There was not a scintilla of consensus for any particular reorganization of the Universities of Wisconsin at the fifth of six hearings by a special committee named to do just that.
Amanda Nedweski
The Legislative Council Study Committee on the Future of the UW universities covered a wide variety of subjects pertaining to the health of the system, but came down nowhere. “So far we don’t have a solution,” said Chair Amanda Nedweski.
There is an outside chance the sixth and final meeting next month will produce some breakthrough, actionable concepts. Nedweski said she would propose some concepts.
One committee member even suggested another Blue Ribbon Commission to follow up where the Legislative Council has come up short. He wasn’t joking. A commission on top of a commission?
Bob Atwell
Several of the 18 members made the case that the university is in disrepair, with the exception of UW Madison, and that a turn-around plan must be put into place soonest. Bob Atwell, a former UW regent and founder of Nicolet Bank, pushed the hardest for reorganization of the UW System and its 13 universities. Others worried about disruption if restructuring were to occur.
“The disruption is here,” Atwell said. “The job of leaders is manage disruption.”
He was referring to the sharp enrollment declines at most of the four-year comprehensive colleges in the system and to the financial fragility of those institutions.
One of the main thrusts of several business members of the committee was to spin out UW-Madison as a separate authority. A good case can be made for making our flagship university, a giant in research and development, its own entity.
Madison has multiple revenue sources, including UW Health, the biggest health system in the state with $5 billion on its top line; Quartz, one of the biggest health insurers on the state; research and development revenues of more than $1.5 billon; the UW Foundation with assets of $4 billion; and the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) with more than $3 billion in assets.
As a world class university, it is a magnet for out-of-state and foreign students who are more than willing to pay tuitions of $39,000 versus $11,000 paid by in-state students. Madison’s trolling for high tuition revenues has resulted in an all-time low of in-state students on its campus – only 45% for 2024-2025.
For some inexplicable reason, a big number of top high school graduates have been rejected at Madison. That’s dumber than dumb in terms of economic development. We need to keep the best and brightest young people in the state. Other state flagships have in-state enrollments of two-thirds or more.
A brand-new Madison admittance policy that automatically admits the top 5% of each high school class solved part of that problem, but many high school graduates with high test scores and top GPA’s are still being rejected and headed elsewhere.
Know that only 16% of the out-of-staters who pay high tuition remain in the state after graduation. A short-term tuition gain is a long-term loss in terms of economic vitality. A good portion of our top graduates who go out of state will not return. They will find mates and careers in proximity to their college experiences.
The spin-out of UW-Madison is far from a final recommendation. Nedweski commented, “I don’t know if a spin-off is a good idea or not.”
Betsy Morgan, provost at UW-La Crosse, opined that the system is stronger with UW Madison included. She said, “There is not a groundswell for a free-standing UW-Madison.”
The biggest concern of most of the members was the viability of the 12 four-year comprehensive colleges. Citing enrollment declines, UW President Jay Rothman has made a top-down decision to shut down six of their satellite campuses. The UW Board of Regents was not brought into the decision.
Committee member James Langdon, a former UW system administrator, has criticized the absence of a strategic plan before that decision came down from Rothman.
It is not the expectation that the “study committee” would come up with an encompassing strategic plan, but some bold recommendations have been expected.
Note that the time-honored “Wisconsin Idea,” which holds broadly that the boundaries of the state are the boundaries of the university, is not strategic plan. It is more of a vision, like a starting point for a strategy.
Some prescient points were surfaced by members and resource people, including:
- Dissatisfaction with system’s “black box” for allocating $1.2 billion in state funds to the 13 UW campuses. For example, UW-La Crosse and UW-Whitewater, two successful campuses, rank the lowest in state revenues per student. The murky formula must be made transparent.
- Nedweski cited a ratio of 4.7 staffers per student as unacceptable.
- Of the top 38 research universities, 25 are integrated into a broader system, as with UW-Madison.
- The struggling four-year colleges need “targeted” attention, which they don’t get from the current Board of Regents.
Absent consensus, the committee’s strands of strategic policy concerns lead to at least one, encompassing potential strategy. It would go something like this:
- Spin out UW-Madison so it can fly like an eagle in the world of innovation while educating our brightest students. Madison would have its own board of regents, making it more accountable.
- Divide the other 12 campuses into four regions, as proposed years ago by Roger Roth when he was chair of the state senate education committee. The state’s economy operates in regions, like paper-making and ship-building in northeast Wisconsin. Why then not create a northeast cluster of UW campuses, tied closely to its economy and jobs? Each region would have its own board of regents, again for increased accountability.
- End the system’s current Madison centricity and spread out its 600-staff bureaucracy at Van Hise Hall.
- Divest of non-core assets, like UW Health, including its Rockford Illinois campus, and Quartz. The funds raised could go on the balance sheets of the four regional universities. Madison, in effect, would buy its independence.
- Sharpen and narrow the focus of each four-year campus to certain disciplines, such as fresh water sciences and health care at UW-Milwaukee, hospitality and technical education at Stout and shipbuilding UW-Green Bay. Each campus would have its own portfolio of specialized disciplines. Cost savings from eliminating redundant offerings would result. How many journalism programs does the state need?
If you think the above levels of restructuring are too much, keep in mind that there has been no strategic review of UW since 1971 – a half century ago. And be aware that big businesses reorganize all the time to get rid of barnacles and outmoded structures. They do creative disruption to adapt to dynamics in their markets. They centralize or decentralize just to shake things up. Why should universities be exempt from the need to change with the times?
Atwell put the system’s current malaise this way: “It’s a turn-around that’s needed.”
