Archive for Mary Dwyer
Our 19th Annual Rankings
Schools in Quebec, British Columbia and New Brunswick top our evaluation of university excellence
With this year’s rankings, Maclean’s continues the mandate it established in 1991: to provide essential information in a comprehensive package to help students choose the university that best suits their needs. The annual rankings assess Canadian universities on a diverse range of factors, from spending on student services, scholarships and libraries, to student/faculty ratios and faculty success in obtaining national research grants. Maclean’s surveys universities with a focus on the undergraduate experience, and an intent to offer an overview of the quality of instruction and services available to students at public universities across the country.
Maclean’s places universities in one of three categories, recognizing the differences in types of institutions, levels of research funding, the diversity of offerings, and the range of graduate and professional programs. Primarily Undergraduate universities, as the name suggests, are largely focused on undergraduate education, with relatively few graduate programs. Those in the Comprehensive category have a significant degree of research activity and a wide range of programs at the undergraduate and graduate levels, including professional degrees. Medical Doctoral universities offer a broad range of Ph.D. programs and research; as well, all universities in this category have medical schools, which sets them apart in terms of the size of research grants.
In each category, Maclean’s ranks the institutions on performance indicators in six broad areas, allocating a weight to each indicator. Primarily Undergraduate and Comprehensive universities are ranked on 13 performance measures; Medical Doctoral universities are ranked on 14. Figures include data from all federated and affiliated institutions. The magazine does not rank schools with fewer than 1,000 full-time students, those that are restrictive due to a religious or specialized mission, newly designated universities or those that are not members of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC).
For the fifth year in a row, McGill has taken the top spot in the Medical Doctoral category. On a per capita basis, McGill’s faculty perform strongly in winning awards and research grants. A first-place finish on student awards and the reputational survey boosted the school’s overall score.
For Medical Doctoral results, click to enlarge.
In the Comprehensive category, Simon Fraser finished first for the second year in a row. Once again, an outstanding showing in winning student and faculty awards, as well as research grants, contributed to a top-notch score. In addition, SFU scored highly on library spending, particularly in spending on acquisitions.
For Comprehensive results, click to enlarge.
For the third year running, Mount Allison took the top position in the Primarily Undergraduate category. On a per capita basis, Mount A students win more awards than any of their peers at other institutions, and the faculty follow closely behind, coming in second on the awards indicator. Placing well on operating budget expenditures per student, spending on the library, number of library volumes per student and the reputational survey all contributed to a winning score.
For Primarily Undergraduate results, click to enlarge.
This year, a new university was ranked in the Primarily Undergraduate category. The University of Ontario Institute of Technology, founded in 2003 in Oshawa, made a strong debut, placing 12th out of 22 institutions. Strength in research funding—UOIT placed first in obtaining social sciences and humanities grants and fourth in medical/science grants—as well as a first-place finish on funding student services and library acquisitions contributed to a strong score.
Next: How are the rankings decided?
The best reps
Movers and shakers in education rank universities on their performance
University-bound students are keen to learn as much as possible before deciding which university to attend, quizzing those who may have an opinion worth listening to. Take those opinions and multiply them hundreds of times over and you have the idea behind Maclean’s reputational survey. What do those whose professions put them in a position to form opinions—both about how well universities are meeting the needs of students and how ready their graduates are to embark on successful careers—really think?
To find out what the professionals think about the state of post-secondary education in Canada, Maclean’s solicited the opinion of nearly 12,000 individuals across the country, asking for their views on quality, innovation and leadership at Canadian universities. Those surveyed included university officials at each ranked institution, high school principals and guidance counsellors from every province and territory, the heads of a wide variety of national and regional organizations, plus CEOs and recruiters at corporations large and small.
Respondents were asked to rate Canada’s universities in three categories: Highest Quality, Most Innovative, and Leaders of Tomorrow, the results of which can be found in our newsstand issue, available today. Best Overall (left) represents the sum of the scores for all three categories. Again this year, the University of Waterloo placed first overall among 48 universities on the national reputational ranking, a position the school has successfully captured every year but three during the past 19 years of ranking. Meanwhile, the University of Ontario Institute of Technology (UOIT)—founded in 2003 and being ranked for the first time this year—made a strong showing for a young university, placing 30th overall.
The reputational survey has a regional as well as a national component that divides the country into four key areas: the western provinces, Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces. All respondents completed a national survey; university officials, principals and guidance counsellors also completed regional ones, allowing them the opportunity to focus on the region they know best. The national and regional surveys are combined to produce the final results. The survey form reminds participants that Maclean’s does not expect them to be familiar with every university, and that we are asking them to provide their views only on those universities about which they have an informed opinion.
The reputational survey achieved an overall response rate of 7.5 per cent. Broken out by groups, the response rates were: 26.3 per cent for university officials; 4.9 per cent for high school principals and guidance counsellors; 6.1 per cent for CEOs, corporate recruiters and heads of organizations.
Spotlight on graduate studies
B.C. grad students tell us what they think about their programs
After putting in four years or more to achieve an undergraduate degree, how likely is someone to dive in for more? Are graduate studies worth the cost, time and considerable commitment? A first-of-its-kind study in British Columbia is shedding light on what masters and doctoral students really think about their programs, and is helping to determine how relevant graduate studies are to the workplace.
B.C.’s Ministry of Advanced Education and the Universities Presidents’ Council surveyed the graduates in 2006 in order to measure graduate outcomes and to obtain feedback on the relationship between graduate education and the labour market. The online survey was administered to 3,602 graduates from the University of British Columbia, the University of Northern British Columbia, Royal Roads University, Simon Fraser University and the University of Victoria. Two cohort years were selected—2000-2001 and 2003-2004—in order to obtain sufficient data for analysis. In total, 929 masters and doctoral graduates responded, for an overall response rate of 25.7 per cent. (Article continues below.)
Selected charts from the B.C. University Survey of Graduates from Masters and Doctorate Programs:
Survey analyst Walter Sudmant believes this is the only survey of this type to examine graduate outcomes, and while it included some of the satisfaction questions typically found on surveys designed for undergrads, the survey also asked specific questions to measure whether or not grads were applying the higher level of thinking, creativity, research and teamwork skills they acquired during their grad work to their current jobs. Grads were also asked if they were employed in jobs related to their graduate program. “We talk about graduate students and how they are the true carriers of new knowledge into the economy,” says Sudmant, “yet we don’t have any evidence of that directly.” With the results of this survey showing a strong link between graduate education and the labour market, Sudmant observes: “Now we’ve got some data to back up our rhetoric.”
The study found that skills acquired during graduate studies are highly transferable to the workplace. Ninety-four percent of respondents stated that the knowledge, skills and abilities acquired during graduate education were very or somewhat useful in their work. The skill set cited included: specific techniques and methods; translating scholarly research into applications relevant to work; motivation to develop new ideas; and the ability to work as part of a research team. The study also found that 91 per cent of respondents found their job was very or somewhat related to their program. This compares to only 73 per cent of undergrad degree holders who see the same level of correlation between their job and their bachelor’s degree program.
Graduates expressed a high level of satisfaction with the education they received, with 93 per cent declaring they were satisfied or very satisfied. Similarly, 88 per cent said they would recommend their university to prospective students. Only 73 per cent, however, said they would take the same program again, suggesting room for improvement in the educational process. Student comments pointed to a number of areas of dissatisfaction, including the quality of supervision and course instruction, lack of timely feedback and access to committee members, cost of an education, perceived better opportunities in other provinces or in the United States, as well as changed interests and lack of career opportunities.
When asked about their reasons for pursuing graduate studies, 60 per cent of respondents cited the need to enhance career opportunities and 40 per cent included the desire to continue pursuing scholarly and research interests among their reasons. Only 3.4 per cent of respondents mentioned a lack of employment opportunities, challenging the notion that students enter graduate studies due to poor job prospects.
Our 18th Annual Rankings
Maclean’s evaluation of overall academic excellence at universities across the country
Now in its 18th year of ranking, Maclean’s continues its mandate to provide basic, essential information in a comprehensive package to help students choose the university that best suits their needs. The annual rankings assess Canadian universities on a diverse range of factors, from spending on student services and scholarships and bursaries, to funding for libraries and faculty success in obtaining national research grants. Maclean’s surveys universities with a focus on the undergraduate experience, and an intent to offer an overview of the quality of instruction and services available to students at public universities across the country.
Maclean’s places universities in one of three categories, recognizing the differences in types of institutions, levels of research funding, the diversity of offerings, and the range of graduate and professional programs. Primarily Undergraduate universities are largely focused on undergraduate education, with relatively few graduate programs. Those in the Comprehensive category have a significant amount of research activity and a wide range of programs at the undergraduate and graduate levels, including professional degrees. Medical Doctoral universities offer a broad range of Ph.D. programs and research. In addition, all universities in this category have medical schools, which sets them apart in terms of the size of research grants.
In each category, Maclean’s ranks the institutions on a range of factors—or performance indicators—in six broad areas (weightings are in parentheses). Primarily Undergraduate and Comprehensive universities are ranked on 13 performance measures; Medical Doctoral universities are ranked on 14. Figures include data from all federated and affiliated institutions. The magazine does not rank schools with fewer than 1,000 full-time students or those that are restrictive due to a religious or specialized mission.
The ranking process begins in the spring when thousands of reputational surveys are sent to university officials, high-school principals and guidance counsellors, heads of organizations, CEOs and corporate recruiters across the country, asking for their views on quality and innovation at Canadian universities. During the course of the summer, Maclean’s collects information on dozens of student and faculty awards from 44 administering agencies.
The Maclean’s rankings are based on the most recent and publicly available data. Student and faculty numbers are obtained from Statistics Canada, as are data for all five financial indicators—operating budget, spending on student services, scholarships and bursaries, library expenses and acquisitions—as well as total research income. For the social sciences and humanities research grants indicator and the medical/science research grants indicator, data for fiscal year 2007-2008 are received directly from the three major federal granting agencies: the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the Natural Sc Canada, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The Canadian Association of Research Libraries and its regional counterparts provide figures used for the library holdings indicators. Financial and library figures are for the fiscal year 2006-2007; student and faculty numbers are for 2005-2006.
Our 17th Annual University Rankings
Maclean’s evaluation of overall academic excellence at universities across the country
With this year’s ranking, Maclean’s continues the mandate it established 16 years ago: to provide basic, essential information in a comprehensive package to help students choose the university that best suits their needs. The annual rankings assess Canadian universities on a diverse range of factors, from spending on student services and scholarships and bursaries, to funding for libraries and faculty success in obtaining national research grants. Maclean’s surveys universities with a focus on the undergraduate experience, and an intent to offer an overview of the quality of instruction and services available to students at public universities across the country.
For Medical Doctoral university rankings, right-click here, and open in new tab.
For Comprehensive university rankings, right-click here, and open in new tab.
For Primarily Undergraduate university rankings, right-click here, and open in new tab.
Maclean’s places universities in one of three categories, recognizing the differences in types of institutions, levels of research funding, the diversity of offerings, and the range of graduate and professional programs. Primarily Undergraduate universities are largely focused on undergraduate education, with relatively few graduate programs. Those in the Comprehensive category have a significant amount of research activity and a wide range of programs at the undergraduate and graduate levels, including professional degrees. Medical Doctoral universities offer a broad range of Ph.D. programs and research. In addition, all universities in this category have medical schools, which sets them apart in terms of the size of research grants.
In each category, Maclean’s ranks the institutions on a range of factors—or performance indicators—in six broad areas (weightings are in parentheses). Primarily Undergraduate and Comprehensive universities are ranked on 13 performance measures; Medical Doctoral universities are ranked on 14. Figures include data from all federated and affiliated institutions. The magazine does not rank schools with fewer than 1,000 full-time students or those that are restrictive due to a religious or specialized mission.
The ranking process begins in the spring when thousands of reputational surveys are sent to university officials, high-school principals and guidance counsellors, heads of organizations, CEOs and corporate recruiters across the country, asking for their views on quality and innovation at Canadian universities. During the course of the summer, Maclean’s collects information on dozens of student and faculty awards from 45 administering agencies.
This year, Maclean’s revised its methodology, and the rankings are now based entirely on publicly available data. Student and faculty numbers were obtained from Statistics Canada, as was data for all five financial indicators— operating budget, spending on student services, scholarships and bursaries, library expenses and acquisitions—as well as total research income. For the social sciences and humanities research grants indicator and the medical/science research grants indicator, data for fiscal year 2006-2007 was received directly from the three major federal granting agencies: the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The Canadian Association of Research Libraries and its regional counterparts provided figures used for the library holdings indicators. All financial and library figures are for the fiscal year 2005-2006; student and faculty numbers are for 2004-2005.
