All posts by Rachelida

About Rachelida

Writer, historian, mother; public employee in the embattled UW system

UWM Chancellor Mark Mone on the Proposed Tax on Graduate Tuition Remissions


To our region’s graduate students and everyone who is impacted:

UW-Milwaukee is quite concerned about current legislation that includes provisions that remove the deduction for interest paid on student loans. Adoption of this legislation would significantly increase the tax liability of our – and all – graduate students. This is not acceptable.

We are advocating for changes to the tax reform bill so students are not adversely affected. Keeping graduate education accessible and affordable is among our highest priorities.

We have been in direct contact with our Congressional representatives this week on Capitol Hill. We shared a statement from one of our graduate students regarding the bill’s impact and Congresswoman Gwen Moore included that statement in her speech to the House of Representatives.

We have joined forces with the UW System and federal relations lobbyists for Marquette, UW-Madison and the Medical College of Wisconsin to collectively make the case against the provisions of the tax reform bill. Last month, our University Relations office and Graduate School prepared an advocacy letter with resources and information that our students and greater community have used to communicate their concerns. Further, our distinguished professors issued a letter to the UW System, our Board of Regents and our congressional delegation.

In the week ahead, we will reinforce our lobbying efforts after the Senate and House conference committee is appointed to work out a compromise.

More broadly, we are concerned by how this bill could affect graduate education and many other elements of higher education. We join you in solidarity for the sake of higher education as we know it.



Board of Regents Activities This Week!


poster for rally

  1. Help Illustrate Our Campus for the Board of Regents and President Cross!:       Chalking Party: Weds 6/8 @ 7pm Spaights Plaza
  2. Thursday @ 1:15: We will go together to Chancellor Mone’s address to the Board of Regents in the Wisconsin Room, UWM Student Union..  Wear t-shirts if you have them. ** If you want to purchase a t-shirt, email rachelida15@gmail.comand I will deliver it to you before Thursday. ***
  3. Friday @ 8 AM: Community Mobilization for Public Education, K-PhD, Spaights Plaza. We will rally @ 8 and then march together into the BOR meeting @ 9.

      *** A big turnout for this rally signals to the BOR and UW System that we are not alone; we have public support. Bring your friends, your family, your neighbors. We need all of us!!!!

R1 is as R1 Does: L&S Budget Cutting Practices Threaten both Governance & Quality

As we take a moment to celebrate our recent R1 status and the successful no confidence vote in President Cross and BOR, there is still much to be concerned about…Beware the budget cutting committees!

Over the last year UWM has faced numerous budget crises related to the confluence of historic cuts in state aid and declines in enrollment. Together these have contributed to a roughly $40 million operating deficit for the campus as a whole, and a $5 million operating deficit in UWM’s largest college: Letters & Science.

In response to the budget situation, campus administration has put pressure on L&S to address its deficit over three years. We maintain that the degree of cuts that are occurring in the College and the time frame for these cuts will do irreparable harm and threaten both our R1 designation and dual research and access missions as well as our ability to remain a community engaged university.

We also object to the L&S ad hoc committee that was formed this year to address these cuts.  Although we recognize the dire budget situation in the College and the urgent need to address the budget situation, UWM AAUP maintains several objections to the composition of the committee, its charge, and the current actions taken by this non-governance committee:

1)      This committee operates outside shared governance bodies, yet its charge, focus and recent decisions have huge implications for reshaping the College and University and impacting university employees and program array.  In addition, the composition of this committee is unrepresentative of the breadth of units in the College and should be broadened to reflect the full range of interests that are affected.

2)      Decisions made by this committee have been made without formal adoption by any governance group, and no written record has been established that lays out the rationale or nature of those decisions.

For example: the committee has defined certain principles that are guiding their work, such as the idea that the core of the College is made up of departments and that programs and centers remain outside this core and thus are expendable and will lose College support. A direct action drawn from this logic (which was never publicly debated or approved by any governance body and which goes against key principles identified in UWM’s mission) has been the defunding of all academic research centers, to zero out their 101 funding support from the College.  Such a dramatic cut would threaten the very existence of most centers and will likely lead to layoffs of academic staff who work in those centers.

3)      This committee is deliberately operating in a non-transparent way. For example, no agendas or minutes have been posted since its inception despite repeated requests. College administration has repeatedly stated that decisions have not been made when center directors have been told otherwise and required to meet before the committee.  In response to concerns about this committee, Dean Swain has said any decisions made by the L&S ad hoc budget cutting committee would go through the APGC, but to date nothing has come before the APGC related to this committee’s decisions.

4)      The logic applied by this committee is precisely the approach taken by the Board of Regents regarding its new tenure policy and using the broader financial basis for program discontinuance rather than the narrower and more appropriate academic basis that faculty and AAUP advocated for and continue to support. In other words, the decision to defund/eliminate centers rests purely on a financial basis; it is not a reflection of poor performance or relevance as defined by some metric, but simply the fact that it is a center and in this budget environment based on the principles the committee has adopted that privilege departments, centers are considered a luxury the College can no longer afford.

5)      The decision to single out centers for defunding/elimination is entirely non-strategic and inconsistent with UWM’s mission and often-stated goals to be more cost-efficient.  Centers in the College work with hundreds of community partners (e.g. CED, CLACS), are engaged in community development work to address urban problems and provide policy expertise in the region (e.g. CED), represent an important source of student scholarships and support (e.g. CLACS, CED, C21), provide high levels of visibility in the community through their work and events (e.g. CLACS, CED, C21, Jewish Studies), foster collaboration and interdisciplinary research such as the authorship of books, fellowships, speakers, disciplinary cross-fertilization (e.g. C21, CLACS, CED, Jewish Studies), and represent an important source of gifts, grants, and contract revenue (e.g. CLACS, Jewish Studies, CED).  These centers are important for recruitment of faculty and graduate students and a form of distinction for UWM.  To put it bluntly: the decision to defund L&S research centers is reckless and should be stopped before this committee does irreparable harm to UWM.

6)      Academic research is supported through 101 funds in other ways beyond centers in the College, such as through financial support for labs and lab supplies, but little or no attention has been directed at cutting these funds.  Why not other research activities on campus?  Where is the data for these expenditures?  Why only the focus on centers? Before dramatic cuts are made to research centers that threaten our R1 status, a full accounting of all research expenditures should be undertaken.

7)      The decision to defund centers is not following the approach that already exists to evaluate and discontinue centers, one that was actually approved by governance bodies after years of work by faculty and governance groups (Document S-71 RESEARCH CENTERS AND INSTITUTES APPROVAL AND EVALUATION PROCEDURES)

This committee, therefore, constitutes a violation of UWM’s well-established protocols of shared governance, and is pursuing actions harmful to the university and College without respect to public debate and our culture of shared governance. These actions to defund centers (and possibly programs in the future) threaten UWM’s dual mission and sacrifice our community engagement and visibility.  They ignore the impact on alumni and donors and the ability to generate grant and contract revenue, as well as the significance of scholarly collaboration and interdisciplinary research, our recently achieved R1 status, and the importance of a diverse array of programming, particularly for underserved students and underrepresented fields. They also fail to recognize the many ways in which the contributions of our academic centers are intertwined with the work of our departments, and the damage that will be done to the latter by defunding the former.  Finally, these decisions to defund centers will also impact our ability to recruit students and faculty and maintain areas of prestige and distinction in the College consistent with our newly designated R1 status.

For these reasons, we demand the following:

  • Do not defund/eliminate academic research centers. Instead, follow existing procedures for evaluating centers; any budget cutting that goes beyond proportional cuts should be strategic with reference to UWM’s mission as a key criterion as well as the notion that a “whole UWM is better.”
  • Utilize existing shared governance bodies to consider any recommendations proposed in the L&S ad hoc committee.
  • The L&S ad hoc committee should have broader representation to include center and program directors.  In addition, we request that an AAUP committee member be included on this committee similar to what Chancellor Mone agreed to for CCOET.
  • Post both agendas and minutes to meetings of ad hoc budget cutting groups and follow legal procedures for ad hoc committees.  If the L&S ad hoc committee wishes to invoke its legal authority to go into closed session under Wis. Stat. sec. 19.85(1), as it has done, it must follow the attendant legal obligations for governmental bodies under Wis. Stat. sec. 19.83 and 19.84.
  • Provide full disclosure of all data that is being used to inform discussion and recommendations, and a fuller breakdown of costs within the College.  These data should be made public in an easily accessible place such as on the main page of the L&S website.  We also call on the Dean and his committee to present data on all College research subsidies with 101 funds to examine the full extent of research costs and College support for them.

UWM Full Faculty to Vote on No Confidence Resolution May 10

A historically unprecedented meeting of the full university faculty will consider a Resolution of No Confidence in the Board of Regents and UW System President Ray Cross on Tuesday, May 10 at 2:30 in the Architecture and Urban Planning Building, room 170.The UW-Madison Faculty Senate voted in favor of a No Confidence Resolution earlier this week. Similar resolutions are being considered across the UW system.

A symbolic action, the No Confidence Resolution highlights the UWM community’s alarm over the effects of fiscal austerity on the university system and the Wisconsin Idea. The past decades have seen dramatic decrease in state funding of education: while state funding accounted for 40% of UWM’s budget in 1996, it has dwindled to 13%. UWM is increasingly tuition-driven, making a college education unaffordable for many.

Unprecedented cuts in state funding to education particularly threaten UWM’s unique dual research and access missions. Imposed austerity endangers UWM’s recently earned, prestigious distinctions as a top tier (R1) research and community engagement university.

The UWM community is all too aware of the direct impact cuts to funding have on student success. As departments and programs are forced to reduce course offerings, students find it increasingly difficult to make their way towards graduation. Some of the most productive faculty in terms of teaching and research are leaving UWM. Since attrition saves money, they are largely not being replaced.

Fiscal austerity has been accompanied by new policies governing the UW System. Passed last summer, Act 55 undermines long-functioning university protocols of shared governance and academic freedom. Shared governance enables the university to respond to challenges in a democratic manner, while academic freedom protects the “free and untrammeled inquiry” heralded by the Wisconsin Idea.

Across the UW System, many faculty have little or no confidence in the ability of System President Cross and the Board of Regents to protect the university and to lead the system in difficult times. A statewide Tenure Policy Task Force drew faculty and administrators into the process of writing new, Act 55-compliant policies, but was largely disregarded by the Board of Regents in crafting the final policies. Similarly, in its April meeting the Board adopted language written by the UW System counsel, failing to even consider language authored by representatives of the faculty, a violation of the principles of shared governance.

Link to agenda and documents here.

Resolution of No Confidence in UW System President and Board of Regents

To be considered by the full UWM Faculty; Tuesday, May 10, 2016; 2:30pm; AUP 170

WHEREAS faculty are responsible for ensuring a quality education for students, serving the state of Wisconsin, and contributing to knowledge through research;

WHEREAS fulfillment of these responsibilities has long been guided and enabled by the University’s traditions of the Wisconsin Idea, robust tenure policies, and shared governance;

WHEREAS these practices have enabled a state of average size and wealth to enjoy a university system of worldwide renown at unparalleled cost effectiveness;

WHEREAS UW System President Ray Cross and the Board of Regents by their actions have overseen a weakening of these traditions and engaged in practices that fall far short of principles of responsible governance in their stewardship of the University;

WHEREAS in January 2016 the UW System Tenure Policy Task Force issued a final report without the endorsement of its membership and without adequate time for consideration by faculty and other stakeholders;

WHEREAS in March 2016 the Board of Regents adopted new UW System tenure and layoff policies based on the aforementioned report without adopting any of the modifications requested by UW System faculty, thereby weakening professional standards of academic due process beyond what 2015 Act 55 required;

WHEREAS in April 2016 the Board of Regents approved new campus-specific faculty layoff and termination policies for UW-Madison that had been materially weakened through unilateral modification by UW System legal counsel subsequent to their approval by the UW-Madison Faculty Senate in November 2015, rendering them inconsistent with the high standards set by the American Association of University Professors in its Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure;

WHEREAS the unilaterally modified policies were made public without adequate time for consideration by faculty or administrators, and were adopted by the Board of Regents without any opportunity for reconsideration by the UW-Madison Faculty Senate, in direct contravention of the Senate’s stated wishes;

WHEREAS the unilateral modification of the UW-Madison policies relating to faculty layoff and termination by the UW System general counsel, and the swift adoption of the unilaterally modified policies by the Board of Regents, have set an unacceptable precedent for both the content of other UW campuses’ policies and the process by which those policies will be adopted;

WHEREAS in February 2016 UW-Milwaukee was classified as a Research 1 institution in the Carnegie Classifications for the first time in its history, an achievement dependent on academic freedom, shared governance, and state fiscal support for the dual campus missions of Access and Research;

WHEREAS this distinction added to the previous classification, in January 2015, of UWM as a top university for community engagement by the Carnegie Foundation;

WHEREAS program changes based on non-educational considerations, the erosion of academic due process, and the circumventing of shared governance jeopardize the quality of students’ education and imperil the dual mission of UW-Milwaukee and its R1 and community engagement status;

WHEREAS affordable tuition, adequate budget, strong tenure, and shared governance are essential to the quality of a university’s educational, scholarly, and outreach missions;

WHEREAS the erosion of active shared governance in conjunction with budget cuts diminishes access, affordability, and educational resources for our students, as well as support for scholarship and its associated economic benefits, as well as civic engagement, as well as outreach and services to the citizens of the State of Wisconsin, and thereby harms the quality of our university;

WHEREAS the erosion of tenure and shared governance in conjunction with budget cuts is likely to have a disproportionately negative impact on faculty and students who are already most marginalized and/or engaged in politically controversial research;

WHEREAS the UW-Milwaukee Faculty Senate previously resolved to “engage in all appropriate collective action” to “uphold and defend” the principles regarding tenure that the Faculty Senate endorsed on November 19, 2015 (Faculty Document 3041);

WHEREAS on May 2, 2016, the UW-Madison Faculty Senate endorsed a resolution of no confidence in UW System President Ray Cross and the Board of Regents’ commitment to defending the Wisconsin Idea, extending the benefit of the University to every citizen in the state;

It is hereby RESOLVED that the UW-Milwaukee Faculty have no confidence in President Ray Cross and the Board of Regents’ commitment to defending the Wisconsin Idea, extending the benefits of the University to every citizen in the state;

It is further RESOLVED that the UW-Milwaukee Faculty call on System President Ray Cross and the Board of Regents to recommit themselves to the Wisconsin Idea by carrying out their responsibilities and working with us to strengthen the quality of our state universities, in particular by working with the state legislature to make a positive case for improved access, affordability, and educational resources for our students; for additional support for scholarship and its associated economic benefits; for greater resources for outreach and services to citizens of the State; and by truly respecting, advancing, and participating in shared governance in the UW System.

UWM & the R1 Reclassification

Draft: Kyle Swanson 4/4/2016
Discussed at APBC 4/7/2016
Post APBC revisions:
IPEDS 2013-14 PhD counts vs. Dept. Profile 2012-2015 running averages (4/8)
Removed professional PhDs from index (4/8)

UWM made the jump from R2 to R1 in Carnegie Classification in 2015, marking a significant milestone in the institution’s history. Given its importance from a marketing and political standpoint, it is vital to understand precisely why this reclassification occurred, and insofar as this designation is deemed strategically important, to use the metrics that underlie the R1 classification as a basis for future decision making by the University.

By way of background, the Carnegie Classification has been the leading framework for recognizing and describing institutional diversity in U.S. higher education for the past four and a half decades. Starting in 1970, the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education developed a classification of colleges and universities to support its program of research and policy analysis. Derived from empirical data on colleges and universities, the Carnegie Classification was originally published in 1973, and subsequently updated in 1976, 1987, 1994, 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2015 to reflect changes among colleges and universities. This framework has been widely used in the study of higher education, both as a way to represent and control for institutional differences, and also in the design of research studies to ensure adequate representation of sampled institutions, students, or faculty.

Under the Carnegie Classification, doctoral universities are assigned to one of three categories based on a measure of research activity. The research activity scale includes the following correlates of research activity:
Research & development (R&D) expenditures in science and engineering (S&E);
R&D expenditures in non-S&E fields;
S&E research staff (postdoctoral appointees and other non-faculty research staff with doctorates);
Doctoral conferrals in humanities fields, in social science fields, in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) fields, and in other fields (e.g., business, education, public policy, social work).
Carnegie then statistically combines these data using principal components analysis to create two indices of research activity reflecting the total inter-institutional variation across these measures. It is vital to note that classifications are time-specific snapshots of institutional attributes and behavior based on 2013-14 data.

The first index represents the aggregate level of institutional research activity, and the other captures per-capita research activity using the expenditure and staffing measures divided by the number of full-time faculty within the assistant, associate and full professor ranks. The values on each index are then used to locate each institution on a two-dimensional graph, shown below in Figure 1. Carnegie calculates each institution’s distance from a common reference point, and then uses the results to assign institutions to one of three groups based on their distance from the reference point. Thus the aggregate and per-capita indices are considered equally, such that institutions that are very high on either index are assigned to the “highest research activity” group, while institutions that are high on at least one (but very high on neither) are assigned to the “higher research activity” group. Remaining institutions and those not represented in the data collections are assigned to the “limited research activity” category. Before conducting the analysis, raw data are converted to rank scores to reduce the influence of outliers and to improve discrimination at the lower end of the distributions where many institutions were clustered.R1

Figure 1: Carnegie classification based upon institutional aggregate research activity (abscissa) and per capita research activity (ordinate). Blue: R1 Doctoral Institutions (highest research activity). Green: R2 Doctoral Institutions (higher research activity). Orange: R3 Doctoral Institutions (moderate research activity).

For the purpose of understanding UWM’s situation, it is sufficient to consider only the aggregate research activity index given the strong linkage between the aggregate and per capita quantities. The aggregate research activity index is based upon institutional rank relative to the 276 doctoral granting institutions in the US. Statistics for all institutions as well as the specific values for UWM are shown in Table 1. Since Carnegie uses rank statistics to develop their overall aggregate research activity index, an institution with “Median” values in all measures would by definition have an aggregate research activity index of 0.

In the absence of detailed data for all institutions, a few reasonable assumptions are necessary. Specifically, we assume an exponential distribution among the various institutions for all research related measures. Under this assumption, the standardized anomaly associated with the various measures is given by the expression

SA= √12 (1/2-exp[(ln⁡(2)UWM)/Median]).

This expression describes standardized anomalies from the median within a uniform distribution, appropriate for rank statistics. Carnegie then weights these standardized anomalies using weights derived from the principal component analysis to maximize the signal distinguishing the various institutions. Carnegie’s weights for the various research activity measures are also given in Table 1. The estimated Aggregate Research Activity Index for UWM is the sum of the final row in Table 1 (the Aggregate Index Contribution) divided by the sum of the Weights in the penultimate row. This quotient gives UWM an aggregate research activity index (ARAI) of 0.61.


Returning to Figure 1, an ARAI of 0.61 puts UWM slightly above the R1 cutoff, as the 2015 classification is at an approximate ARAI value of 0.4 (outer circle intersection with abscissa). While the margin is not razor thin, it is small enough that UWM’s continued classification as an R1 institution should certainly not be taken for granted.

It is worth examining the strategic role that each of UWM’s units plays in contributing towards the R1 designation and also towards sustainability, particularly in light of ongoing resource constraints. Figure 2 focuses on fractional unit contribution to the R1 designation under the Carnegie metric, as well as fractional overall unit expenditures net restricted funds (grants, etc.). L&S is the largest contributor to the R1, responsible for 60% of the activity that led to the R1 designation, followed by CEAS at 12%, CHS at 6%, and CON, SOE and SFS all at 5%. The remaining 6 units together account for the remaining 7%. Expenditures are more evenly distributed across the units, with L&S at 40%, CEAS at 9%, CHS at 7%, CON at 6%, SOE at 7%, SFS at 2% and the other 6 units totaling 29%.

r1 fig 2

Figure 2 Fractional unit-by-unit contribution to the R1 designation (top panel) and overall unit expenditures net restricted funds (bottom panel). Total expenditures are roughly $200 million.

Units whose fractional R1 contribution exceeds their fractional expenditures contribute more heavily in the relative sense to the R1, where units whose fractional credit hour instruction exceeds their fractional expenditures contribute more heavily to the sustainability of the institution. Figure 3 shows a two dimensional space highlighting research activity on the abscissa and sustainability on the ordinate. Research activity is measured as outlined above using the Carnegie aggregate metric. FY09 and FY14 unit-by-unit research expenditures are taken from the OSP dashboard, and exclude Fund 101 research expenditures, as the distribution of Fund 101 research dollars are an internal institutional choice. Number of PhDs is taken from the Department Profiles, and number of postdocs from Human Resources. Sustainability here is simply the fraction of UWM total SCH generated by each unit. Both of these measures are weighted by unit expenditures net restricted funds (i.e., excluding grant funds), with the figures taken from Jerry Tarrer’s Fall budget model presentation. Similar figures from FY09 are extracted from OAIR’s Department Profiles. Removal of restricted funds eliminates grant expenditures from total unit expenditures, i.e., units are not punished for having significant extramural funded research activity.


Figure 3: Expenditure weighted sustainability and contribution towards the R1 classification using Carnegie metrics. All quantities are weighted by fractional unit expenditures, i.e., this is a view of unit-by-unit performance relative to the institution as a whole. Higher relative unit performance is upward and to the right. Red indicates approximate unit relative performance during the 2010 Carnegie report period, with the arrows indicating changes in unit performance over the FY09 to FY14 time period. The gray shaded region captures units that are underperforming in relative terms in both sustainability and research metrics.

Consistent with Figure 2, Figure 3 indicates that in expenditure weighted unit-by-unit contributions to the R1 status as measured by the 2015 Carnegie metrics are dominated by L&S, CEAS, CON, CHS and SFS. However, there is a marked difference in relative unit performance between the FY09 and FY14 periods that respectively underlie the Carnegie 2010 and 2015 reports. Compared to FY09, FY14 research expenditures decreased in the School of Education ($5.9M in FY09 to $0.6M in FY14), the College of Nursing ($3.8M to $1.0M), the School of Social Welfare ($2.2M to $1.1M), and the College of Health Sciences ($3.2M to $1.3M). These reductions occurred in spite of an across-the-board increase in non-research directed unit expenditures between FY09 and FY14 (SOE +$3.1M; CHS +$2.7M; CON +$3.8M; SSW +$1.8M). For all of these units, the reduction in the Carnegie metric due to smaller research expenditures was in part offset by an increase in the number of PhDs granted.

In contrast, L&S showed a significant increase in research expenditures between FY09 and FY14 (from $10.9M to $19.6M), as did CEAS (from $4.6M to $6.5M). It should be noted that the latter was driven by a significant investment in terms of non-research related unit expenditures ($11.5M in FY09 increasing to $18.6M in FY14), while L&S achieved research expenditure growth with only a very modest increase in non-research unit expenditures ($79.0M in FY09 to $80.7M in FY14). For both of these units, increases in research expenditures were complemented by an increase in the number of PhDs granted. Overall research expenditures were also driven upwards by the addition of the two new schools (SPH and SFS).

Summary: The approximate 50% increase in PhD degrees granted in 2013-14 compared to 2008-09 underlies UWM’s reclassification. Setting strategic priorities in a resource constrained environment will require making tough, data informed choices about campus priorities, and the R1 designation and associated Carnegie metrics provide one possible framework to use in making these decisions.
Carnegie methodology:
UWM research expenditures:
FY14 unit-level expenditures: (pg. 22 and 23)
PhD numbers: IPEDS 2013-14 counts
Research staff: Payroll data “Employees in Training”
Note that IPEDS doesn’t break out Nursing and Health Sciences Professional PhDs. These PhDs do not count under the R1 metric. We assume these degrees are equally distributed between the two schools.
UWM’s ARAI for the 2010 report was approximately 0.4, slightly under the cutoff.