OUSA

The past two weeks have seen many significant infrastructure announcements at Ontario universities, funded as part of the provincial government’s Building Togetherplan. The plan calls for $35 billion to be spent over the next three years on infrastructure across the province. Approximately $600 million has been allocated to post-secondary institutions for the purpose of expanding student learning space. Investing in expanded infrastructure and capabilities on our campuses is important, as concerns of crowded and out-dated spaces are very real to students in this era of continuing enrolment growth. Personally exciting to me is what the space means: not only the existence of more classrooms, but also what those classrooms look like and their possibilities for pedagogy and technical integration that is responsive to changing student learning needs.

The importance of investment on our campuses extends beyond new buildings though. It is reassuring to see that the infrastructure plan places a priority on the renewal of existing facilities and asset management. It is my hope that these efforts can begin to address the nearly two billion dollars of accumulated deferred maintenance at our institutions. Currently, institutions only receive a marginal amount of funding for maintenance, resulting in universities often deferring this important work. Between 2007 and 2010, the audited value of deferred maintenance jumped from $1.6 billion to $1.97 billion. A facilities condition index found that “overall, buildings in the university sector are in poor condition.” A staggering 42% of buildings were found to be in poor condition, requiring maintenance.

Since 2005, provincial investments have contributed $26.7 million per year through the facilities renewal program, though that amount was reduced to $17.3 million in 2010. There were also supplementary investments in new capital projects in 2005, 2008 and 2009. Overall, provincial investment in facilities improvement and renewal has totalled over 2 billion dollars over five years. While this funding has helped stymy the tide of further deterioration of our campus facilities, a sustained long-term investment plan is required to adequately address growth in the system. Hopefully, the asset renewal plans required by Building Together will incentivize the funding necessary to maintain Ontario university infrastructure for generations of students to come.

A further hope for Building Together is that the government will open capital funding eligibility to projects that haven’t typically received support in the past, such as student buildings or recreational facilities. Universities rely very heavily on students to fund these infrastructure projects through ancillary fees, a trend which continues to be a point of concern for students. With an average capital ancillary fee of $72 across Ontario universities, students are rightfully questioning why the provincial government chooses not to support student and recreational facilities used by faculty, staff and the broader communities that campuses situate themselves in.

In the final report of the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities/Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure Long-Term Capital Planning Project, compiled by the Courtyard Group in 2009, it recommended that “funding should be extended to traditional ‘ancillary’ projects which demonstrate significant contribution to student development.” Students couldn’t agree more. With Monday’s announcement of funding for a mixed-use academic and health facility at St. Clair College, we are hopeful that the government has embraced this recommendation.

All told, it is assuring to students that the Building Ontario plan includes post-secondary education as a key component. An intention to tackle both the pedagogical and physical demands of Ontario’s changing and growing student populations demonstrates the importance of the post-secondary education to the Province.

Till next time,

Sean Madden
OUSA President

Conference Delegates

Last week, I had the pleasure of attending and participating in the European Access Network’s annual conference held at the VU University Amsterdam in the Netherlands. The EAN is a non-governmental organization with the singular mission of widening participation in higher education for those who are currently underrepresented. The Network is made up of institutional and jurisdictional representatives from Europe, North America and several other parts of the world who either research, fund or work directly on access initiatives. This year’s conference, entitled ‘Student Diversity in Higher Education: Conflicting Realities,’ dealt with many facets of the global access issue, with a variety of perspectives on closing participation gaps shared amongst the delegates. The conference offered me some key insights on OUSA’s work on access over the past few years through Breaking Barriers and our annual Blue Chair Campaign.

There were a number of memorable conference sessions for me. One of the first sessions was facilitated by a Vice-Chancellor in the United Kingdom on the regressive changes to the country’s tuition and financial aid policies. Next up was a session on tremendous progress that some of California’s prestigious 4-year universities have made in supporting transfer students from community colleges, both in terms growing the number of transfer students and also in their academic success rates, which have surpassed non-transfer students in many cases. I also had the pleasure of speaking at length with Dr. Brenda Dann-Messier, the Assistant Secretary to the US Department of Education in the Obama administration, on the supports that underrepresented students need in secondary schools and their new ‘cradle to career’ strategy. Finally, the President of the Lumina Foundation for Education in the US delivered an inspiring call to action to all countries to redouble efforts to protect and enhance accessibility of higher education as public budgets around the world tighten.

While the conference proceedings itself were invaluable, the most exciting part of the week was the global student forum. In attendance were representatives from the United States Student Association and the European Students’ Union, in addition to students from underrepresented groups from around the world ranging from Belgium to Suriname. Hearing their stories was truly a moving and motivating experience. Students from across the world shared their stories and experiences accessing higher education. One woman from Tanzania was discouraged from attending post-secondary due to her gender and was able to change her life when she accessed a computer –and information on scholarships – for the first time. A man from inner city St. Louis lived on the streets for years but attended higher education after promising his dying grandfather that he would go back to university as a mature student. Another brilliant young man from Toronto has been on his own since age 15 and is still finishing his high school diploma because he had to take time off school to work and support himself, but plans to study engineering at the University of Toronto as soon as he can.

While the unique challenges and perspectives from each student and country were interesting, I was struck most by the similarity of student experiences and challenges with accessing education are worldwide. Students from across the world spoke of the need to feel supported early on in school; they spoke of the need for clear information on costs and benefits; they spoke of the need to have an understandable and accessible financial aid system; they spoke of the need for a flexible education system that allows students to change their path; they spoke of the challenges that first generation students face the need for role models and additional encouragement.  Ultimately, they all spoke of the need for a coordinated and holistic approach to access that leaves no student behind.

It can be easy to let conversation on accessibility focus on the numbers and the policy changes that are needed, rather than on the students themselves. I am walking away from this forum with a renewed respect for letting individual students’ stories shine through.

I also obtained an appreciation of where Canada and Ontario stand in a global perspective. Many of the conference’s delegates spoke admiringly of Canada’s public education system and high attainment rate. Hearing stories of the recruitment practices of degree mills and two-tiered primary school systems made me reflect on the somewhat advantageous position that Ontarians are in. That notwithstanding, it was also obvious that we are woefully behind in other areas. Many other jurisdictions utilize student mobility between education pathways through credit transfer, bridging programs and open access initiatives to enhance university participation for those without the necessary entrance requirements – something that Ontario has talked about for a long time, but made relatively little progress on.  There are also countless examples of innovative community- and school-based programs designed to influence underrepresented students’ course selection and performance. As Ontario embarks on designing new programming to help with the transition from secondary to post-secondary education, we would be wise to look to our neighbouring jurisdictions for many promising best practices.

I want to thank the European Access Network for inviting and bringing OUSA to a wonderful forum and allowing us to participate so fully. This has been a fantastic opportunity for OUSA and I can’t wait to share all that I’ve learned back here in Ontario. The ability to interact with other student organizations was also a valuable opportunity to share perspectives and information – something that we can hopefully continue to do more of as the EAN builds a more formal student network. In particular, as student organizations become more organized in places like Asia and Africa, it will be an exciting opportunity to work together and share best practices to influence public policy and debate around the world.

Ontario has a lot to be proud of, but closing participation gaps and supporting all students’ pursuit of higher education is going to require us to take our efforts at home to the next level. Participating in forums like the EAN ensures that a global perspective informs these efforts as we all work to enhance equality through higher education.

-Sam Andrey
Executive Director

Left to Right: Bud Walker, Associate Provost Students, Bradley Moggach (2010/2011), Past FEDS President, Nikki Best, VP Internal (2010/2011), Feridun Hamdullahpur, President, Nick Soave, Vice President Education 2010/2011, Bob Copeland, Director of Athletics.

Students were delighted to hear the news yesterday afternoon that the McGuinty Government will be investing $28.5 million in continued funding to Pathways to Education. Truly, this investment will help students from low-income communities access education, as well as provide significant returns for the province.

Since its inception in 2001, the success of Pathways to Education has been overwhelming. Beginning in the Regent Park region of Toronto, Pathways was responsible for reducing the regional secondary school dropout rate by 46 per cent. Concurrently, the program has been credited with increasing the Regent Park post-secondary intake rate from 20 per cent to 80 per cent, split evenly between College and University.

The staggering scope of these results prompted an initial investment of $19 million in Pathways from the province in 2007, allowing the program to expand to other communities such as Hamilton, Kitchener, Kingston and Ottawa. From a public administration perspective, it has been estimated that an investment in Pathways provides a return to society of $25 for every dollar invested and a $400,000 value for every graduate of the program. This return on investment is seen in effects such as increased income tax revenue generated from post-secondary graduates, decreased use of welfare and decreased health costs associated with risky behaviour.

OUSA has been a long-time advocate for investment Pathways to Education, most recently lobbying the government for extension of funding at our 2010 Student Advocacy Conference. In addition, our individual members have participated in fundraising activities in support of regional iterations of Pathways. For example, The Federation of Students at the University of Waterloo works to advocate for the role of Pathways in the Kitchener-Waterloo Community through our annual Colour Me Educated Campaign. During this campaign, students and university community members come together to celebrate the work of Pathways and to raise money for the program’s Kitchener branch. The 2010-2011 campaign wrapped up in March with a Paint Drop (pictured above), and a donation of close to $4,500 to Pathways. University of Waterloo students plan to continue supporting the regional program in the future, kicking off a new campaign in January 2012.

Students are overjoyed that the provincial government has recognized the tremendous role played by early outreach programs like Pathways to Education. As Ontario strives to attain the goal of 70 per cent participation in university, it is vital that the doors remain open to students from all backgrounds. There is more work to be done to continue to widen accessibility through early outreach programs, but this is certainly a great step and a demonstration of the value placed on access to education in this province.

-Natalie Cockburn
Vice-President (Education)
University of Waterloo Federation of Students

My last blog refuted the increasingly popular myth that students view their education as a ‘commodity they purchase’ and that students ‘put the onus on faculty to teach rather than themselves to learn.’ I also expressed frustration at the mentality that students expecting faculty to be exemplary teachers is unjustified. This expectation is completely justified, given that Ontario is becoming more comfortable with larger class sizes, a less stable professoriate, and faculty who spend more time being researchers and authors than they do being teachers.

However, this isn’t an Ontario-isolated phenomenon. The academic world as a whole is becoming focused on research output and initiatives than they are on quality of education and undergraduate learning. International university rankings, the Holy Grail for advancement and recruitment teams across the world, are notorious for their emphasis on research-oriented metrics rather than a diverse evaluation matrix including teaching, research, and student life. In 2008, the Higher Education Funding Council for England stated that there exists a risk that the bias found in these rankings are beginning to influence public policy by rewarding institutions for research-based initiatives over teaching-based initiatives. I fear that Ontario may be falling into this trap.

I’m not the only one who feels this way. Last Saturday, Jeffrey Simpson wrote an article titled “Stop short-changing undergrads, get profs back into the class.” Mr. Simpson believes that the lack of focus on teaching in Ontario universities is a result of government funding models. He argues there are a lack of incentives to entice universities to lower class sizes, provide training and encourage professors to focus on quality teaching. This lack of incentives is troubling; all professors must view undergraduate learning as a priority and the province needs to give them enough reason to make the change.

There are some examples of professors making the change despite the current incentive model. In a recent blog on www.academicmatters.ca, Karen Dubinsky, a professor at Queen’s University and an avid teacher, writes about a significant career move in which she switched disciplines from Canadian History to Global Development Studies. She writes about leaving her tenured position, sacrificing a summer of research, all to become a teacher in a discipline she was truly passionate about. In her words this was a modest change, switching from one department in the same university to another. However, in the academic world there is currently such an emphasis on research and tenure that to sacrifice both to better teach another discipline is significant.

So what do we do about teaching? OUSA has supported the creation of teaching chairs – tenured professors that receive funding to create and implement change in teaching – and has been a long-time advocate of training for teaching assistants and professors. Students look to the provincial government to make a significant commitment to quality of education, fully funding this commitment. They’ve already alluded to such changes in direction in their recent vision for Putting Students First. As this plan moves forward towards implementation, students strongly believe that Ontario’s funding model should be changed to reward innovation in teaching.

Most importantly, we need to change the measures of success faculty members and the university community is judged by. Success should not lie exclusively in the number of articles one is published in, but should also be observable in the learning outcomes of undergraduates, satisfaction surveys and a high level of student engagement. It is an economic and social imperative that Ontario continues to be a national and world leader that focuses its education sector on producing life-learners and critical thinkers. We need to embrace change in our academic institutions and truly become centres of teaching and learning.

Where do I want to see faculty in five years? It’s simple. I want to see all of them teaching, as well as being rewarded, hired and evaluated based upon the quality of their teaching. The system isn’t there now, so we need to help get it there.

-Kieran Slobodin
VP University Affairs
Alma Mater Society, Queen’s University

Hello!

My name is Mira and I’m the Academic Affairs Commissioner (2011-2012) for the Alma Mater Society at Queen’s University. I am thrilled to be joining the OUSA Steering Committee as one of two representatives from Queen’s. I came to Kingston in 2007 from Vancouver, British Columbia and am entering my fifth year of studies with a major in Global Development Studies and a minor in Geography.

The Academic Affairs Commission will be a busy place over the upcoming year. We are currently finalizing our campaign and advertising strategies to promote the provincial election to students. Open communication with Elections Ontario has enabled us to secure three days of advanced polls in our student centre in September, helping ensure voter accessibility for Queen’s students. Another priority relates to the tragic loss of 6 students at Queen’s since March 2010. The AMS Social Issues Commissioner and I will be partnering to examine the university’s policies and processes to ensure that students experiencing issues related to mental health or family tragedy are fully accommodated at Queen’s. This project will include an examination of Senate and faculty policies that govern the academic appeals process, which can be an arduous and overwhelming process for a student already experiencing extreme duress. In addition, a new Strategic Research Plan is being written and I’m working to ensure that undergraduate research opportunities are recognized as a vital part of the student experience at Queen’s.

I’m incredibly excited to build on the success of OUSA’s past year. As a member of Steering Committee, my interests lie in student success and access, particularly barriers (financial and otherwise) facing low-income students. In connecting my role as Academic Affairs Commissioner and a Steering Committee member, I look forward to taking a consultative approach with students at Queen’s to ensure that their interests are brought forth to Steering Committee meetings, General Assemblies, and represented in policy papers. I look forward to meeting and working with many of you over the coming year.

Cheers,

Mira Dineen
Academic Affairs Commissioner
Alma Mater Society of Queen’s University

Today, the Ontario government announced their comprehensive Mental Health and Addictions Strategy, titled Open Minds, Healthy Minds. Starting this year, the government will invest a total $257 million dollars over three years in the province’s mental health system to help children and youth access support services. Included in the announcement was a commitment to adding additional mental health workers to college and university campuses to help with the transition from secondary to post-secondary education.

The addition of more mental health professionals is welcome news to both the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance and the College Student Alliance. We support this strategy, as both of our organizations have engaged in research and advocacy projects promoting the importance of investment in adequate mental health promotion strategies for the student population.

The addition of more mental health workers is critical to the post-secondary student population, who fall into the highest-risk age group for mental illness and substance dependencies. Indeed, 18 per cent of youth aged 15-24 reported symptoms associated with mental health issues, compared with 12 per cent of 25-44 year olds and 8 per cent of 45-65 year olds. Studies have shown that stress, sleep loss and depression are commonplace in the student population. Additionally, suicide has been found to be the second leading cause of death amongst youth, following unintentional injuries (accidents).

Due to the fact that 82.5% of 18 to 20 year olds are participating in some form of post-secondary education, colleges and universities are extremely well placed to deal with these issues, and college and university students have been found to respond particularly positively to treatment. The addition of more personnel to campus mental health services will assist students in receiving necessary support, helping them de-stigmatize mental illness and develop lasting coping mechanisms. Treatment of mental illness often employs developing new habits; students are well positioned well to learn and adopt major lifestyle changes. It is encouraging to see that the Government has recognized this opportunity, and our organizations look forward to working with the government as the strategy is expanded further in the post-secondary education realm.

Moving forward, a great deal of work remains to be done on ensuring that Ontario student health clinics are fully equipped to handle mental illness. One opportunity OUSA has recognized is the implementation of Family Health Teams on campuses. The current fee-for-service model used my most campus health clinics discourages collaboration between health professionals and motivates a high-turnover rate in medical staff. The nature of the Family Health Team model encourages physicians and mental health to collaborate, as well as establish themselves in the campus community.

As the government moves towards implementing the components of Open Minds, Healthy Minds related to post-secondary education, OUSA and CSA hope for an opportunity to contribute to a dialogue on next steps and attuning on-campus health systems to suit the needs of all Ontario students.

-Chris Martin
Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance, Director of Research

-Tamara Popovic
College Student Alliance, Research and Policy Analyst

Hi everyone,

I’m Luke Speers, Vice President University Affairs here at the Brock University Students Union (BUSU). I am a 4th year Philosophy and Political Science double major and have had an incredible experience being a student. I have been fortunate to take advantage of many outside-the-classroom learning experiences here at Brock.

The Vice President University Affairs at BUSU is responsible for advocating on behalf of undergraduate students of Brock University to all stakeholders in post-secondary education, including the Administration through representation on the University Senate or municipality through working with our local Town and Gown Committees. Provincial and federal lobby responsibilities also fall under the University Affairs portfolio. As such, I work with our partners, the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance and the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations, to leverage an organized student voice to provincial and federal governments to address the student needs.

Locally, I have a number of projects underway this summer to bring an improved student experience to the students at Brock University. These projects centre on improving student union services themselves, as well as their utilization. Our services represent the most important part of our organizations, and in fact are the reason we exist. As such, I have taken it on as a person goal to improve both their operation on a service-by-service basis, improving delivery and efficiency and perhaps more importantly improving utilization.

This concludes my first blog on OUSA, which is in fact my first blog ever; I hope this gives a small insight into myself, my role as Vice President University Affairs and the Brock University Students Union.

Have a nice day and a safe summer everyone.

-Luke Speers
VP University Affairs, Brock University Students’ Union

One of my main tasks at OUSA this summer is to review and refresh our research on tuition and affordability. The fact that students have borne the burden of increasing tuition in the face of stagnating per-student government funding is well known. Indeed, since 1988 students have seen consistent increases in tuition that outpace inflation, a trend that has significantly affected the affordability of post-secondary education. One facet of the tuition issue I have found most interesting is that those most likely to have tuition increases negatively influence their persistence in post-secondary education are sometimes outside the scope of conventional financial assistance mechanisms.

Provocative evidence from the deregulation of tuition in programs such as law and medicine indicate that there is a tangible threshold at which the composition of the student body changes with increasing tuition levels – most notably the decreasing proportion of participating students from middle class households. Specifically, a study at Queen’s University saw an increase of 4.7 per cent in the proportion of law students’ parents who earn incomes in the top 40 per cent of the average family income distribution in Canada and UWO saw a 9.6 per cent decrease in the proportion of medical students whose parents earn incomes in the middle 20 per cent of the distribution.

While arguments have been made that tuition increases are not troublesome if accompanied by corresponding investments in student aid, evidence available from formerly deregulated programs seems to indicate that some middle-income students negatively impacted by large-scale tuition increases may not be eligible for traditional forms of financial aid, particularly aid requiring OSAP eligibility. Indeed, many forms of institutional financial aid require OSAP eligibility, particularly those funded through the tuition set-aside.

Currently, the government requires that 10% of revenue from tuition increases be re-distributed to students with assessed need. In 2009-10, this set-aside was worth over $150 million – a considerable piece of the student aid landscape in Ontario. The calculation of a student’s unmet need that must be filled by the set-aside is derived from their tuition/book shortfall assessed by the OSAP need assessment formula. Unfortunately, this shortfall does not recognize other need, namely living costs unmet above the OSAP assistance maximum. Furthermore, many families whose parents are unable or unwilling to meet their expected parental contributions are burdened with a significant amount of unmet need that goes unrecognized by their shortfall. In addition to the expectation of a parental contribution, students with assets greater than their assessed need are ineligible for funding, regardless of the circumstances surrounding these assets.

Our financial aid system rightly focuses aid on OSAP-eligible students. However, an increasing number of students from middle- and upper-income families do not receive sufficient resources from their families. Their ineligibility and unrecognized need then results in these students being more affected by tuition increases than is commonly perceived. If tuition levels continue to climb, the need to open up the financial assistance system to even more students and families will become increasingly necessary.

Further issues with the current set-aside system persist as well. As it stands currently, set-aside funds can be distributed in the form of work-study placements, merit-based scholarships and, for second-entry professional students, a private loan. With institutional financial assistance playing an increasing role in students’ financial resources, this is problematic as it seems to contradict the principle that students’ tuition funds should be re-distributed to meet unmet need in the form of grants.

Distributing through work-study results in a system where money is collected directly from students and is only returned to them if they work for it. Turning a merit-based scholarship that a student received and that was exempt under OSAP into a need-based scholarship because they have unmet need is not particularly clear or fair to students. Finally, the private loan option for professional students promotes borrowing from private institutions that charge interest while in-study and lack the robust repayment assistance available from OSAP. Students would prefer to change the OSAP and OSOG ceilings for second-entry students so they can collect more in public loans rather than taking on private debt. It would cost the government little to provide more loans and it would cut out private lenders from the public assistance system.

As our research on tuition and affordability continues, we will be exploring these and other issues further. We look forward to sharing our findings with you along the way!

-Kristen Holman
OUSA Research Intern

Greetings from the Trent in Oshawa Student Association (TOSA)

My name is Kelly Vanleyden and I am the President of the Trent in Oshawa Student Association. For the 2011/2012 year, TOSA comprises of myself, our Vice President of Internal Affairs, Phil Bailey, and our Vice President of Campus Life, Sarah Gallen. We are enthusiastic students who are ready to make the Trent in Oshawa experience one of a kind. The Trent in Oshawa demographic is composed of students ranging in ages of 18-24 and also a substantial amount of mature students who range in ages of 27-50+. Our jobs are to ensure that Trent in Oshawa students are fully represented in all avenues that affect and influence them. We will represent the concerns of students to all levels of university administration, government and advocacy within the community.

I would like to take this opportunity to introduce the Trent in Oshawa Student Association(TOSA). TOSA is a newly formed not for profit student organization that represents over 800 students. This is our second year in business and we are looking forward to the successes in the years ahead. In September of 2010, Trent in Oshawa moved to our own separate campus, apart from the UOIT and Durham College Campus. This extremely exciting move gave students an opportunity to create their own space and identify each other easily. Often Trent students were lost in the crowds that encompassed UOIT and Durham College. Students, staff, and faculty are excited to have our own campus and grow within the Oshawa community. We initiated a relationship with local businesses and the community to encourage the promotion of Oshawa as an exciting place for students.

In addition to advocacy, TOSA will provide programs and activities to students throughout the school year. As the student association, TOSA’s job is to ensure Trent in Oshawa students are always informed of TOSA events as well as university issues and policies. We always encourage students to express their ideas and opinions to the TOSA executives and Board members as it is their voice we stand for. As president, I am anticipating a great year with tremendous enthusiasm! Trent in Oshawa students now have the opportunity to expand and create their own community with our brand new campus.

At the Oshawa campus, students are fortunate enough to have a small student/professor ratio where they are able to form bonds with their professors. Many returning students have expressed their love for our new campus. Most of all, students feel they now have a sense of identity that is specific to Trent in Oshawa. We feel that the 2011/2012 year is going to be the best yet for Trent in Oshawa.

Kelly Vanleyden
President
Trent in Oshawa Student Association

We read with interest Margaret Wente’s recent opinion piece “Is our students learning?” which was published in the Globe and Mail yesterday. Ms. Wente essentially makes the following argument:

1. The purpose of universities is to foster critical thinking and analytical skills in students.
2. One study that used the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) showed that 33 per cent of American college students do not improve their critical thinking skills during their university education.
3. This study of the American system is directly translatable to the Canadian university system.
4. Because some American college students do not improve their critical thinking skills in university, they are not learning anything worthwhile (and are not really engaged in their studies anyhow) and therefore we should cease to expand access to the Canadian system.

Wente herself is a graduate of the Canadian university system. If the depth of her argument and its logical coherence reflect the system, then concerns about critical thinking in higher education do indeed reflect a longstanding problem.

The truth of Wente’s assumption regarding critical thinking is well known. Indeed, the degree to which universities impart critical thinking and analytical skills is an important variable to assess. As Wente points out, a large amount of public and private resources are spent on higher education with the expectation that the outcome is worth it. There exist legitimate issues related to quality of education and the ability of our system to produce graduates with the experience and skills necessary to participate in the new economy. OUSA has long argued that the balance between teaching and research at our institutions needs adjustment: the prestige, incentives and rewards of the latter far outweigh those of the former, and there needs to be renewed recognition of the critical importance of the teaching function of our universities. It is almost certainly true that students’ learning outcomes could be improved. However, this line of reasoning should not lead one to conclude that access to the system needs to be scaled down, but rather that we should put more resources into improving teaching quality in our universities. Certainly little improvement on the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) in the United States is cause for concern. However, it is important to note that that the CLA is one particular tool for evaluating learning: it assesses critical thinking and writing, not field-specific knowledge, and is by no means a comprehensive way of determining how university education shapes personal and intellectual outcomes.

A more troubling aspect of Wente’s reasoning is her uncritical application of American test scores to the Canadian context. There are substantial differences in the structure of the American and Canadian public education systems. Wente cites low American graduation rates as evidence of low quality, yet completion rates are much higher in Canada: only 10 per cent of university students have dropped out after five years of study, and 70 per cent of students have graduated, with the remainder continuing their studies. Clearly, Canada and the United States have different system outcomes; it stands to reason that our learning outcomes might be different too. Without implementing the CLA in Canada, Canadians will never know if Wente’s speculation carries any truth.

Wente’s conclusion that we should cease to expand access to the Canadian system due to poor quality is perhaps the most flawed aspect of her speculation. While quality of education is vitally important, a post-secondary credential is now a near necessity in the Canadian labour market. Over 70 per cent of future jobs will require a post-secondary credential. Studies have unequivocally concluded that university graduates are not oversupplied. Indeed, they have lower unemployment rates than college and apprenticeship graduates. A university graduate on average earns $13,000 more annually than a college graduate, $16,000 more than an apprenticeship graduate, and $19,000 more than someone with no education past high school. This is not to detract from the importance of pursuing careers in non-university fields, but rather to point out that if the labour market were oversupplied with university graduates without critical thinking skills, one would expect to see employment rates and earnings premiums associated with university degrees decline, not doubling in the past 20 years. Furthermore, 94% of Ontario university students are employed within six months of graduation, the number of students that report being over-qualified for their job is on the decline, and employer satisfaction with graduates is high.

Expanding access to university education does not mean lowering admissions and quality standards. It does not mean admitting unqualified students, uninterested in their studies. It does mean ensuring that individuals from all socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds have an equitable opportunity to enter university. It means ensuring that there are resources and supports in place to help students from low-income, rural and northern and Aboriginal backgrounds, student parents, and students with disabilities, succeed through their studies and experience the social and economic benefits of a higher education. This is good for Canadian society as a whole.

The public and students themselves are right to question and ask for evidence that universities are doing what they set out to do. It could be argued that Canada has to do a better job of focusing on undergraduate education and making sure that students are graduating with the hard and soft skills necessary for the changing world. More evaluation of learning outcomes would certainly not be unwelcome. However, one can understand why some institutions are hesitant to adopt more public evaluative tools like the CLA when commentators utilize the results to argue for disinvestment. Balancing access and quality in post-secondary education is a tired and unproductive debate; ensuring both access and quality will be vital for the future of our country.

-Sean Madden
OUSA President

-Laura Pin
Research Analyst