalize and to orient the reader toward one side or the other. A paper like the Herald is read only by a fraction of students for less than 10 minutes before class. Therefore, you need a headline and lead paragraph that will surprise and entertain (positively or negatively) the reader. I think this is why the article makes some feel Emily is "superior."
Yet I still maintain that is not her intention or her main point in writing the article.
And by the way, I don't feel superior. Yes, I feel UW-Madison is a top-flight university with many areas that are particularily noteworthy, but I also feel many other universities, colleges, tech schools, etc. have prominent (and occasionally superior) aspects. Take, for example, UW-Milwaukee's school of architecture. Or, Steven's Point's music program. I have many friends who attend other universities and community colleges in the state and I assure you they would not say I claimed I was superior to them. At least, I would never do so seriously.
Everyone jokes around with their high school friends that they drink more at their school than anyone else, that their girls/guys are hotter, that their sports teams are superior, and that their academic/research is more prominent. You cannot grant me the same latitude?
Anonymous (June 5, 2006 @ 7:56am):
Joel,
I apologize sincerely to you for assuming you feel superior. Emily does not have a broad enough view of this land grant school to understand that the transfer agreement is to serve the broadest swath in hopes of benefitting the state's economy. Her sense of injustice(?)is too quickly reactionary without a full understanding of the history leading to this transfer agreement. My feeling is that somehow she believes this is going to dilute the value of her education if the MATC riff raff are so "easily" accepted via the backdoor. That's my take as to her motive and if she is offended by this then she should not have published this article.
