UW Professor Sara Goldrick-Rab

<p>She is a UW professor who also runs an active blog that currently is heavily focused on the UW. The basic framework of her argument is that excellence does not matter, that the UW should essentially become a diploma mill and become cheaper and less selective, and that it is over-funded. All this from a woman who attended a university that spends over 4 times as much as the UW does educating students. Basically she comes from the old liberal socialist wing of academe dressed up in a new suit of advocating access and efficiency. She would rather direct a great levelling of the relatively meager spending of all schools in the UW System rather than address the need and importance of quality in all that. Yes, it would be nice for all UW schools to have more money but they also serve vastly different roles with different ranges of majors and objectives. </p>

<p>To her a degree is just piece of paper and they are fungible goods. Of course she knows better as she was careful to select a top rated Ivy for her education because she knows the name on the diploma and what that stands for carries lots of weight in getting that first big tenure track job. But none of that apparently applies to UW students. They should be happy with a near worthless piece of paper that won't get you hired at any major company or a job at any university like she enjoys.</p>

<p>Anyway she is the enemy of the UW as we know it and I invite you to have some input to her. I even provided her with the fact that the UW already is one of the lowest cost and efficient of the top research universities in the country. She ignored that to point out that UW Superior spends a few dollars less per student according to some analysis done by the state. That study does not take into account the vastly broader and often more costly majors that Madison offers or the simple fact that professors at Madison make more money than those at Superior because they are also expected to be national level authorities in their field, teach advanced grad students, and generate research money to more than cover their salary and that of several grad students and post-docs. Here's the chart on spending I put together from a source she also uses to advocate for the great levelling of public education--but says nothing about the huge tax breaks and huge spending levels of her private school and others like it.</p>

<p>University of Wisconsin-Madison Public Research $16,466 per student/yr
University of Maryland-College Park Public Research $16,802
Indiana University-Bloomington Public Research $17,529
University of Illinois* Public Research $17,915
University of Virginia-Main Campus Public Research $20,893
Ohio State University* Public Research $21,098
University of Minnesota-Twin Cities Public Research $24,138
University of California-Berkeley Public Research $25,065
University of California-San Diego Public Research $26,860
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor Public Research $29,271
University of Washington* Public Research $30,062
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Public Research $35,374
University of California-Los Angeles Public Research $39,802
Cornell University Private Research $42,967
Northwestern University Private Research $56,537
Dartmouth College Private Research $63,115
University of Pennsylvania Private Research $69,372
University of Chicago Private Research $80,002
Columbia University in the City of New York* Private Research $84,018</p>

<p>Selected Comparison Group Median $29,271
Selected Comparison Group Mean $37,752</p>

<p>Her's her blog or just google "Education Optimists" BTW when i mentioned CC to her she dismissed it as a discussion site for elitists. </p>

<p>The</a> Education Optimists: A Challenge to the UW Board of Regents</p>

<p>"Basically she comes from the old liberal socialist wing of academe"</p>

<p>Wow. Now there's a ham-handed argumentum ad hominem if I have seen one lately.</p>

<p>And "the enemy of the UW as we know it?" Do you think you could get more hysterical?</p>

<p>The policy debate about the NBP is important, but you are trivializing it with this sorry rhetoric.</p>

<p>Sorry but those are the facts as I see them based on reading her stuff and discussing it with her. Of course she called me a Koch supporter (which I certainly am not) and anti-minority/poor. So I stand by what I said. Sometimes it is what it is.</p>