The definition of differentiation as it pertains to post-secondary education is subject to broad interpretations. The five largest universities in Canada have called on the country to create a differentiated system that would result in two tiers of institutions. Under this model, these universities would receive the vast majority of funding designated for research and innovation, would teach only a limited number of undergrads, and would take on more graduate students to help support their research agenda. The remaining universities would focus on undergraduate teaching rather than research. The premise of this proposal centers on the hypothesis that Canada will not be able to compete globally if it does not concentrate its research funding.
A second proposal contrasts the first in that it calls on the government to continue to allocate research grants on the basis of the quality of the applications. This plan would encourage “natural” differentiation so that schools would be rewarded for quality research and would invest in those areas where they excel. By allocating funding based on excellence, institutions would only be able to fund their finest research programs and would be encouraged to abandon those areas where they do not excel. Over time, universities would become specialized in very specific areas, but would still preserve the traditional approach of blended teaching and research universities.
The issue of differentiation is significant to undergraduate students because it would alter the current approach to baccalaureate education. Institutions that strictly teach would not be able to offer undergraduates exposure to research opportunities, which may hinder their ability to continue on to graduate studies. If universities are forced to focus their research to only a few areas, it may begin to impact the quality of undergraduate education. Despite a traditional divide between teaching and research, many institutions are attempting to bring more research into classrooms to enhance the undergraduate experience. This would be more difficult to implement without strong research programs. Furthermore, removing top researchers deprives students of professors that excel in the application of their field. It is possible that the university system could become antiquated, with an emerging disconnect between curriculum and the latest research.
Above all, undergraduate students need to be involved in discussions surrounding differentiation of any nature because of the impact it will have on their education. So far the discussion has been too focused on the sustainability of the system and reducing the costs to government, with little or no regard for the impact of differentiation on the quality of undergraduate education. This must change.
From March 19-21, student leaders from across the Province will have an opportunity to discuss the various forms and consequences of differentiation during OUSA’s Spring General Assembly at the University of Western Ontario. We look forward to an exhilarating conversation.
-Adam Zabrodski & Robert Woodrich
Vice Presidents University Affairs
Alma Mater Society of Queen’s University & University of Windsor Students’ Alliance
Good post Adam and Robert.
If one looks at a similar process that is occurring in the UK Post-secondary system, the proposals are exactly in line with the neo-liberal economic agenda that we are seeing unfold here: defining “quality” and “excellence” in research, as narrowly as possible, as what is strictly in the interests of big business. Arts, humanities, non-business related sciences, all get defunded and disappear. What’s left? Wal-Mart & Co. Universities that prepare you for work at Wal-Mart and its subsidiaries.
I do indeed hope that OUSA will strongly reject these plans, will lobby the government for increased PS funding at all levels — tied to student needs rather than business needs, and will seek to educate students against the wrong-headed notion that a University degree is to provide one with a job — it is there to provide one with an education.