University Affairs

It’s back to school for students next week and the start of a new academic year. The Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada is marking the occasion with a new advocacy piece on the value of a university degree.

AUCC has long maintained that the earnings premium of a university degree is about $1 million over a lifetime compared to a high-school education. Similar claims have been made in the U.S., although some there feel that as the cost of education has risen, the earnings premium has declined.

So what does AUCC have to say now? In a new pamphlet and on its website, the association not only maintains the existence of an earnings premium, but has revised it upwards: the holder of a university degree can now expect $1.3 million in greater income over a career, on average, than someone with just a high school education. “A university degree has never been more valuable,” says the association.

And for those who may believe that the earnings differential has narrowed between a university degree and a college diploma or trade school qualification, that just isn’t so, AUCC says. “For example,” says the association, “in 1980, the earnings advantage for male bachelor’s graduates was 37 percent. By 2005, the earnings advantage had grown to 50 percent. Census data show a much smaller premium for college or trade school graduates – approximately 7 percent in 1980 and about 15 percent in 2005.” (See chart; blog continues below.)

The earnings advantage for male university graduates increased significantly between 1980 and 2005. Click on chart for a larger image.

What’s more, the association says a degree contributes to “marketable, adaptable” career skills, greater opportunities for advancement and fewer periods of employment.

A report by the C.D. Howe Institute, released last week, looks at the issue from a somewhat different perspective, but comes to similar conclusions. A good summary of the report can be seen here.

I should also note that a 2009 report by the now defunct Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation made a similar argument about the value of a degree, but pegged the earnings premium at just under $750,000 over 40 years.

AUCC is planning two additional brochures in the next few months: one on the value of a degree for Aboriginal youth and another on the value of a Canadian degree for international students. It also plans to release a new report on enrolment early next year as part of its Trends in Higher Education series.

Statistics Canada just released university enrolment numbers for the 2008/09 academic year. According to the agency, there were 1,112,300 students enrolled, up 3.7 percent from the previous year (this includes all students, full-time and part-time, undergraduate and graduate).

Interesting, to me at least, is the little note in the announcement that the increase was “due mainly to the attribution of university status to five colleges in British Columbia.” (In fact, three of those five institutions given full university status were previously university colleges, not colleges, but I digress.) Because of those changes, the B.C. enrolment numbers were way up – by a full one-third – over the previous year. If there had been no changes in the number of B.C. universities, StatsCan says, the growth in enrolment would have been a mere 0.7 percent nationally.

That last number should give pause: does it signal that we are about to enter a period of low-to-no growth in university enrolment, or even a decline, as predicted by University of Toronto demographer David Foot?

Probably not. Remember, these numbers are for the 2008/09 year, and University Affairs already reported last fall that full-time undergraduate enrolment was up a healthy 4.1 percent in the 2009/10 academic year just finished, based on preliminary estimates provided by the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. Full-time graduate enrolment was up 7.2 percent. Those numbers don’t include part-time students, but I have no reason to believe that the addition of the part-time numbers would skew the results.

That isn’t to say David Foot will be proven wrong, but declining enrolment is not here yet.

P.S.: speaking of Statistics Canada, opposition continues to grow against the decision by the federal government to do away with the mandatory long-form in next year’s census. Here is just a sampling from the last few days:

• “Coalition urges Tories to reverse census stand,” Montreal Gazette
• “Good information comes at a price,” Globe and Mail
• “Census changes ‘indefensible,’ retired top statistician says,” Ottawa Citizen
• “65-thousand academics can’t be wrong,” Maclean’s On Campus

Update, July 30, 2010: Please note, I am now on holidays, so there’ll no new blog posts until my return on the week of Aug. 23. Happy summer holidays to one and all.

Momentum is building against the federal government’s shortsighted decision to eliminate the mandatory long-form census. Thank goodness.

The government quietly announced its decision just before Canada Day and, in the days immediately following, there seemed to be little response. Thankfully, that muted reaction looks to have been more the result of summer torpor than disinterest, for many groups and individuals have now begun to criticize the move.

A little background: the census, administered every five years, has for decades included a detailed long form sent to one in five Canadian households. As with the common short census form that every household receives, filling out this long form was mandatory.

However, with next year’s census, the long form will be replaced by a voluntary “national household survey.” Academics and others fear that its voluntary nature will reduce the response rate and lead to self-selection bias – i.e., the likelihood that certain groups will be less inclined to fill out the survey – skewing the results and lessening their reliability.

Simon Fraser University economics professor Krishna Pendakur is one of many academics to speak out, through an open letter to the government on behalf of the Metropolis Centers of Excellence for Research on Immigration and Diversity, a major research initiative sponsored by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

“The long form responses represent our best data on small populations, including ethnic minorities, linguistic communities, immigrant groups and Aboriginal peoples,” writes Dr. Pendakur. He adds that many groups, including historical researchers and genealogists, need public access to this information.

Similarly, Nipissing University geography professor Sean O’Hagan told his local newspaper that he relies heavily on the long census form for his research on migration, adding that he likely would never have taken on his research project if such information wasn’t available through Statistics Canada.

The Canadian Association of University Teachers has also chimed in, saying it is “deeply concerned about the disastrous consequences this will have for the scientific understanding of Canadian society, and for the ability to make informed decisions about social and economic policies.”

And the opposition is not limited to academia: the Globe and Mail reports that business groups are also decrying the changes.

The Toronto Star’s James Travers, meanwhile, in a scathing piece, calls the decision “dead wrong and demonstrably foolish,” while the Globe’s Andre Picard notes that it represents “only the latest of many bad decisions” by this government on how it collects information. Dan Gardner at the Ottawa Citizen calls the move “gratuitous stupidity.”

The decision is apparently in response to opposition from some who argue the personal questions in the long form are an intrusion on privacy. That’s ridiculous. Statistics Canada has always taken the utmost care to safeguard its data and is highly regarded as one of the best statistical agencies in the world.

Some observers, including Mr. Travers, see something more nefarious: a desire by the government to control inconvenient information that conflicts with its policy positions. The point was put succinctly by another commentator in the Globe and Mail:

This is a direct attack on the ability of government to make smart decisions. It is an attack on evidence-based public policy. Moreover, it was a political decision – it came from the minister’s office and does not appear to reflect what Statistics Canada either wants or recommends. Of course, some governments prefer not to have information; all that data and evidence gets in the way of legislation and policies that are ineffective, costly and that reward vested interests (I’m looking at you, tough-on-crime agenda).

If you’re an academic, make your opinion known by sending an e-mail to Industry Minister Tony Clement. Also share your comments below.

Update, July 12, 2010: There is more criticism of the government’s decision in an editorial in the Globe and Mail,  an opinion piece in the Calgary Herald, and in a news story in the Lethbridge Herald (quoting Susan McDaniel, director of the Prentice Institute at the University of Lethbridge).

The University of British Columbia Faculty Association has filed with the Supreme Court of Canada an application for leave to appeal the decision of the B.C. Court of Appeal regarding the UBC senate’s policy on student evaluation of teaching.

OK, that’s a bit of a mouthful. Let me translate: the UBC Faculty Association disagrees with the B.C. Court of Appeal’s recent decision regarding academic governance and is appealing that decision to the Supreme Court.

As I explained in a blog post in April, the case revolves around a collective agreement signed between UBC and its faculty association. One of the provisions in the agreement relates to student evaluations of teachers. However, in May 2007, the university senate passed a new policy on student evaluations of teaching which replaced the previous policies. The faculty association alleged the new policy was in violation of the collective agreement and filed a grievance, which was referred to an arbitrator. In a March 2009 decision, the arbitrator concluded he had no jurisdiction to review the senate policy.

The faculty association sought a judicial review of that decision. The Court of Appeal heard the appeal this past spring and dismissed it, upholding the arbitrator’s position.

University Affairs carried a news story on the decision (“When a senate decision conflicts with a collective agreement”) as did Maclean’s On Campus (“UBC faculty union loses, students win”).

In its application to the Supreme Court, the UBC Faculty Association states that, if the Court of Appeal decision is allowed to stand, it “will have profound implications for virtually every university and for faculty across Canada. It constitutes a body blow for collective bargaining for university professors and other academic staff.”

The Supreme Court is not automatically obligated to hear the case – it will make its decision likely within the next several weeks whether or not to hear the appeal.

I have tried generally to refrain from comment about the inner workings of the Canadian Federation of Students. I am simply too far removed from their activities and have no direct personal experience about how they function. That’s not to say I haven’t been tempted, particularly when it comes to their Hotel California-like membership rules (“You can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave”).

But there is one area where I can knowledgeably comment: magazine publishing. I’d heard rumours, and Canadian University Press has now reported, that CFS is planning to publish a student magazine. Assuming we are talking about a print magazine, my advice is: Don’t do it!

This may seem odd, considering that I am deputy editor of what I consider to be a very good print magazine, University Affairs, as well as the fact that I have worked in magazine publishing for more than 25 years. I love magazines, and advances in technology have made it much easier to produce a beautiful-looking product.

But magazines are also very expensive to produce, and if you don’t have a viable business plan, you’ll find yourself quickly chewing through a lot of money. The CFS may be anticipating relying on national advertisers for revenue, but it would be a shame if that draws advertising revenue away from independent student-run campus newspapers.

Having said that, I think an online national student magazine might make sense. It’s dramatically cheaper, and an online magazine makes it easier to leverage social media. You could have blogs, videos and all the other bling available nowadays to tell your stories, get your message across and further your cause. The web also gives you the opportunity to really engage with your members, get their feedback and foster debate. And, really, that’s what any advocacy group should be doing anyway, magazine or no magazine.

The press release from Christian Higher Education Canada that I referenced in my blog post on Monday has generated additional coverage. In the release, the group calls for a national conference to bring together “all stakeholders within higher education” to discuss academic freedom.

The issue was picked up by the U.S.-based Inside Higher Ed, which published an article today on what it termed a “major debate [in Canada] over what academic freedom is and who should define it.”

The article quotes Jim Turk, executive director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers: “We don’t believe that a person’s ideology or faith should be a condition of hiring or of continuing appointment — whether it is Marxism or fundamentalist Protestantism. … Nothing that calls itself a university should have a faith test. That’s just not acceptable.”

Al Heibert, executive director of CHEC, was also interviewed. “Our concern is that it is irresponsible for any one organization to define academic freedom for all of Canada,” he said. “And it is irresponsible for any one organization to define the meaning of a university for all of Canada.”

Just a note of correction to the Inside Higher Ed article: it says the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada is now revising its statement on academic freedom, “prompted in part by the debate.” However, Christine Tausig Ford, corporate secretary at AUCC, points out (in the comments section following the article) that AUCC’s discussions on its Statement on Academic Freedom and Institutional Autonomy are not connected in any way to CAUT’s investigations. Those discussions in fact predate the CAUT investigations.

The debate was also picked up by Carson Jerema at Maclean’s On Campus. Here is part of his article, which was entitled “Christian universities fight back”:

Faced with the possibility of further rebukes against Christian schools, CHEC’s board of directors has decided to invite other groups from the post-secondary sector to participate in a “national conference to dialogue on the meaning of ‘university’ and ‘academic freedom.’” However, planning for the conference is still in the preliminary stages, and a date and venue have yet to be set.

Just one additional note: in my previous post, I did not yet have a link for the CHEC press release. That release is now online here. We’d certainly like to hear your views on this thorny issue.

A group called Christian Higher Education Canada would like to see a national conference to bring together “all stakeholders within higher education” to discuss academic freedom.

CHEC represents 33 evangelical postsecondary institutions across Canada. Many of these institutions are small bible colleges with enrolments in the hundreds, but there are also nine university members, including Trinity Western University, Redeemer University College, Canadian Mennonite University and King’s University College in Edmonton (not to be confused with the institution of the same name affiliated with University of Western Ontario). All four of these institutions are members of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada.

The call for a national dialogue on academic freedom came following the annual general meeting of the group, held in Toronto on June 1. The members held discussions during the meeting on the recent visits and reports by delegations of the Canadian Association of University Teachers to three CHEC institutions (including TWU and CMU) and “the fact there are hints of future visits to other institutions.”

CAUT was investigating whether the requirement that professors at these institutions adhere to an “ideological or faith test as a condition of employment” violated academic freedom. University Affairs ran an opinion piece earlier this year on the TWU controversy.

Here is more from the CHEC press release (no link available):

CHEC as an organization recognizes the autonomy of its member institutions to each develop its own statement on academic freedom, but notes with concern the accusation by CAUT against some of its member institutions suggesting they do not practice academic freedom. The concern raised by CHEC is based on the seemingly arbitrary attitude of CAUT that it alone has authority to define the meaning of “university” and “academic freedom” within Canada and that those who do not accept its definitions are in some manner deficient.

Whereas academic freedom itself implies a basic respect for diversity of views and willingness to debate different positions without threat of reprisal, the Board of CHEC encourages the holding of a national conference to dialogue on the meaning of “university and “academic freedom” within the Canadian context, and in relation to global understandings of these terms. It recommends that such a conference include all stakeholders within higher education. The Board would be pleased to arrange representative voices to make presentation on behalf of the confessional position of its members in an effort to create a climate of dialogue.

I found Professor Andrew Irvine’s recent comments about gender bias in academia rather intemperate. On Tuesday, in an opinion piece in the Vancouver Sun, the University of British Columbia philosophy professor said that the real discrimination in our universities is against men, not women. He was countering the criticism from some quarters that all 19 of the new Canada Excellence Research Chairs had gone to men. A number of female professors (see here, for example) said this showed discrimination against women.

But Professor Irvine would have nothing of it. “Although some people have expressed concern that the first round of Canada Excellence Research Chairs have all gone to men,” he wrote, “much more common are university job searches that are biased in favour of women.” Most departments allow men to apply, he said, but almost always “give preference” to women.

Aside from a few vague anecdotes, the good professor provided no data to back up his claim. I wanted to do a bit of digging on my own to see if his assertions held up, but I didn’t have the time to follow up.

So I thank Globe and Mail columnist Gary Mason for doing the work for me. In today’s paper, Mr. Mason calls the professor out, saying his argument “doesn’t stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny.”

Mr. Mason writes:

According to the latest numbers available, just produced by the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT), 41 per cent of new faculty appointments were filled by women in 2007, the most recent year for which statistics are available.

Now look at supply. The professorship comes from the ranks of our PhD students. In 2007, more than 46 per cent of Canadian PhDs went to women. So, if the discrimination Prof. Irvine alleges was real, you’d have thought that the number of women hired to teach at our universities that year would be something like 50 to 55 per cent, not 41 per cent.

Instead, men were more likely to get these appointments.

That analysis is somewhat simplistic, but I still think it’s valid. It would certainly appear that there is no widespread plot to discriminate against men in hiring decisions.

As for the initial controversy – the awarding of all the 19 CERCs to men – I declare myself neutral. Is it troubling? Sure it is. Does it show overt discrimination against women? Almost certainly not. In fact, I find that suggestion ridiculous.

(Speaking of ridicule, that’s exactly the tactic used by a writer in the On Campus section of Maclean’s to skewer the controversy, penning a short satirical piece entitled, “Left-handers shut out of CERC appointments.”)

But I don’t entirely dismiss the concerns of some women academics that there may be, unintentionally, a lingering systemic bias in the system. That is possible. After all, academia was an old boy’s club for a very long time.

What are your thoughts and experiences?

An event that seemed to slip under the media radar, the 2010 G8 University Summit was held last week (May 20-22) in Vancouver, attended by 24 university presidents from 14 countries. It was the third such summit, the first being held in Hokkaido, Japan in 2008 and in Turin, Italy last year.

The event was co-hosted by the University of British Columbia and the University of Alberta. According to a UBC media advisory, the presidents were gathering in Vancouver “to prepare advice for their governments as Canada prepares to host the G8 Summit” in Huntsville, Ontario, June 25-26.

Attending the G8 University Summit, again according to UBC, were “the presidents of leading research universities from the G8 and G20 countries to discuss the role universities should play in the development of knowledge to lead global social change.”

The theme for this year’s conference sessions was “Universities and Communities: Transition to a Sustainable Future.” A Statement of Action resulting from those deliberations has been released, but curiously it is not up yet on the official G8 University Summit website. I trust the site will be updated shortly, but until then, I’ve posted it in PDF form on the University Affairs website here.

The summit statement had three sub-themes: sustainable energy, sustainable health and sustainable higher education. It had a handful of recommendations, including – for sustainable higher education – that “universities will seek more effective solutions to meet the challenges presented by constraints in public funding and worldwide economic upheaval. Universities will provide opportunities for leadership development and a shared focus on excellence and innovation in teaching and learning.”

The Canadian signatories were: Peter MacKinnon, President, University of Saskatchewan; Heather Munroe-Blum, principal, McGill University; Indira Samarasekera, President, University of Alberta; Stephen Toope, President, University of British Columbia; Tom Traves, President, Dalhousie University; David Turpin], President, University of Victoria; and Luc Vinet, Rector, Université de Montreal

The final declaration from Turin last year can be found here, and for 2008 in Sapporo here.

The full G8 Summit in Huntsville, June 25-26, will be immediately followed by the G20 Summit in Toronto June 26-27.

Update, May 31, 2010: University World News has a full report on the university summit, posted May 30.

Maclean’s columnist and blogger Paul Wells beat me to the punch, but he’s right that today is a big day in Canadian science. The federal government announced this morning the names of the 19 inaugural recipients of Canada Excellence Research Chairs – or, as Mr. Wells called them, the “uber-chairs” – a new program to attract truly top researchers to Canada in a number of priority areas identified by the federal government.

All 19 of the researchers held positions outside Canada prior to being named chairholders – a huge brain gain for this country.

Universities will receive up to $10 million over seven years to support the chairholders and their research teams. Research conducted by the chairholders will focus on the areas of environmental sciences and technologies, natural resources and energy, health and related life sciences and technologies, and information and communications technologies.

A sampling of today’s press releases and media reports gives a sense of the excitement: “World leader in photonics joins University of Ottawa”; “McMaster lands car-of-the-future research leader”; “Western attracts world-renowned U.K. neuroscientist”; “U of Manitoba home to new climate change dream team.”

What’s more, a news release from the University of Saskatchewan shows the possible multiplier effect of these investments. With matching funds from the provincial government and other in-kind contributions, the university will use its new CERC holder – British scientist Howard Wheater, one of the world’s foremost experts in hydrology and sustainable freshwater resource management – to create a new Global Water Security Institute. A total of 85 new positions will be created at the institute, says the university, including six faculty, 20 post-doctoral fellows, 24 PhDs, 24 master’s students, and 10 support staff.

Leading with the most CERCs was the University of Alberta, with four. University of Waterloo, University of Toronto and Université Laval each received two. The complete list of chairholders and their areas of expertise is here.

One slight mystery: there were supposed to be 20 chairholders. What happened to the 20th is anyone’s guess.