As Biddy Martin’s new Badger Partnership begins to take form, it is imperative that those affected understand how – and why – Martin is moving forward with such a drastic change in the university’s financial model.
In the state’s most recent budget, roughly 18 percent of the university’s funding was provided for by state funds – an all-time low. While the Legislature’s support for the university is often bemoaned as a betrayal of its commitment to the state’s aspiring students, few have proposed any mature solutions. A coalition of far-right conservatives and leftists has argued for tuition freezes, while the UW System Board of Regents has simply increased tuition by 5.5 percent every year.
And while the Badger Partnership will involve tuition increases, the plan emphasizes efficiency – under Martin’s vision, the university would manage its own building costs and would purchase materials from research university groups in order to prevent a ballooning of the unnecessary expenses associated with state management. Martin has also argued that tuition increases would enable the university not only to fund more financial aid, but also to provide faculty with a dependable schedule of pay increases that would allow us to retain talent while remaining attractive to new candidates.
The concept Martin has stressed most during her campaign to sell the proposal has been independence from state government. For a body that contributes less than a fifth of the university’s total funding, the Legislature has long possessed an undue degree of control over this institution’s affairs. Financial independence would, at least theoretically, enable university administrators to enact the type of reforms legislatures are traditionally slow to implement.
For example, a stronger university administration would be more able to provide domestic partnership benefits for its employees, earmark increased funding for professor and TA salaries, and put curriculum decisions firmly in the hands of those who understand them best.
In such a context we support Martin’s bid for independence, particularly given the new makeup of state government. It would be blind of university administrators to insist they deserve more funding from state government instead of planning with reality in mind. But we hope Martin is able to find a way to assure low-income students that they will be insulated from new increases by financial aid.
Given the dramatic rise in the mean family income of the University of Michigan’s student body after that institution embarked on a similar plan, she has an uncertain task ahead of her. We recommend Martin consider a cap in the percentage tuition can rise in any given year. Such protections would ensure students are not overwhelmed by debt two years into their educations and would allow families preparing for college to save pragmatically.
The most contentious element of the Badger Partnership will inevitably be Martin’s proposal to move Madison to the middle of its peer group in terms of tuition prices. With growth in education fees far outpacing inflation every year it is not only fair, but essential, to debate the premise that tuition should rise at all. On the other hand, we are all faced with a reality not of Martin’s – or our – making. It is critical that the Badger Partnership is treated for what it is – a thoughtful effort to improve the stature of an institution that has waited too long for a sympathetic ear in the Capitol.
