U.W. is getting a big demotion

How about getting back to basics, like engineering, manufacturing processes, Bus admin and get rid of the social feel good BS.

Then maybe your whinning beggar arguments might gain a little traction.

Glad I'm mostly done with the higher ed experience (paying for 3)

I'm not particularly sympathetic. The cost of education has been creeping towards diminishing returns--that point at which the costs outweighs the benefits--for a decade, but rather than get costs under control, the drumbeat has been "more,more,more..." Yet, by any reasonable metric, people are not receiving better educations--quite the opposite. The democratization of information should gear education towards a model of self-teaching; however, such a model would undermine the flow of benefits and power towards traditional actors. Without a shift, we will become LESS competitive regardless how much we throw down these rat holes. Perhaps there's an element of brinkmanship here. But if that's the case, those responsible should be punished--fired. Costs have to be controlled. End of Story. The fact is that Washington State has at it's disposal more resources than at any time in it's history--except last year. There is NO crisis; there is only a glaring lack of leadership and a corrosive sense of entitlement.

Since a spurt of growth under progressive Republican leadership in the mid-1960s, the state legislature has undervalued higher education. Our number of enrolled college students per capita the last couple of decades rates with the deep south. Because the state is an attractive place to live, businesses here have thrived because they have been able to import educated workers from across the country. We have been creating two Washingtons--one of educated workers from somewhere else and one of low-wage, low-skilled workers who grew up locally.
Democrats in control of the legislature are now trying to balance the budgetary needs of the state schools and higher education versus expensive social programs. They have made their choice. Traditionally, in opposition, Republican legislators have fought to maintain state school and college funding, but now in this era when Republican government means no government, they are silent.

Fine article.

Interesting that just a couple of weeks ago Pres. Emmert was continuing to argue that the state should pay $150 million to help build a monument to Pres. Emmert. Or was it to rebuild Husky Stadium? Either way, it's an indication of some of his priorities.

Let's just hope that out otherwise misguided legislators don't share those priorities.

good piece, Peter. in all the years i've watched budgets being written, higher ed is almost always the budget-balancer, without constitutional or entitlement protection.

Peter- Emmert only has himself to blame. And the UW Faculty and staff should do the same.

Going in to a budget writing session, he emphasized, over and over, the need to build a new stadium. He spent BIG bucks on new football coaches. He, and the Regents, made minimal moves to balance, or cut costs.

The UW is the richest, most affluent and well heeled institution in the State. Instead of acting responsibly - and maybe providing some leadership and donating back part of his salary, like the WSU President - the UW went down to Olympia, acted like the fat cat they are, are got treated accordingly.

And no, it doesn't help that they are in Seattle ( "I want a Viaduct replacement, a new floating Bridge, a bigger Convention Center,a new basketball arena, and MORE, MORE, MORE").

It's not surprising that the Legislature has kicked the UW to the curb.
That kind of on-going arrogance gets tiresome.

Ross Kane Warm Beach UW, English, 1971

Nice article. It's kind of strange to see other parts of the country thinking about ways in which they could create a major R1 and then enjoy all the perceived benefits that research universities bring, talent pool, innovative companies, Federal grant money, etc... and then to see the State of Washington do the opposite.

You're absolutely correct that tuition should have gone up considerably years ago. I think if the Legislature is truly going to cut the UW by 20%, they should remove any limits there may be on accepting out of state applicants.

This could potentially move the school towards privitization, which in many respects would be hard in the near term, but possibly quite lucrative both financially and academically in the future. The further the state moves away from a relationship with the UW, the more likely this seems.

"Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, pummeling eggheads is the American way."

Our President has a PHD, our Governor has passed the bar exam. Where are the eggheads who have been pummeled? A lot has changed since Hofstader wrote "Anti-intellectualism...etc." and I don't think you can blame the great unwashed anymore. The denizens of our legislature may resent Seattle; I don't blame them but I have to agree that cutting UW as severely as planned is stupid (but not necessarily anti-intellectual).

As a loyal UW alum, I deplore the cuts being imposed there. But this situation illustrates what happens when an institution (City of Seattle, University of Washington, Boeing, etc.) becomes over time perceived as arrogant and entitled.

UW tuitions have been modest in comparison to those of other major state universities nationally. President Emmert, in his first college presidency, not only is overpaid compared to his peers nationally but
draws big directors' fees from private companies. These directorships
consume time and energy which Emmert otherwise would be devoting to the university. As noted above, he has refused to cut his own generous pay during the present downturn. The much-lower-paid WSU president has done so.

Even prior to this budget squeeze, the UW was losing upper-campus faculty
and had been unable to attract quality scholars to fill vacant deanships.
Its faculty salary scale, as its tuition, has lagged behind that at comparable public universities.

The stadium: From the beginning, a big-pricetag makeover has been sought by the UW regents and administration. Why not a Phase One project, involving necessary structural repairs and upgrades, to be followed later by a Phase Two when economic growth and revenues again turn upward? Private citizens, businesses, and non-profits have adjusted this way and deferred or pared down major undertakings which cannot now be financed.

Expenditures for administrator compensation and physical plant expansion
(including the stadium) should give way for now to expenditures directed toward faculty compensation and retention, help for poor students, and investments in quality instruction. If that were to happen, legislators would have less excuse for trimming the UW budget.

Given that the undergraduate programs were horrible in the early '70's' - too many students, too few actual contact hours with professors who were the reason to go to the place, and that recent grads seem clueless about anything but their $ possibilities. Perhaps instead of groaning about the demotion of the University and it's special programs it could take a look at a business model. If research is what it is known for- eliminate the undergrad programs completely- they are wasting resources now- they could quit.

First, I'd like to know how other states are balancing their budgets, and for that matter how they fund their universities. I know Michigan has extremely high tuition and is essentially independent of the state, so it is not being dragged down by the state of Michigan's budget problems.

Second, the focus on stadium funding definitely was a mistake.

Third, it does appear the UW is trying to focus more resources on education in high priority areas. Here's the plan.

www.washington.edu/admin/pb/home/pdf/High-Demand-Degrees.pdf

It doesn't say how many degrees they aim for. In part this depends on student demand. But I think a key point they need to make in Olympia is that they are trying to match graduating degrees with market opportunities.

Look here for the top current undergrad degrees. Biology is first, but then none of the top 10 are in the sciences.

http://www.washington.edu/discovery/about.html

In closing, I think the cuts at the UW are very unfortunate. I wish we had some stories of what specifically is being cut.

As the father of an engineering student who graduated from high school with a 3.89 and was prominent in music and other extra-curricular activities but couldn't garner a scholarship, I'll pony up another 28% in tuition when a few University Presidents, coaches and top-line profs take a salary cut to help my son - who is typical of those we are always being told are the future of our country - stay in school. They keep saying it all about better education for the students. I didn't believe that when I worked my way through college and I don't believe it now. It's all about better lives for academics, with ever-higher salaries ,fewer classes and more bennies. I know a college prof, who has spent the better part of the last three years "studying" overseas while teaching no classes and drawing a nice salary from his school. Not bad duty, but I wonder what it does for students. Meanwhile, I'm paying full tuition, my son is working 20 hours a week and the Gov wants me to "step up"?
Oh, and don't talk student loans to me - that just starts the kid out in life truly in the American Way - eyeball deep in debt. No, Thanks.
Some of these folks need to spend some time in the trenches! Get a dose of reality.

To Ted and Squeaker,

OK, so Emmert gives up half of his $800k a year salary. So now that you have $400k to fill the budget gap, what will be your spending priorities with such a windfall?

I agree with Ted's thoughts on going forward, capital projects could stand to be delayed, but griping about his salary makes little sense and even less of a financial impact.

Ted, Emmert was Chancellor at LSU, so I'm not sure where you got the "first college presidency", unless you operate solely on semantics.

George: Chancellor is not president; it simply means he ran the Baton Rouge campus of LSU (as, for instance, the UCLA chancellor runs that part of the U. Cal. system).

As to the importance of senior-executive salaries, whether they be in academia, Wall Street, or in corporations, it is important for leaders to set examples. How do you feel, for example, about the huge bonuses paid to financial CEOs and senior executives who ran their institutions into the ground and cost taxpayers billions...or to business CEOs who got seven-figure compensation although their companies ran up big losses. In recent decades the compensation gap between senior managers, in all parts of society, and those working for them has become obscene. Don't know if you were in military service. But, if you were, how did you feel about officers who took care of themselves before they
cared for their troops?

I stand corrected, I thought that was the other way around. But still, he was in charge of the major campus of the LSU system, and no doubt had to do the same functions he does here: raise money and woo politicians. Apparently he's failing in the latter.

Comparing Emmert's high salary relative to other University president's to Wall Street CEOs is disingenuous. I don't follow UW much anymore, I went to grad school there, but I have little personal affection for it. I do respect it though and believe it deserves a place in the upper echelons of academia. Their Health School and hard science departments are to be commended. If Emmert has failed in his job, then call for his resignation, but focusing on salaries does a disservice to answering the big questions on what should we expect the Legislature to do with regards to the UW in particular and higher education in general. It distracts from the crux and allows us to descend into the chaos of distractions similar to those espoused and promulgated recently by Republicans (see bonus flap).

Well what does the UW expect. Talk about being rather clueless when it comes to lobbying. Let's see you go down to Oly and whine about your new stadium in the midst of one of the worse budget crisis and then you wonder why get the shift. No Im not a couger alumni. If Emmert, Sark and the athletic director donated a measly 100 k of their salary in 10 years, you all would have your stadium. Seriously is Emmert really worth 900k a year? I find it hard to justify raising titution when your own president refuses to cut his salary which by the way is in the top 3 of university presidents. I have no sympathy for the UW or as the rest of the state colleges call it "Arrogance on the Lake".

Emmert said at a UW townhall meeting a few weeks ago that he was against paying the current football coach the 1.2 million bucks or whatever it is. But the market is what it is and everyone complaining about what football coaches make need to put their money where their mouth is and stop bashing the team when they go 2-12. Emmert also said the the football program provides funding for many of the other sports at the U. So if football goes away, so does crew, and lacrosse and softball, and all the other sports that make attending college the rich experience it is for young people. Just what he said......

Fat Boy

Excellent piece. Beneath the lively prose is a dead-serious point: we are no longer in a manufacturing world (haven't been for quite some time) but one in which intellectual capactity drives not only the economy but the culture, as well (It takes large amounts of intellectual capital to put the Sounders on the field.) It is in developing this intellectual capital where UW is playing a key role. The real danger, as I see it, is to the public nature of higher education and the abandonment of the sons and daughters of the old manufacturing economy, that is, whether or not ordinary Washingtonians will share equitably in the benefits of that capital.
By the way, though I am not a football fan, I recognize that, given our bizarre tax structure, Husky football brings serious revenue to Seattle and Washington, not to mention serious donations from alumni to the UW. Emmert must carry their water; that's the nature of how we fund higher edcuation and, as FatBoy notes, all the other lesser sports that serve our younger population. To mis-take the structure of the system for the ethical weaknesses of individuals is a misunderstanding of how our system works. I'm not justifying the system but it's just the poo we all step into on our way to school. It will not change until Washingtonians grapple with and change how we fund our intellectual capital.

Emmert's salary and the stadium rankle me, to be sure, but those are not the issues here as Jackson has rightly shown. The issue is whether we will be able to deliver the opportunities (from manufacturing to the arts) to Washingtonians or we'll have to import all of our talent from elsewhere.

FatBoy - I agree with your analysis re the economics of Husky football. I don't begrudge Sarkissian one penny of his $1.2 million salary. The market requires it.

What the market does NOT require is a taxpayer funded stadium. The taxpayers have already funded football and baseball stadia in Seattle. There is no legitimate reason to fund another.

Other college football teams across the country fund their own stadia, with private donors. Stanford (admittedly, a private institution, but one with a far smaller donor base than UW) just finished a beautiful new stadium, entirely funded by donors.

That is what the UW should do. Fund the stadium with private donors. If the UW cannot do so, then work out a deal with Qwest Field to play there. The taxpayers already paid for that stadium.

Sure it would be nice to play on campus. But Qwest Field is only 7 miles away --- is the 7 miles of convenience worth $150 million of taxpayer money? UCLA students have to travel 50+ miles (roundtrip) to the Rose Bowl for home games.

In case it wasn't pointed out before, the UW athletic department, including the salaries of coaches and staff, is not supported by state taxpayers, unlike the other colleges in the state. It is supported by ticket sales and private donors. The bulk of the costs of the renovation of Husky Stadium was initially was going to be also funded by private donors, until the UW jocks made the political blunder of trying to tap the existing hotel-motel-rental car tax used to finance the other stadiums in town. You really can't mix the football coach's salary into the debate on how to fund freshman English.