In 2023, funding for the University of Wisconsin System emerged as one of the primary budgetary disputes, a situation likely to persist into 2025. The UW System is advocating for a substantial $855 million from the state Legislature as part of its budget request for the upcoming two-year budget to sustain operations and maintain tuition levels. However, Assembly Speaker Robin Vos of the controlling Republican party has publicly dismissed the possibility of such a significant allocation, indicating it would likely not materialize. Meanwhile, UW System President Jay Rothman emphasized the dire need for increased funding, arguing that Wisconsin ranks a dismal 43rd among states in public support for higher education. He claims that a funding increase of $855 million would bring Wisconsin closer to the national average, helping to stabilize tuition and keep branch campuses open.
To evaluate Rothman’s assertion, it is essential to address two key questions: first, does Wisconsin indeed rank 43rd in terms of public higher education funding? Second, if the requested amount is granted, would it help elevate the state’s position toward the national average? Analysis from PolitiFact Wisconsin confirms that Rothman’s claim regarding the state’s low ranking is accurate; Wisconsin sits 43rd, providing only marginal public support for its public universities. This ranking aligns with data compiled from the State Higher Education Finance report, which assesses total educational revenue per full-time equivalent student, incorporating both tuition and state funding.
The second part of Rothman’s argument pertains to whether the $855 million request would rectify the funding disparity and elevate Wisconsin to a more average funding level. The UW System detailed that the total request comprises $398 million in the first budget year, followed by $457 million in the subsequent year. This phased strategy is deemed a calculated approach to incrementally move closer to the national middle. The analysis further clarifies that the average funding per student in Wisconsin stands at $17,031, compared to the national average of $20,373, highlighting a shortfall of $3,342 per student. With an enrollment of 136,641 students in 2023, the total funding gap effectively underscores why the request for $457 million in the second year is necessary to bridge this divide.
Though Rothman has made the case that the entire $855 million request would elevate Wisconsin to average funding levels, it is critical to differentiate between the two years’ requests. The president has articulated that only the second-year request of $457 million would indeed be sufficient to reach the median funding level across states. The first-year figure of $398 million falls short of that target, casting a spotlight on the necessity of a progressive approach to funding increases versus immediate relief.
Despite the complexity surrounding the budget request, Rothman’s fundamental premise holds water. Wisconsin’s position at 43rd in national rankings underscores a history of insufficient funding for public universities, and the proposed request represents a focused effort to ameliorate that situation. Ensuring adequate funding is pivotal for the sustainability of the UW System, directly affecting tuition stability and the viability of branch campuses, which contribute to the state’s educational landscape.
In summary, the discourse surrounding the UW System’s funding in 2023 and the forthcoming budget discussions for 2025 reveals a significant tension between lawmakers and university officials. Rothman’s claims regarding Wisconsin’s funding status are not only verified but highlight an urgent need for increased public investment in higher education. As budget negotiations unfold, it will be critical to monitor the dialogue between the UW System and the state Legislature, with implications touching on tuition levels, student welfare, and the future of higher education within the state. This ongoing debate speaks to broader concerns regarding public support for universities and the implications of funding disparities for students and the state’s economic vitality.