University of Wisconsin Madison - Badger Yearbook (Madison, WI)

Page 22 text:

The figures only too eloquently tell the story of the decline of enrollment. But what they sometimes do not reveal is the signihcint fact that non-resident students, who contribute for the same educational services $200 more per annum than do resident students, dropped out of the university in far greater numbers than did Wisconsin students. For instance, since the peak )ear of 193 0, enrollment has declined 16.7 per cent, but when divided into its component parts, one notes that among residents registration dropped by only 1.8 per cent during 1951 and among non-residents by 18.4 per cent. For the academic year 193 2- 193 3 the figures are even more impressive, revealing a resident reduction of 4.4 per cent and a non-resident decline of 22.7 per cent. Thus, it is at once apparent that the great reduction in revenue from student fees and tuition by far outstripped the decline in enrollment during the past four years. The total enrollment figures are listed below: 1929-1930 10,077 1930-1931 10,001 1931-1932 9,355 1932-1933 8,423 1933-1934 7,957 Thus, buffeted on the one side by constantly dwindling state appropriations, and on the other by students payments declining faster than enrollment, the university administration grappled with the real and complex problem of readjustment. That dissension and even open conflict would attend any attempted mode of retrenchment was early forseen h all but the most naive, and, true to expectations, it was on the issue of faculty salary reductions that the clash broke out, flourished, sputtered, and died away. Aside from faculty salaries, however, which are discussed in subsequent pages, in what directions did the university meet the problem of retrenchment? A careful study of depression- time activity instantly marks out the major paths. Most significant, perhaps, from the long-time educational point of view, aside from the financial aspects, was the avowed policy of leaving vacancies unfilled wherever possible, or when replacements were necessary, by refilling with younger, and sometimes less competent teachers, at a lower salary level. Faculty men everywhere were compelled to carry heavier schedules of work, and many a professor who before had spoken his piece in lecture and gone back to his research, was now compelled to come to grips with his students in quiz and discussion sections. Aside from staff retrenchments, university economizers reached into such phases of campus spending as maintenance and equipment to save a dollar here and a hundred dollars there. Capital expenditures for books, apparatus, and the like were ruthlessly pushed under the axe, and the librari, ' , particularly, was compelled to forgo the purchase of many new books and replacements of old ones stolen or misplaced. All requests for new buildings and land acquisitions were dismissed as pertaining to a world of fancy — the world of the expansion era before 192 9, and wherever possible minor improvements for physical plant and equipment were postponed for that vague day in the future which the American people wistfully hoped would be the day on which prosperity would emerge from around the corner. 1141

Page 21 text:

I A ' ;in I c; I he I I )iir 1 A ' ;in i e ' nrs Searching alonj; the widespread paths of change which the University of Wisconsin pursued in its quest for adjustment to the new standards which depression compelled, the impartial investigator is struck bv the diversity of factors which together pooled their stubborn strength to knock accepted levels and procedures into oblivion. But no one who points his light into the dark corners of the past tour years will escape the realization that to the university as a whole no movement brought so terrific an influence to bear on the prevailing campus mode of life as the insistent quest for economy, for balanced budgets, and for tax reduction, which colored every channel of public life. A powerful item on the state budget, the university, tied to the state b - the strong but invisible arm of tradition and the even more potent and very visible factor of financial de- pendence, was inevitably caught in the maelstrom of this zealous crusade for economy and re- duced appropriations. The story of this impact of economy on the university is told with faithful and terse sim- plicity by the figures themselves. In 1929, parcelling out its appropriations to its dependent institutions, the state legislature allowed the university S9. 269, OS 5 for the subsequent biennium, 1929-1931. Two years afterward, responding to the very real decline in tax yield and the insistent pressure against higher tax rates and for reduced appropriations, the legislature slashed its allowance to the university to $8,5 50,608 and then, through its own action and that of the emergency board, adjusted the total to $7,882,702. But if those who administer the affairs of the university thought that they were skimping and saving with only $7,882,702 at their disposal for the 1931-1932 biennium, they were soon to be initiated into even more drastic economy. The 195 3 legislature brought a razor-edged axe to its financial deliberations and slashed with the fervor of a taxpayers ' alliance at the budget requests of all state institutions. As a heavy item on the total state budget, the university bore the greatest load of retrench- ment. Its two year appropriations, for 1933-1935, were whittled to 56,448,198, resulting in the complete elimination of several services to the state, drastic curtailment in a number of others, and widespread dislocation in salarv ranges and allowances for equipment and materials. ' hde the university ' s major source of revenue was thus undergoing the severest sort of curtailment, the second most fruitful provider of funds, student fees and tuition, was revealing a similar disinclination to measure up to former standards. In the two year period of 1929-1931 the university harvested $2,240,324 from student pockets, and poured it into its lA operating lund whence comes the wherewithal to pav facultv salaries. In the subsequent biennium income from fees and tuition shrank to $1,908,5 12, and in the 1933-193 5 plunged to a new low of $1,422,120. There were many who pointed out that this shrinkage in student payments reflected a great decline in enrollment, and hence they pointed to the need for fewer teachers and lower maintenance costs, and logically the university ' s ability to absorb large reductions from the state. Such citizens were right as far as they went, but, as is so frequently the case, their reasoning was not projected far enough. [13]

Page 23 text:

I he r .•u-iiU ;ii frs Turninj; from ,i i;lance at the university as .i whole to study of its coiiiponcTit parts, the investigator notes that for a period of about two years, with hving costs hammered down and salaries stable, the universitv faculty enjoyed comparative ease while the world outside the academic walls fought oft the strangle hold of unemployment and salary cuts. For the first time since 1900 professors and instructors were getting salaries comparable with non-academic professions. Prof. John R. Commons in a survey of conditions showed that not since the start of the Jdth century had salaries of teachers been equitably adjusted to living costs. 1-ortunate was the breathing spell between the years 1930 and 1932, because in July, 1932 economic gravity began to assert its pull. Drastic retrenchments in the budget were being made and the faculty was plastered with a waiver of from 3-13 per cent. Assistants and full pro- fessors alike had to pull in their sails and though the 3 per cent waiver did not apply to married persons in the lowest bracket, yet this first indication of harder times to come was a wet blanket to the comparative ease of the two previous years. The noose of economy began to tighten its hold on faculty necks. This first adjustment was made in this manner: S 1-1500 ... 3% HOl-2000 4% 2001-2500 5% 2501-3000 7% 3001-3500 8% 3 501-4000 ... 9% 4001-4500 10% 4501-5000 11% 5001-6000 12 ' , 6001-6500 12; 2 ' c 7001- 13% When this waiver had run its year ' s course and legislative grants were undergoing new reductions, the faculty rolled up its sleeves and took a deeper slice from its pay envelope. This time the lower brackets were hit and hit hard. With waivers of from 12-20 per cent levied on normal salaries, the key men settled down to penny pinching, and the younger men to fighting oflf poverty. Definitely and far from subtly the faculty ranks split along the old class lines. Old and new faced each other across the vital factor of survival. Hard feelings were expressed in plain talk. The waivers were adjusted in this manner: First S 500 of each salary 12% Next 500 or fraction thereof 16% Next 2000 or fraction thereof 17% Next 2000 or fraction thereof . ?19% Next 2000 or fraction thereof 21% Next 2000 or fraction thereof 23% Next 1000 or fraction thereof 25% All salaries over $10,000 20 ' , ' flat