All Posts Tagged With: "University Funding"
Quebec tuition to rise $325 a year for 5 years
Provincial budget also includes increased funding for universities
The Quebec government tabled its provincial budget today. As expected, tuition in the province, currently the lowest in Canada, will increase.
Tuition fees will rise by $325 a year, over five years, beginning in fall 2012. The increase will bring the cost of full-time studies to $3,793 per year, for Quebec residents. Full-time students currently pay $2,168 a year.
While the timing is a little different, the increase is pretty much exactly what the heads of the province’s universities have been asking for.
Predictably, student groups have condemned the increase. The Association pour une solidarité syndicale étudiante, the more radical of Quebec’s two main student lobby groups, described the budget as a “declaration of war against students.”
Quebec’s Finance Minister, Raymond Bachand, told the National Assembly that the increase will return tuition fees to 1968 levels, adjusted for inflation. Tuition fees in the province have been frozen for 33 of the past 43 years. Even after the full increase, Quebec’s tuition rates will still be 30 per cent lower than the current Canadian average, according to Bachand.
University administrators seem to be pleased with the budget, which also includes new provincial funding and measures to encourage private donations to universities.
According to Bachand, the province’s universities will have access to an additional $850 million in annual funding by 2016-17, though that figure includes an estimated increase in donations, so it may not be exactly accurate. Direct provincial funding is set to increase over the next six years, starting with a $74 million increase this year and reaching $430 million in additional funding for 2016-17.
Student aid funding is also set to increase. Student loans will remain the same and all new aid will come in the form of bursaries. The province is also reducing the contribution that parents are expected to make in student aid calculations but the student lobby has criticized this, saying that it’s really just a cost of living adjustment.
The province also intends to establish “performance targets [for universities] regarding the quality of training, student services, the graduation rate and the intensification of their research activities” as well as financial management.
All in all, it’s a very middle of the road Jean Charest government budget. Quebec’s left is criticizing things like the tuition increases for going too far, while the right is criticizing them for not going far enough.
The other key take-away is that most of the big spending that was announced today isn’t actually scheduled to happen for several years. So while the government may be saying that they’re going to increase university funding by $430 million, the funding increases won’t even be close to that level for years. Unlike tuition fees which are scheduled to increase at a steady rate, the increase in university funding starts off slowly, with the biggest jump planned for 2014-2015.
My final thought on the budget, and this is a bit of an aside, is that despite its faults, the Quebec government does an excellent job of making public documents easily available online. By 4 p.m., the time Bachand’s speech to the National Assembly began, all the budget documents were available online in English and French.
Student unions fret over potash deal
BHP takeover could cost the Sask treasury as much as $6 billion
I wouldn’t think that the pending takeover of Potash Corporation by BHP Billiton would peak the interest of student union representatives, but apparently when they’re riled up everything becomes a post-secondary education funding issue
Student leaders at the University of Saskatchewan and University of Regina are asking students to support Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall’s vehement opposition of the takeover. Wall is currently lobbying the federal government to stop the $36.8 billion deal that would see Potash Corp handed over to BHP.
The student’s concerns stem from the hit the Saskatchewan treasury stands to take, at at estimated $2 – 6 billion over the next decade, if the deal goes through. According to a report from the Conference Board of Canada, the deal could mean a near $200 million loss in revenue per year over 10 years, considering BHP will likely take advantage of their more favorable tax benefits as a US company.
The students are nervous about the affects that less revenue for the province could have on the generous amount of funding Saskatchewan universities have received over the past few years from the provincial government.
Both unions have sent letters to federal industry minister Tony Clement, asking him to support Wall’s efforts.
Although Potash Corp. has also been very generous in their donations to the U of S, university administrators are not taking sides on the issue of the potential takeover, despite the awkwardly timed pep rally organized by the university held on Friday at the U of S to recognize the substantial donations from Potash Corp that exceeded the $10 million mark in 2005, according to the Star Phoenix:
“I would hope that it does not look like we’re taking a stance on that,” said Heather Magotiaux, vice-president of university advancement.
“We’re certainly not in a position to make any kind of comment on what’s happening in terms of the business of potash.”
While Potash Corp is indirectly a very important contributor to the financial well being of universities in Saskatchewan, and employs hundreds if not thousands of students after graduation, I find it funny that student union leaders would take such a strong stance against the hostile U.S. takeover of the company because it may mean a potential hit to provincial funding for post secondary education.
These students should be more concerned by the fact that their universities’ financial stability has to indirectly rely on the well being of a private company by relying so heavily on the well being of the province’s budget. I would think that after universities everywhere were hit hard this year by slashes in government spending due to the economic recession, student unions would loosen their loyalty to the idea that public funding is alway the answer to all of higher education’s problems. Apparently not.
International students flock to Canada
As belts tighten on campus, post-secondary institutions are increasingly keen to tap into the international students revenue stream
Lise de Montbrun was a teenager in Trinidad when Canadian university recruiters descended on her high school. Armed with pamphlets and descriptions of Canadian campus life, they wooed de Montbrun and others to come study up north. “I didn’t need much convincing,” said de Montbrun, now a 22-year-old architecture student at Toronto’s Ryerson University. It seems more young people around the world are thinking the same way.
Related: The sneaky way universities are privatizing teaching
Lucrative international students are flocking to Canada in record numbers–almost doubling in the last decade–as universities woo them to bolster their shrinking budgets. The number of international students in Canada has ballooned from 97,300 in 1999 to just over 178,000 in 2008. One-quarter of those students are in Ontario while the majority settle in large cities like Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver.
Canada drew de Montbrun from the very beginning. Since Trinidad didn’t offer architecture programs, de Montbrun knew she would have to study abroad. Now, she said she’s earning a degree which is internationally valued, all the while being exposed to a different country and culture. But, she’s paying for it. Since most provinces deregulated tuition fees, post-secondary institutions can charge international students more than three times the fees Canadian students pay. In de Montbrun’s first year, she was paying $14,000 in tuition. Now, her annual bill is closer to $17,000.
“Every year, it increases,” she said. “The university can increase it at any rate they want.”
As belts tighten on campus, post-secondary institutions are increasingly keen to tap into the international students revenue stream. Robert White, senior policy analyst for international affairs with the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, said there are more international students looking for education away from home. He said universities are increasingly competing for the best and the brightest, recognizing that those students don’t always have a Canadian passport.
“(With) the ease of travel and, greater prosperity across the world, the potential for going and studying outside of their home country has just grown,” he said. “We’ve benefited from that.” But the increasing reliance on students like de Montbrun has many concerned. While some say international students are just a Band-Aid solution to chronic underfunding, others worry the growing population could cause universities to lower their academic standards.
David Robinson, associate executive director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, said relying on such “cash cows” brings its own set of challenges. Some have difficulty with English or basic academic skills like essay writing. And given the desperately needed cash the students provide, Robinson said there have been cases where the administration is reluctant to uphold academic standards by expelling or failing such lucrative students.
“To expel those students means you are essentially cutting off a potential supply of revenue,” said Robinson, pointing to Australia where about one-quarter of students come from outside the country. “If we end up in a situation where we’re going to become more dependent upon the revenue streams international students provide, it does create potentials for conflict of interest where academic values may conflict with commercial values.”
Others worry Canada is limiting education to all but the wealthiest of international students while relying on them as a stop-gap measure. Katherine Giroux-Bougard, chair of the Canadian Federation of Students, said international students can bring much-needed diversity to Canadian campuses but the increasingly steep tuition is putting that experience out of reach for all but a few. Universities are also quick to bring international students here but don’t provide them with much financial assistance once they arrive, she said.
“The fundamental problem is . . . a lack of funding for institutions in Canada since the 1990s,” she said. “Trying to attract international students and charging higher fees, is really a Band-Aid solution to a much greater problem.”
The Canadian Press
Against pragmatism
Justifying the university means justifying what universities do, not what we want them to do
Over at University Affairs, deputy editor Léo Charbonneau, recently asked his readers for their thoughts about protecting universities against the possibility of massive cuts to higher education. He asks, “What’s the best line of argument to protect universities from the cuts to come?”
Charbonneau poses the question after reviewing an article by Paul Wells written for the alumni mag at Wells’ alma mater (see here, page 46). Wells, one of the few national columnists who thinks higher education is worth talking about, admonishes the idea that university administrators should take a pragmatic approach to protecting their funding.
Administrators like to emphasize the economic impact of higher education. Universities are special, they argue. Not only do they contribute to economic activity in the here and now (like every other large employer) but they make our workforce more productive, and contribute to job creation across the entire economy, and in the long term, in ways that no other sector can. Give them more money and we will get more economic growth as a result. ( The Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada made this very argument in its pre-budget submission to parliament’s finance committee).
Such a line of argument would be great for universities if it were true, or, if it is true, if it could be proven. Unfortunately this is not really the case. As Wells writes:
The problem with that line of argument is that in a really nasty economic environment, governments on a tight budget will take that as a cue to go hunting for anything a university does that doesn’t, demonstrably, simplistically, generate the ideas that drive a new economy. Whatever they find that looks like a ‘frill’ by that definition will be in danger of getting cut. And frankly, most of what goes on at a university is hard to justify as part of a job-creation mill.
Charbonneau takes issue not with Wells’ analysis, but with Wells’ conclusions that universities “need to go back to basics and talk more … about the intrinsic value of knowledge, scholarship, beauty, contention, and an environment that urges scholars toward ambition and accomplishment.” Charbonneau finds Wells misguided, and says he doubts “whether it’s the type of argument that our current governments will buy into.”
Though Charbonneau does not come right out and say it, it seems obvious that he sides with the view that universities should adopt a pragmatic approach and tell governments what they think governments want to hear.
It should be obvious that Wells is correct on this question.
Of course current governments are not going to buy into the argument that universities are justified by their core activities of teaching and learning. No one ever bothers to make the case to them. Instead universities act ashamed that they investigate the origins of the universe, or competing views on Milton’s Paradise Lost, and emphasize what are in actuality only incidental outcomes of higher education.
The logic of academia is internal, meaning its impact on the rest of society cannot be predicted or planned. And, if we start trying to plan it, then what made academia unique withers away. Taking the pragmatic approach does not convince governments to value higher education, it concedes the terms of debate to those who think intellectual pursuits are all about direct economic outcomes. What happens when people start looking for this return?
A more appropriate way to view universities might be something similar to how we view public spending on the arts. As a certain prairie based education writer put it earlier this week:
[T]he public is not stupid, and universities should not be so sheepish about what they do. If universities announced that they were no longer going to study ancient history, or the origins of the universe, or Shakespeare, then the public would likely be distressed.
After all, we support public funding for the arts because of the intrinsic good they are thought to confer on the community. Why not teaching and learning? Like the arts, higher education is a luxury of wealthy societies to be appreciated, not as a means to solve all our problems or to be debased on utilitarian grounds.
If schools want to justify themselves, or demonstrate their relevance, they have to show us what it is that they uniquely do.
To be sure, such reasoning puts schools at risk of being dismissed as frivolous, but it doesn’t have to. Higher education advocates should learn to own the debate and not be afraid to talk about what they actually do.
Feds announce more infrastructure funding for universities
Ontario will get nearly $1.5 billion to build “long-term capacity for research and innovation”
The federal and Ontario governments will spend nearly $1.5 billion over the next two years on infrastructure projects at Ontario’s universities and colleges.
Industry Minister Tony Clement said Monday the $1.476 billion will give short-term economic stimulus to communities in the province and help strengthen research and innovation.
“Our government’s investment provides significant short-term economic stimulus in local communities throughout Ontario, while at the same time strengthening Canada’s long-term capacity for research and innovation,” Clement said in a statement.
“The renewal of college and university facilities will encourage more world-class researchers to work in Canada and give them the tools they need to make further discoveries that will benefit Canadians and people around the world.”
The spending will include $587 million in federal funding, $641.2 million in provincial funding and $248.1 million from other sources including the private sector and the universities and colleges themselves.
The monies will come from the federal Knowledge Infrastructure Program announced in the 2009 budget, a two-year, $2-billion economic stimulus measure to support infrastructure enhancement at Canadian post-secondary schools. They will be used to support deferred maintenance, repair and expansion projects at the colleges and universities.
A total of 28 projects at post-secondary institutions throughout the province will be beneficiaries of the first round of funding with another round of qualifying projects to be announced Friday.
Funding released to the schools included:
- $137 million for the University of Guelph and Conestoga College
- $31.23 million for Sheridan Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning
- $50 million to the Centre for International Governance Innovation, a centre established by Research in Motion (TSX:RIM) co-CEO Jim Balsillie
- $70 million for the University of Toronto’s campus in the eastern suburb of Scarborough
- $80 million for the University of Ottawa
Laurentian unhappy with funding formula
But province is right to stick to their funding formula
The Sault Star editorial Tuesday says that Laurentian University is losing $1 million a year in provincial funding for graduate students due to the distribution of those students not fitting a provincial funding formula.
LU was funded to admit 25 new PhD students and 95 new master’s students starting this, 2007/08, year. Instead, LU admitted 55 new PhD students and only 35 new master’s students. LU requested the province allow them to switch funding intended for new master’s students to instead fund the 30 PhD students.
The province said no, the formula is the formula.
The Sault Star says this is a problem and the formula needs to change.
I disagree.
While I normally would not support a rigid funding formula, the circumstances of this year lead me to.
The spring of 2007 saw the “double cohort” graduate from four-year degree programs. This increased demand for graduate programs and recruited an increase in Master’s program spaces. The province increased the funding of master’s programs to respond to this demand. The reality is that the funding has a policy purpose.
The purpose was to create the new of graduate study spaces available for students completing their undergraduate degrees last year. The province cannot provide money to achieve a set purpose and then allow universities to change that purpose. It does not matter how similar that purpose may seem. To allow LU to divert funds intended for “double cohort” graduate students to other, in this case PhD, students would be to allow universities to ignore public policy direction at will.
Let’s be clear, I don’t believe LU went out and acted in bad faith. To the contrary, I believe they admitted each qualified master’s applicant they had. They then decided to admit more PhD students in the hope that the funding would come anyway. They took a chance, one which didn’t work for them.
I’ve emailed the Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges, and Universities for comment and will update when I receive a reply.
