H -°, L 51° | Tomorrow: 
H 65°, L 60°
One wonders how high the salaries were of the public relations professionals and university administrators who worked overtime to pick the name “Madison Initiative for Undergraduates,” and to produce the slick promotional film pitching the program. The proposed tuition surcharge would be better named “Biddy Sticks it to Out-of-Staters” or “Martin’s Increase in Undergraduate Debt.” As a parent of a non-resident student, and as a UW alumnus, let me comment on the chancellor’s talent for doublespeak as displayed in the e-mail memo I received, the same one that informed me I’ll be paying this accumulating surcharge on top of an expected 5 or 6 percent tuition increase over the next three years.
In her e-mail, the chancellor remarks “we need to move quickly to invest in improvements in your son or daughter’s undergraduate education and to work toward making the university affordable for all.” Where does the chancellor shop? Is there a store where higher prices make groceries more “affordable”? Does a rent increase make housing more affordable? Do higher gas taxes make gasoline more affordable? Only the most na�ve parents believe the nonsense that a surcharge makes the university “affordable.”
Then, there’s the alleged “improvements.” But the reality is that while the surcharge will tax current undergraduate students, few of them will see these alleged “improvements.” The chancellor says UW will “add faculty.” But it is already too late to hire qualified people in tenure-track positions for fall 2009. The earliest new faculty could be on campus is fall 2010, when the current freshmen are juniors. And, since juniors need fewer of the so-called “gateway courses,” access to which the chancellor promised to increase, it is unlikely current UW students will notice any of the promised “improvements.” Parents, then, should not be fooled into thinking they are somehow making a direct contribution to the betterment of their own child’s education. The surcharge current students and parents pay will go to help those who enroll after the current students have begun paying back student loans.
But, we are promised, there’ll also be an improvement to “vital student services” which the chancellor assures us “have been cited as vital needs.” Cited by whom? The chancellor uses the passive voice to hide the likelihood that those calling for the “vital services” are most likely the very people who benefit by an augmentation of their own ideological influence, supervisory authority and salaries. In my experience, such “services” usually mean a measurable increase in student surveillance along with an unnecessary growth in administrative positions and bureaucratic bloat.
Then, of course, there are the “innovative pedagogical approaches.” Translated that means “new stuff” with a Ph.D. But this is more bait to help us swallow the surcharge hook. Again, from long experience I know that curricular “innovation” takes years to accomplish, even if there is any evidence that current pedagogical approaches are flawed (the chancellor offered no such evidence). In that case, again, current students will not benefit from anything produced as a result of the proposed surcharge.
But, says the chancellor, all this will give UW “a stronger student body” (apparently by driving away talented out-of-state students) who will be assured “that the value of their degrees will be undiminished.” Indeed, that’s good to know, since future graduates may need that undiminished value to buy groceries or pay rent after they’ve written the check for their larger college loan payment.
In concluding, the chancellor says “this proposal asks students and parents … to help.” But, it isn’t really “asking” is it? It’s more like hostage-taking, since there’s very little choice in the matter for currently enrolled students and their parents. But, I do have a choice the next time the UW Foundation calls. I will say this with certainty, although I have been a regular donor to the University since the year of my graduation, I will for the next decade or more consider Chancellor Martin’s “surcharge” as my contribution to the annual fund.
James Farrell
Ph.D., class of 1988
IP hash: 4b05844a
That conclusion is priceless. Well done sir.
IP hash: 97d91588
He’s right, I don’t know what student would disagree with him. There are times when I look at this school and say, “What the fuck?” It needs spelling out.
IP hash: b43eab93
Maybe your “child” should pay for their own tuition and learn the value of money, instead of having daddy whine to the school newspaper.
IP hash: f07e958b
I agree with you on most accounts. However your attack on “vital student services” is a little unwarranted. Sure the wording is vague and that is worth arguing over but perhaps these services will go toward more student safety initiatives. This campus isn’t exactly the safest one in the country.
IP hash: 9c771276
Charge what the market will bear.
The Law of Supply and Demand can not be repealed.
It’s not like it’s TAXES - which are no-doubt-about-it robbery.
IP hash: 6fabc93d
Dr. Farrell, I understand that you want your children to have an experience similar to yours, but just about every one of our states has excellent schools that would allow you much cheaper in-state tuition. You are aware, sir, that you are paying a premium for your *wants” not your needs.
IP hash: fb21aca8
It’s a real shame that poignant concerns like these will not be proliferated to those who should or need to hear them. Rather, while we hear about the “initiative” in all of it’s glory as the impotent ASM holds a forum that we all know will not accomplish anything, our parents are about to be gouged for benefits we’ll never even come close to reaping. Thanks a lot, Biddy.
IP hash: 14427ea6
Thank goodness someone is smart and understands how bogus this proposal is.
IP hash: a903de8f
Well said.
IP hash: 3f5897a2
couldn’t agree more, great piece
IP hash: bd48b646
Great letter. This plan makes total sense for in-state students, but seems like a rip-off for out-of-state students.
IP hash: 9c771276
Out-of-state students can be replaced by illegal immigrants! I’m sure that the other in-state students and tax payers won’t mind paying more to make up for the out-of-state student revenues lost in the process.
IP hash: d32fac2c
Get over it already — it’s expensive to be an out-of-state student at the UW. If you can’t accept it, sent your child to your local state university where your tax dollars already subsidize the cost of a college education.
Out-of-staters need to reframe how they think about tuition at UW. Most think because it is a state university, then it should be a bargain compared to private institutions; however that simply isn’t reality — at the University of Wisconsin or any other state university of similar esteem. Sorry, but it’s true.
IP hash: ae23a3d1
Costs go up for in staters too. Yep. Good story to tell here. Thanks, Biddy.
IP hash: 3e13ea71
Suppose you go to a restaurant and order a four course meal. You see the prices of the entrees. You check your wallet. You place your order. The soup comes and you finish it. Then the salad arrives, but with it is a new menu showing not only an increase in the price of the salad since you sat down, but also a “surcharge” on the price of the salad which the waiter explains will help hire a new chef for the restaurant (who won’t start work until your meal is done), and also go toward subsidizing the cost of the salad for the person at the next table, because that person’s salary is not as high as yours. The same thing happens again when the entree and again when the dessert arrives. Would the “surcharge” seem just to you? Or, would you have indigestion?
IP hash: 4089035a
Waaahhhh. Waaahhhhh. WAHHHHHHHHH. Waaaaahhhh.
Want, want, want, want. Gimme, gimme, gimme. Pay for it?!?! Fuck that.
IP hash: 183f76a6
More and more colleges are starting to worry that their policy of raising tuition every seven hours might drive this year’s new batch of students to reject them.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2009-04-01-college-admissions_N.htm
cwcid FARK
IP hash: 1843a572
Chancellor Martin’s “proposal” to share increased tuition charges to families making more than $80k with families making less than $80k is an outrageous venture beyond her boundaries of running the University. Unless there is an accompanying proclamation that the “5 square miles surrounded by reality” is in fact adopting socialism, Chancellor Martin has NO place in asking me to directly fund other family’s education bill. And all of this lovely proposing without mention of possible measures of austerity by the University. I will have the summer months to review college options with my son. If I succeed in prompting a transfer, Chancellor Martin will be out at least $60k over the next 3 years in exchange for her asinine request of an extra $4,500 from this Minnesota parent.
IP hash: bd48b646
“If I succeed in prompting a transfer, Chancellor Martin will be out at least $60k over the next 3 years in exchange for her asinine request of an extra $4,500 from this Minnesota parent.”
That would be incredibly stupid. I hope you realize that tuition reciprocity means that Wisconsin is unable to raise the tuition of Minnesota residents. Under the current agreement only Minnesota can do that. This initiative won’t change the tuition of Minnesota residents one penny.
IP hash: 223a3ba0
I concede a lack of facts and thanks for getting me to look into it more. UW’s FAQ site includes an explanation regarding reciprocity and I think your comment matches that. So….that leaves me on the sideline somewhat. As an unaffected observer then, I still regard the proposal as out of touch, poorly presented and plain immoral. It wants to define who is “needy”, who is “rich” and, by that definition, it blatantly takes from one and gives to the other. While it won’t affect me, it’s no less disagreeable to me. And while cheerily asking for more, the proposal acknowledges no cost control initiatives by the University. That’s just plain arrogant.