OUSA

Trent in Oshawa Campus

Trent University has had a campus in Oshawa for over thirty years. Originally located at the Durham and UOIT campus, Trent Oshawa students faced significant challenges in coming together to form a true community. In 2010, Trent Oshawa opened a satellite campus on Thornton Road in south Oshawa. While this allowed us to develop as a community more than on the Durham and UOIT campus, life on a satellite campus has posed many distinct challenges as well.

As the President of the Trent in Oshawa Student Association, I have been working on developing a Trent Oshawa identity. This has meant addressing a myriad of issues, the first of which is course selection. Often many courses with specialized, discipline-specific content are offered exclusively on the main campus. Students of Trent Oshawa often have to select courses not by preference but by what is offered. While students on the satellite campus are able to take courses on both campuses, the 45 minute commute often makes this both impractical and inconvenient.

Some professors at the Trent Oshawa campus teach both in Peterborough and Oshawa. Faculty who divide their time often do not hold regular office hours on both campuses, limiting the amount of connection students in Trent Oshawa feel with their faculty. Students often struggle to meet with professors who mainly teach on the Peterborough campus.

Often on satellite campuses, the library services are not equivalent to the main campus. Students at Trent Oshawa are faced with a very general assortment of books in the small shelves of the library. On the plus side, students can order from the main library in Peterborough; however the wait time to be delivered from one campus to the next can be up to 3 working days. Students on satellite campuses should have access to the same resources that are available to students on the main campus without having to wait an exorbitant amount of time.

The Trent Oshawa campus also lacks a real bookstore. Students are required to buy books from the Oshawa campus for 5 days in the first week of classes; otherwise they must travel to the main campus. Last year, the line up for books often averaged several hours, with many students finding out that the bookstore supplier did not order enough books for the course. Our student association lobbies consistently for more opportunities to purchase books, to no avail thus far.

A particularly key issue for students on the Trent Oshawa satellite campus are food services. The food service hours of operation are nowhere near Peterborough’s services and the selection lacks diversity. With 800 students on Trent Oshawa’s campus, the demand for food is not as high as the main campus but Trent Oshawa students deserve diverse and nutritious dining options all the same. Making this problem worse, the Thornton road campus is not within walking distance of any restaurants or coffee shops, therefore making it impossible for students to access non-campus food during their break.

A more subtle struggle faced by our Trent in Oshawa Student Association is the lack of administrative departments located on the campus. Oftentimes, decisions affecting our livelihood are made on the main campus, with little chance for us to engage directly with the decision makers.

The Trent in Oshawa Student Association is trying hard to rectify the struggles and issues faced by our students on this satellite campus. The faculty and staff at the Trent in Oshawa campus have been instrumental in promoting the needs of Oshawa students. However, our small size and limited resources have posed many challenges so far.

Our story is not an isolated one, as more and more universities set up satellite or branch campuses. While these campuses can open up access to university to more Ontarians, these pursuits also need to be done in a way that protects the student experience. The Ontario government has recently developed a satellite campus policy that restricts the development of new satellite campuses without government approval. Students are working with government to ensure that these regulations include minimum standards for academic and non-academic student supports. We have to ensure that all of Ontario’s students are supported in the pursuit of their degrees – not just those on a main campus.

-Kelly Vanleyden
President, Trent in Oshawa Student Association

Students are pleased to see that the Ontario government has modified the credit check requirements for the Ontario Student Assistance Program (OSAP) to open up access to more students who need aid.

Since 1998-99, students with poor credit history had been barred from receiving OSAP. The provincial government defines this group as individuals who have been 90 days in arrears on three or more personal loans, including credit cards or car loans, with a combined value of $1,000 or more. All students that did not receive OSAP in the previous academic year were screened, regardless of age. This was a more stringent policy than that used by the Canada Student Loans Program, which only screens applicants who are 22 years or older.

Beginning this year, the credit check requirements have been harmonized such that applicants under the age of 22 and applicants who had previously received OSAP will not be subject to a credit check.

Unlike other students, individuals with poor credit are often unable to access private loans, and therefore are particularly in need of financial assistance in order to attend post-secondary education.  While the ostensible rationale for barring these individuals from accessing assistance is that they would constitute a risk for the financial assistance system, a poor credit check would leave some students with nowhere else to turn. This change will, at the very least, ensure young students with a history of poor credit receive a second chance and can access sufficient resources to afford higher education.

Individuals who have past student loans that are in default also face difficulty in accessing any further financial assistance. Students must repay the full value of the defaulted portion of the loan before being able to receive further funding. This means that students who would otherwise be eligible for new funding from OSAP in excess of that which is owed due to default must first come up with the money to clear their default.

As part of the province’s social safety net, students with poor credit or who have defaulted on their loans should not be banned from receiving OSAP. The new rules that only screen applicants who are 22 years or older is an important and welcomed step forward. The next step is allowing students in default to have their outstanding loan balance be deducted from their new funding, rather than have to come up with the money first.

-Sam Andrey
Executive Director

It’s that time of year again; as summer jobs, internships and vacations come to an end, students across Ontario are preparing themselves for the quickly approaching school year. Of course, this is not the story of every student. Indeed, “back-to-school” can be a misnomer for part-time students, many of whom are mature students juggling the demands of family, work, and school all year long.

One particular area of difficulty for part-time students is provincial student financial assistance through the Ontario Student Assistance Program (OSAP).  In fact, as line-ups begin to swell at Student Financial Aid offices across Ontario post-secondary institutions – as early as August 23 at McMaster University – they will do so without part-time students in them. This is because part-time students (taking a course load that is less than 60%) are not eligible for OSAP. Consequently, they are also not eligible for many of Ontario’s need-based assistance programs, work-study programs, scholarships and bursaries. There is a limited amount of repayable financial aid offered through the Canada Student Loans program, but total outstanding loans for part-time students are not allowed to exceed $10,000. In 2007-08, only 1,436 part-time students received loans, with an average value of $1,948. That represents only 0.4% of all recipients, despite part-time students making up 18% of Ontario university students. Since the changes to part-time aid announced in the most recent federal budget will not come into effect until 2012-13 or 2013-14, part-time students will continue to pay interest on loans while in school until that time.

The other provincial student financial assistance programs that exist for part-time students are the Ontario Special Bursary Program (OSBP) and the new Ontario Part-Time Student Grant. Unfortunately, these are even harder to access than the part-time Canada Student Loans. Specifically, some of the eligibility requirements are unreasonably stringent. Though the OSBP offers only $2,500 per year, single students may report income no higher than $14,000 to be eligible, married students and sole-support parents with a single child are capped at $23,000 and married students with one child or a sole-support parent with two children are capped at $31,900. Further eligibility restrictions include a provision that studies must be towards a first degree, diploma or certificate and that said students have not attended post-secondary in the past on a full-time basis.

The limited scope of assistance available to part-time students ignores the reality that many struggle financially. Part-time students are more likely to have family obligations, employment burden and children under the age of five. Ten years ago, over a third of part time students reported using private loans from financial institutions, compared with only a fifth of full-time students. With the cost of education on the rise, it is reasonable to expect that these proportions are not shrinking. These borrowers tend to face higher interest rates and faster repayment terms, and do not receive interest relief provided in the public system.

The exclusion of part-time students from financial assistance puts many at a disadvantage in Ontario’s knowledge-based economy where life-long learning is a necessity. This necessity is further exacerbated during economic downturns, evidenced by increased enrolment in certificate/diploma programs. In times of uncertainty, many individual looking to increase their employability return to post-secondary for a second time. Even if these students demonstrate extreme financial need, they will not be eligible for sufficient aid.

Ultimately, such financial barriers are problematic for many part-time students.  It would be ideal if OSBP restrictions were relaxed so as to increase the number of part-time students that are eligible for this funding and that the provincial government consider extending OSAP eligibility for part-time students. The OSAP need assessment is designed to determine if a student has sufficient financial resources to attend university. A well-designed formula should be able to determine which part-time students need support and which don’t.

It’s time that part-time student financial aid reflects the lived reality of students.

-Sam Minniti
Executive Director
McMaster Association of Part-Time Students

As it currently stands, all universities in Ontario operate on a system of capped tuition increases. Arts and science programs are set at a cap of 4.5% for first year entrants and 4% for subsequent years of study, while allowable increases in professional and graduate programs are 8% in first year followed by 4% for subsequent years. An institution’s overall increase must not exceed 5%. Any tuition revenue raised beyond this cap is clawed back from the institution’s government funding, generally resulting in universal compliance. This framework has been in place since 2006 and is set to expire at the end of this academic year.

A study on the period of tuition deregulation in Ontario’s professional programs in the mid-1990s serves as evidence that sudden and unpredictable increases in tuition can have a discernable effect on the composition of the student body.  Through the deregulated period, both medicine and law saw a decline in participation from middle-income families that accompanied unpredictable year-to-year tuition increases not matched by increases in available resources. In order to plan their finances effectively, it is crucially important for students to understand how much they will pay in tuition over the full course of their program of study, regardless of entrance year or program type.

Thankfully, tuition is regulated for Ontario students in the vast majority of programs (save for a few programs not funded by government). Unfortunately, this regulation has not erased predictability concerns. Since the current framework bases increases off an institutional average with variable program caps, tuition increases can be different from program to program, or between institutions. For instance, the large difference between the arts and science program cap of 4.5 per cent and the professional program cap of 8 per cent has led to widespread confusion amongst students about their tuition increases.

Firstly, the difference between an arts program and a professional program is murky. Data on tuition increases by institution have demonstrated a certain degree of inconsistency in program classification across institutions, creating potential for confusion around expected tuition increase at the student level. For example, while commerce is permitted a professional cap of 8% at the majority of schools, three institutions still classify it as arts and abide by a 4.5% cap. In the same vein, universities treat computer science programs differently across the province.

Secondly, there are a number of instances where tuition increases have fluctuated significantly within their allowable cap. For example, tuition increases in the commerce program at Carleton University fluctuated back and forth between 4.5% and 8% over four years between 2006 and 2010. Similarly, Lakehead University’s engineering program showed increases from 2.5% to 6.3% to 4.5% within a three-year span, demonstrating an inherently unpredictable series of tuition fees for students. In a program such as engineering, which already boasts the highest average tuition level amongst direct-entry programs, a few percentage points up or down can translate to a significant difference in price for students. Lastly, each time the tuition framework is up for review, students are faced with the possibility of significant increases to the tuition cap that they have not initially planned for. In this sense, a potential change in the allowable increase affects predictability for those already partially through the PSE system, potentially affecting a student’s ability to persist to the point of graduation.

Predictability is even more of an issue for international students given that tuition for this group is completely unregulated. The deregulation of international tuition fees has led to a system characterized by both unpredictability and dramatic increases. For example, the University of Toronto saw international tuition grow by 5 percent between 2006-07 and 2007-08, followed by 10 per cent each of the following two academic years. Similarly, York University saw fees increased by 18 percent in 2006-07, followed by an increase of only 1.4 percent. It is clear that under the current regime of deregulation, international students are effectively prevented from planning for future tuition payments. There are few, if any, services that one decides to use in which the final price is unknown – why should post-secondary education be any different?

The tuition framework was introduced to provide predictability for students. The current framework though has not fully addressed the difficulty of predicting tuition levels for students four or five years into the future. Not only does the current framework allow increases to fluctuate unpredictably at times, but also the system as a whole is structured in a confusing way. Students are often not able to predict how much they will be paying for tuition during the course of their time at university. Tuition fees are not formulaic and thus, not predictable when program classifications are blurry and increases fall within a range that is near impossible for students to predict.

Allowing unpredictable fluctuations in tuition increases from year to year is a sure way to affect participation and persistence in post-secondary education. When students and families struggling to save for higher education do not fully understand how tuition fluctuates or are not confident in the consistency of the capped increase system, we risk losing them to non-attendance. This is particularly true for groups that have been shown to be more price-sensitive when it comes to paying for post-secondary – students from lower-income families, those with less educated parents, Aboriginal students, and boys.

The government is going to have a number of decisions to make on the tuition framework this coming year. If it is ultimately decided that tuition increases will continue, we urge the government to institute a more straightforward, long-term and predictable system of increases. Predictability is a key component of the tuition puzzle and something that has been identified as critical to increasing participation in the post-secondary system as a whole.

-Kristen Holman
Research Intern

This weekend, Premier Dalton McGuinty announced that students working in the not-for-profit sector will be eligible for an extended interest-free grace period from Ontario Student Loan payments after graduation. As such, graduates who work for organizations that are not-for-profit will not be required to begin paying back their student loans for a full year after graduation. Registered charities and advocacy groups are examples of workplaces that would make recent graduates eligible for the program, whereas the public and private sector would be ineligible.

All students are currently allowed a six-month grace period, which allows students time to access employment and begin earning income before OSAP payments begin. This grace period is interest-free on the Ontario Student Loan, while interest begins to accumulate immediately on the Canada Student Loan portion which accounts for approximately 60% of the average aid package. This flextime is critical to helping avoid student loan defaults, which have fallen substantially over the past decade from 9% to 5%. Additionally, it is well known that students with high debt obligations are less likely to have savings, purchase automobiles or property and contribute fully to the economy. Time to accumulate some savings and plan for payment is critical to a student’s ability to thrive later in life.

As such, the new program is a clear incentive for students to take work in the not-for-profit sector. The Premier has stated that this was indeed the goal of the program. Since non-for-profit wages are often lower than comparable public and private sector wages, this incentive could persuade some graduates to pursue charity or advocacy work. At the very least, it will help some students struggling with debt repayment in concert with the recently implemented Repayment Assistance Plan.

It is also worth noting that this program is the first known component of the forthcoming Liberal platform for education. It is encouraging to see that this initial contribution to the election has been centered on post-secondary education. The Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance looks forward to the full platform and further clarity on the party’s proposed next steps on tuition and financial assistance to ensure access to higher education for all Ontario students.

Patrick Searle
VP University Affairs
University Students’ Council, University of Western Ontario

The government has a number of tools at its disposal for the achievement of its goals for the post-secondary system. One of these tools is envelope funding, whereby the government creates targeted funds for the promotion of specific programs and initiatives at universities. While institutional-specific envelopes for the development of university mandates, such as bilingualism grants and Northern grants, have been in place for decades, the current state of envelope funding dates to the emphasis placed on accountability in the mid-1990s.

After making significant cuts to university operating budgets, the government introduced new pockets of money designed to give institutions incentives to implement certain programs. If they wanted new money to replace what had been cut, they would have to change their behaviour in accordance with the new envelopes. One of the new envelopes was for performance along three indicators: graduation rates and employment rates 6 months and 2 years after graduation. Another, the Access to Opportunities envelope, promoted growth in computer science and engineering programs to meet perceived need.

Unfortunately, these envelopes did little to succeed in holding universities accountable to their goals. Universities had little to no control over employment rates, for example, resulting in financial penalties for younger institutions with less established reputations than their older peers. Additionally, the perceived need for computer science graduates famously failed to predict the bursting of the dot com bubble of the early 2000s. As a result, the funding seriously overestimated the market’s need.

This spotty history does not mean all performance envelopes are doomed to failure. In order to be successful, they must meet two criteria. First, they must choose the right sorts of targets for the achievement of their goals: targets that can be meaningfully influenced by university action. Second, their targets must be accurate and realistic. While these criteria are difficult to obtain, they can be achieved by an open conversation between government, the universities and other stakeholders.

There are some who claim that envelope funding is inherently flawed, and that it is one of the reasons funding has not kept pace with costs. The argument goes that the importance of increasing the basic operating grants to meet inflating costs has been ignored, with new funds being partitioned into targeted envelopes. Proponents of this view claim that by tying ever-increasing amounts of funding to specific goals, the government forces institutions to pull money away from the core function of the university, such as instruction, infrastructure, library holdings and equipment. As a result, quality suffers.

However, evidence from the government’s Final University Operating Transfer Payment Totals indicates that, while funding envelopes have increased as a percentage of total funding over the history of their use, 2007 saw a sharp increase in per-student unrestricted funding and a plateau in enveloped funding that has lasted to date. For the last three years the basic operating grant has comprised very close to 85% of total government funding for universities. As the graph below indicates, over the past 7 years, the vast majority of funding growth has gone toward basic operating grants, not envelope funding.

While envelope funding has certainly not had a completely positive history, it has much potential to shape the system in a direction desired by all stakeholders in the future. The Access to Opportunities envelope succeeded in producing more computer science graduates, pointing to a failure in social planning rather than the mechanism of envelope funding itself. One might point to the Accessibility for Students with Disabilities envelope or the Aboriginal Action Plan envelope as examples of funds that moved institutions in a positive direction for students and government. If an envelope were to be created for a purpose with limitless potential to benefit society, there is little evidence to suggest that this would be an ineffective use of funds, providing a substantive and meaningful report-back was developed. One such example may be a fund to enhance teaching quality.

While we certainly understand that this mechanism must be used carefully and thoughtfully, students remain hopeful that more envelope funding coupled with adequate unrestricted funding could be used to affect positive change in Ontario’s post-secondary system.

-Chris Rudnicki
Research Intern

It’s that time of year again. All over the province OSAP applications are flowing in, students are trying to make the most they possibly can in their last few weeks of co-op or summer employment, and we’re all asking ourselves how we’ll fund our next year of academic pursuits.

We all know tuition is a major source of financial stress for Ontario’s undergraduate student population; over 60 per cent of Canadian students indicate that they are concerned about their ability to pay for post-secondary education. However, what is often not discussed is the reality that not all tuition payment processes are created equal. There are two general models for which institutions charge tuition: per-credit and flat fee.

In a per-credit model, students are charged tuition based on the number of credit courses they are enrolled in. For example, a student taking a full load of five courses might be charged $5,000, while a part-time student taking two credits would be charged $2,000. This model is intuitively fair, as it charges students a fee reflective of their course load.

Students should not be asked to pay for an education they do not receive, but unfortunately this is the case under the flat fee tuition model, variation of which are in effect at ten of Ontario’s universities. Under the flat fee tuition model, students who take credits over a certain threshold are charged a standard full-time rate. This means that a student who is enrolled in three courses could potentially pay the same amount as a student enrolled in six courses. This model is most damaging to students who are already struggling financially, such as those who are working during their studies to pay for school or those with dependants. Students who opt not to take a full course load often do so for legitimate reasons. For instance, it is known that the majority of students with dependent children under the age of five study part-time. Flat fee tuition forces part-time students near the threshold to choose between paying full fees and decreasing their commitment to their education. The situation at the University of Toronto is particularly dire, as the threshold for paying full fees is 60 per cent, the same as the cut-off for OSAP eligibility. Students must choose between forgoing their financial assistance and paying full tuition fees.

There is also another type of payment process that is of concerns to students, what many call differential per-credit tuition. This refers to a flat fee on the price of credits themselves, meaning that across faculties, students pay different fees for the same credit. For example, at the University of Waterloo, students in the faculty of engineering are charged higher tuition fee as a professional program, while most students in each of the other five faculties pay lower fees. When these students take the same class though, the credit charge does not change. For example, a first year arts student and a first year engineering student could be sitting beside one another in an ethics class. The arts student has paid $611 for the individual course while the engineer has paid $1,121. The two students are obviously learning exactly the same thing! The value of what is taught in that class is no different, and it did not cost the institution more to teach the engineering student about ethics than it did the arts student. This model has significant adverse impact on the students in these programs, including course overloading which contributes to both mental health and retention issues.

Why is this possible? The Ontario government regulates the percentage by which tuition fees can increase, but it does not regulate how and when institutions can charge these fees. The province provides their funding to the institutions on a per-credit basis, but does not currently require that institutions charge their students under the same model.

OUSA believes that all tuition in Ontario should be charged on a per-credit or value-received basis, and all credits within a program must have similar financial impact. That means that no student should pay either flat fee or differential tuition. The tuition framework was put in place to protect students from exorbitant fee increases. It is a natural extension then to include regulations in the new framework that ensure institutions cannot collect more from students through unfair changes to the payment process.

-Natalie Cockburn
Vice President Finance, OUSA
Vice President Education, Federation of Students at the University of Waterloo

I am very proud that OUSA has prioritized issues surrounding access barriers and early outreach during my tenure on the Steering Committee. For readers who have followed this blog since last September, you may remember that last year I authored an update paper on Early Outreach that was the basis for our submission to the government Breaking Barriers. This year I will be talking about issues facing Northern and Rural students and how to increase their participation in post-secondary education (PSE).

Before I begin, I want to highlight that when we debate access barriers for many underrepresented groups (Northern and rural students, Aboriginal students, low-income students, and first generation students) it is important to recognize that the groups are not mutually exclusive. Students from rural areas are over 60 per cent less likely to attend university than students from urban areas. The regional university participation divide in Ontario is the largest in Canada, over three times as large as Quebec. A number of access barriers contribute to this reality, including an increased likelihood amongst rural and northern students to be low-income, be first-generation and face motivational and informational barriers to attending post-secondary education.

However, before getting into the weeds on the barriers facing rural and northern students, it is important to find an adequate definition for the label. For example, I was born and raised in the Yukon Territory in Whitehorse. This means I identify as a ‘Northern student.’ However, considering I lived 20km outside of town, I would not identify as ‘rural.’ The Ontario Distance Grant is extended to those who live more than 80 kilometers away from a post-secondary institution. For those of you who haven’t visited Whitehorse, we have a wonderful post-secondary institution nestled next to our Art Centre, meaning the Ontario government would not identify me as a student needing extra financial assistance, despite my northern location and desire to attend Queen’s University.

These definitions matter, because from a policy standpoint, the line needs to be drawn somewhere. The Distance Grant must have eligibility criteria opening it to only students that need it. As student leaders, our job is to investigate what it means to be rural or northern, talk to students about their experiences and help these experiences inform important access initiatives like the Ontario Distance Grant.

Another prevalent issue affecting Northern and Rural students is the assumption that online education is the answer. While Contact North currently educates over 8,000 unique users and has done well to increase outreach to students, online education should never be the only option available to students. Many rural and northern communities lack reliable Internet access. Additionally, students living in Northern Ontario may not be able to afford up-to-date online technology.

The most significant undertaking in the development of OUSA’s northern consultation will be the collection of first-hand research. If we want to adequately address Northern Ontarian students’ needs, we must talk to them first, and then draft policy. Current access enablers like the Ontario Distance Grant and Contact Northern have been supportive of Northern student access, but there is room for improvement. Most importantly, we must do a better job defining what it is to be a Northern or a Rural student. Only once we have a clear understanding of that can we begin to help.

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

Ontario’s Multi-Year Accountability Agreements (MYAAs) are a key policy lever in holding universities accountable to the provincial government. Attaching mandatory multi-year action plans for universities to the MYAAs was an excellent idea, promoting long-term planning on the part of universities for stable multi-year funding on the part of the government. In this way MYAAs are beneficial to both parties.

When “Putting Students First,” Ontario’s new five-year plan for postsecondary education in Ontario was announced, students were glad to hear that not only will MYAAs be renegotiated, but a new set of institutional mandate agreements will be implemented this fall to align provincial and institutional goals. Measuring a university’s success against these agreements would allow for differentiated metrics to be applied at different institutions. It would allow universities to define their success in accordance with their unique mandates. Institutions will be able to grow within the confines of their mandate.

Future accountability agreements need to take into account the other areas from which universities obtain funding. 43% of university funding currently comes from tuition, yet the current set of indicators tracked by MYAAs do not encompass many student priorities. Students want to be assured of a quality education that has returned value on their investment. For students who have already gained access to post-secondary education, teaching quality, class sizes and integration of technology in-class are priorities.

Luckily, there are many promising indicators to which government can turn when negotiating institutional mandate agreements and MYAAs this fall. The Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA), a test that gauges critical thinking, analytical reasoning and writing skills, has been implemented with success in the United States. It has even formed the basis for a book analyzing the state of learning outcomes in the US, Academically Adrift. HEQCO has put out a call for Ontario universities to pilot the test on campuses; the government should monitor these trials closely, and if successful, look to include them in future accountability mechanisms.

The government will have to drastically change the way MYAAs are implemented, however, if they are to truly strategically influence Ontario institutions. Current MYAAs serve to collect valuable institutional data for the Ministry and sector stakeholders, but it is safe to say that Maclean’s has been more successful at swaying public opinion. There are many who believe that the magazine’s annual rankings have caused institutions to adjust behaviour to perform better.

Conversely, there are no consequences associated with falling short of targets laid out in the MYAAs. As such, they have been criticized for not adequately affecting institutional behaviour. The Ministry does make a very small amount of funding – less than 1% of total operating transfers – available to institutions that perform well relative to the sector in graduation and employment rates, but evidence suggests that institutions are not changing their behaviour as a result.

In the fall, the government should initiate a system-wide process of negotiation with stakeholders in the development of the mandate agreements and MYAAs. Each stakeholder’s goals and vision for the system should be considered in their development. When Boards and Senates have agreed to the strategic goals laid out in the agreements, they should also accept that public funding will be withheld if progress is not made toward those goals. This is a necessary step toward ensuring that universities, government, students, staff and faculty collaboratively determine the strategic direction of the sector.

-Kim Orr
Vice-President (University Affairs)
University of Windsor Students’ Alliance

Ontario Universities are home to some great minds. Our professors conduct cutting edge research, driving scientific, social and humanitarian change at all levels of society. While this is a vital part of the university experience, students have consistently communicated that it is the quality of the classroom experience that matters most to them. The simple truth of the teaching world at Ontario universities is that no teaching qualification is required. This has always been baffling to students, as high school or elementary school teachers must complete both an undergraduate degree and a Bachelor of Education. This five-year commitment requires prospective teachers to learn a teachable subject and teaching methodologies, as well as many hours of in-classroom training.

The university system requires no such training, with hiring and tenure-related decisions largely relating to research expertise and excellence. While this research excellence should continue to be expected of the professoriate, a culture change is needed. Students have requested such a change. In the 2009 Ontario Student Survey, Ontario students overwhelmingly prioritized lecture delivery style as the most important factors to being quality teacher. 83.7 per cent of respondents selected “delivers interesting, well prepared and organized lectures” as a the most important factor and 74 per cent believed that “enthusiastic, entertaining and motivating in the classroom” was the most important factor. To compare, only 13.2 per cent of students believed that “a prominent researcher at the cutting edge of his/her field” was an important to being a quality teacher. This answer could tell us a number of things, but my interpretation is that it points to a communications gap between professor and student. Being taught by some of the top researchers in the world will mean nothing to students if this knowledge is not shared through effective teaching. If our system could equip professors with the teaching training necessary to impart their passion and enthusiasm to students, we might even see more students take an interest in research themselves.

Professors or PhD students at the very least, should be required complete some training on how to share their accumulated knowledge with the next generation. It is the next step in ensuring quality education for students across the province. Ontario has professors conducting ground-breaking research and students with a desire to learn. Developing the standards needed to facilitate the most efficient knowledge transfer between them should be seen as clearly the next piece in the development of the university experience in Ontario.

Luke Speers
Vice President University Affairs
Brock University Students Union