Since Chancellor Biddy Martin unveiled her supplemental tuition proposal weeks ago, it has been fervently discussed across campus. The Herald Editorial Board sounded off in favor (with conditions) immediately after the announcement and the enemy paper followed suit with an endorsement as well. On the other side of the issue has been the venerated Board of Roommates. Their editorials have run the gamut from “huh?” to “fuck that.”
It seems administrators, campus press and those attending many of the recent forums are by and large supportive of a tuition raise, even if the brave men of Frances Street are not. Martin must realize there is a substantial constituency of people who would rather spend that money on Fatheads than FIGs and concentrate her efforts on convincing these people the tuition increase is both merited and feasible.
At the same time, they might be on to something. Though many of the justifications of for this tuition raise resonate with students, some are not as clear cut.
Most everyone attending this university realizes whether in-state or out, we are receiving a tremendous value. Wisconsin is near the top in nearly every measure of research and academic prowess and near the bottom in terms of tuition costs. Even after Martin’s plan has taken full effect, we will be an elite university with a middle-of-the-pack price.
Similarly, students across campus can understand the need to increase academic advising. The advising situation in Letters and Sciences is deplorable and can often result in students being forced to stay an extra semester — or even year — to fully complete their requirements for graduation. In the end, this move could wind up saving students and the university some money by moving students through the system more quickly.
Unfortunately, there are also several measures included the initiative whose merit is a much more subjective quality. Though some may argue that vague “pedagogical and technological improvements” were budgeted at only about 7 percent of the initiative in the Martin’s first Power Point, you would be hard pressed to find a student here (or anywhere) who would dismiss $175 over four years as “only 7 percent.”
Thus, the onus is on our fair chancellor to justify the need for these programs. Programs like GUTS are certainly important, but the case for expanding it remains incomplete. We have seen numbers regarding the need for reducing bottleneck courses and increasing academic advising, but what about GUTS? How many students does it serve and how many are turned away? Just like a financial aid application, Martin must show a demonstrated need for each of these programs. Otherwise, they end up looking like bureaucratic fluff — things like e-portfolios may make the administration look good, but until they are fully explained they will just be dismissed as educational pork by most students.
Again, as before, more clarification is needed to ensure the student body that things like “academic technologies” (budgeted at a cool million) are going to do more than just put projectors in every discussion room and actually provide tangible benefits to a good portion of the campus.
Other programs don’t require much clarification at all. In fact, the proposal to create a transfer student office begs the question why such an office was not already in existence. There are certainly many important measures in Martin’s initiative, but those will not mask the ones that require further elaboration. Like wrapping a carrot in bacon, students will be able to tell something is amiss the moment they sink their teeth into it.
Martin has clearly put a great deal of thought and effort into this initiative. She has sought input from sources high and low across Badger country. However sometimes useful advice can come from an unexpected source. That stupid WeConserve sign on the side of Wendt library that greets me on my daily morning commute poses a question Martin would do well to consider: Wants or needs?
Joey Labuz ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in biomedical engineering.
