US and World News College Ratings - disclaimer

After seeing the slew of articles both hailing and lamenting the position of our lovely university, Mr. Spirn posted this insider report on UW-Madison "tumbling" to no. 38, behind Illinois and Georgia Tech. Cries of calamity and "second-tier" ratings are abound.

So let's take a closer look at the situation, as the official ranking is out and confirms that post.

First off, if we compare this rating to last year's ratings, UW hasn't dropped THAT far. Last year, we were tied for 34 with three other universities. Below that, Georgia Tech was tied for 38 with two other universities, and Illinois was ranked at 41.

They don't even have a ranking of top national universities, they just take four and list them. How comprehensive.

So, here's the question: where does the ranking come from? These are these incredibly complicated catagories, but it basically breaks down as such:
-Retention - 20 percent
-Faculty Resources - 20 percent
-Student selectivity - 15 percent
-Financial Resources -10 percent
-Graduation rate performance - 5 percent
-Alumni giving rate - 5 percent

but the biggest category is the most disputed:

Peer assessment (weighting: 25 percent). The U.S. News ranking formula gives greatest weight to the opinions of those in a position to judge a school's undergraduate academic excellence. The peer assessment survey allows the top academics we consult—presidents, provosts, and deans of admissions—to account for intangibles such as faculty dedication to teaching. Each individual is asked to rate peer schools' academic programs on a scale from 1 (marginal) to 5 (distinguished). Those who don't know enough about a school to evaluate it fairly are asked to mark "don't know." Synovate, an opinion-research firm based near Chicago, collected the data; of the 4,089 people who were sent questionnaires, 58 percent responded.

So an entire quarter of the score is dependant on academics and administrator's scorecard based on whatever can't be quantified? Hmm. If that's so important, I better see MIT take a hit in the rankings (It did, dropped 3 places). In any case, quite a few people find this rating incredibly biased, such as the Education Conservancy, who sent out a letter to college presidents in 2007:

Among other reasons, we believe [...] rankings: imply a false precision and authority that is not warranted by the data they use;obscure important differences in educational mission in aligning institutions on a single scale;say nothing or very little about whether students are actually learning at particular colleges or universities;encourage wasteful spending and gamesmanship in institutions' pursuing improved rankings;overlook the importance of a student in making education happen and overweight the importance of a university's prestige in that process; and degrade for students the educational value of the college search process. We ask you to make the following two commitments: 1. Refuse to fill out the U.S. News and World Report reputational survey. 2. Refuse to use the rankings in any promotional efforts on behalf of your college or university, and more generally, refuse to refer to the rankings as an indication of the quality of your college or university."

These universities eventually signed the letter, but I can't imagine how the impact can be approximated (or if there even IS an impact.). In any case, at least 25 percent of these ratings are pretty subjective.

I would like to give that breakdown, but I don't really feel like paying 15 bucks for the details. As soon as their book comes out, I'll head out to the Barnes and Noble and jot down the figures, but for now, take everything in these ratings with a grain of salt.

SSFC and Chancellor Wiley: reunited and it feels so good

With all the music flowing from the Terrace and High Noon, I nearly forgot to mention an important point of news that happened on Friday.

First, some background. Last year, Chancellor Wiley provided ASM a one-year exemption that allowed groups located off-campus to be funded by segregated fees. In December, Wiley ended that practice and forced ASM to reevaluate the budgets of a few student groups:
Promoting Awareness and Victim Empowerment (PAVE)
Jewish Cultural Center
Sex Out Loud
Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT)
Wisconsin Public Interest Research Group (WisPIRG)
and UW Roman Catholic Foundation

Instead of reviewing the budgets, ASM decided the ruling was an unfair measure as no state law exists prohibiting the use of Segregated fees for Off-campus rent. Eventually, words went back and forth and we have arrived without resolution, at the Board of Regents, who have the final say.


Although there are certain criteria as to whether the Seg Fee use is legitimate, it is only one criteria for appeal this meeting was concerned with:

c) Does the student-proposed budget item require the university to violate any statute, administrative code, policy, or contract?

A Nov. 8th 2006 legal opinion written by UW legal council Patricia Brady concluded that segregated fee use to fund off-campus rent.

SSFC (now headed by former SRC leaders Katrina Flores and Alex Gallagher) argues that there is no statute in state law restricting the off-campus seg. fee use. Furthermore, they're saying the state statute 36.09(5) (aka Shared Governance) was broken because the legal opinion was written without consultation with ASM.

For once, this isn't about money. If the rent issue passes, then students will have to pay an extra $1.20 per semester.

Katrina Flores and Gallagher first attacked Pat Brady's legal opinion by citing each point and disputing that a law was broken. Certainly, many of Brady's points don't seem to show any damning evidence against the increase, if they are presented in the memo the way SSFC characterizes it. Here's a copy of the SSFC presentation, if you care to peruse.

Here's an excerpt:

Brady assumes campus student activities (Ironically, on a campus whose mission is to expand the boundaries of the campus to the boundaries of the state and beyond) should be literally taken as “on-campus.” This would entail that student groups who hold events off-campus, say a BBQ at a local park, would not be within the campus boundaries and thus they would not be able to choose this location.

...and since ASM hands out travel grants to student groups, I doubt this would ever be an issue.

So, with no stipulations specifically restricting rent from being funded, what is the problem?

Well, Elton Crim came to make the presentation for UW-Madison. Basically, the presentation boiled down to "Chancellor Wiley has the authority to be the final word on this decision." Sorry, that doesn't work in an appeal. Remember ASM's decision is subject to the decision of the Chancellor and the Board of Regents. Since the Board of Regents already laid out their stipulation for appeals, you might want to argue to that point.

That's exactly what Chancellor Wiley tried to do himself, when prompted by the board.
Here is a direct quote of his remarks regarding "potential implications:

Let me say, first, that I can agree with pretty much everything said. I agree completely with the importance and impact on students. I'm especially concerned about the status, the fragility and durability of the whole seg fee system if we're not very very careful. There are many issues, current, right now, that could potentially endanger the entire system and eliminate seg fees, allocable seg fees, at least, totally and I think that would be catastrophic. In trying to be very very careful with the way we administrate seg fees, I asked Patricia for a decision. That's why she wrote it, I asked, are we on shaky ground here...As long as their opinion followed all the procedural policies and was legal, I would pass along and support to the board of regents their recommendations and I've done that faithfully. This happens to be one case in which I was told by legal council it would be illegal. That's really my whole decision right there...This is a very vulnerable position. There are some organizations off-campus, that have buildings, that are going to be there whether they get rent from us or not. And this provides the groups to subsidize their budgets, for the maintenance of their organization. among other things. there are other possible scenarios, you can imagine, that would come up and will come up if the payment of off-campus rent is deemed to be legal or desirable.

Sort of ambiguous. What would make that a problem, exactly? Besides, isn't the point of GSSF fees to maintain these student organizations, anyway? I think the real problem that Wiley cites is funding rent for UWRCF when they're currently housed in St. Paul's (or, I suppose, Hillel). If that's the case, what's the problem? UWRCF has been forced to separate itself from St. Paul's, so the conflict shouldn't exist anymore. Later on, Wiley mentions "One" org that brought up contract status and made them question this decision...could it be...UWRCF?

Wiley later said his decision was to correct a mistake by a former Chancellor. When pressed for information, he cited Donna Schalala.

The meetings ended with the board asking Chancellor Wiley and SSFC to talk in the meantime to try and work out a compromise on the issue.

There are a lot of ends and outs here, and I don't want to post my full opinion on the issue until I obtain a copy of Pat Brady's memo, tomorrow. However, I have a lot of homework piling up and a birthday tomorrow.

I promise, I'll be back to clarify.

blown out of proportion? Why not have a class on it?

The Cap Times is reporting that UW-Madison is considering offering a Hmong studies program, although they don't seem to have much of an idea what that would entail.
The options sound wide open:

"One would be to offer Hmong language instruction in the next school year using university resources. In the past we have done this with outside funds."

Another option would be to develop a certificate program using existing courses already being offered on campus. Still another possibility would be the creation of a center that would pull together people already on campus who are interested in and involved with research in the Hmong community.

Finally, another option is a full-fledged Hmong studies program involving hiring new faculty.

"We are looking at these different options and considering which, or which combination, to pursue," [Dean of L&S] Sandefur said.

Now, considering the Wisconsin has the third highest settlement of Hmong individuals in the United States, this sounds like a good idea. With the Gen. Vang Pao controversy recently being added to Wisconsin's continuing misunderstandings of the Hmong community, a little more education is certainly in order. But do we have the resources for a serious dedication to this field of study? After all, our own professors are jumping ship because of the low-pay rate.

Now, if you want to set-up a certificate or a set of classes dealing with Hmong, that sounds fine and dandy. However, a discussion of further resources is unnerving. We're already losing professors at a prodigious rate. The engineering and business schools already raised tuition to try and lure more. With Doyle trying desperately to keep our professors from jumping ship with this $10 million retention package, should we really be thinking about hiring more professors for a department we haven't even created yet?

Stick to the simple stuff for now, methinks. If you want to teach more classes centered around Hmong culture, make sure you're sincere about it. Our reputation is tanking. It can be rebuilt with a stronger faculty, but adding on more weight to a system that's already straining doesn't work. It will only introduce a half-hearted ethnic studies program that adds even more problems to Wisconsin's relationship with the Hmong community.