Article in November 27 issue of Maclean's (fwd)

[Richard Plant]

Hello All:

So, you wonder what is going on universities, eh? Well here's a brief
description of at least some of that.

Richard Plant
Dept of Drama, Queen's University
and
Graduate Centre for Study of Drama,
University of Toronto

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 14:45:04 -0500
From: Fedcan <fedcan at hssfc.ca>
To: @hssfc.ca
Subject: Article in November 27 issue of Maclean's

For your information.

Macleans
November 27, 2000

Measuring the quality gap

BY ANN DOWSETT JOHNSTON

David Smith, the Harvard-trained economist who steered Queen's University
through several of its more challenging years, was a man of impeccable
integrity and remarkable scholarly breadth. Personally modest, he made a
significant contribution to the world of higher education in this country.
Only weeks before his death this spring, the 68-year-old Smith had put the
finishing touches on two seminal reports for the Council of Ontario
Universities. The first, titled "Will there be enough excellent profs?"
examined the urgent need for faculty hiring to meet the coming needs of
students. The second, "How will I know if there is quality?" reviewed a
variety of evaluations of university performance -- including the annual
Maclean's rankings. With characteristic economy, he opened the second
report with a cautionary quote from Albert Einstein, going straight to
theheart of the matter: "Not everything that counts can be counted, and
noteverything that can be counted counts."

Which, of course, is true. How can you measure the unique impact of a
university education in raw numbers? How can you tally the reverberating
effect of a brilliant professor? How can you capture the lifelong rewards
of the experience, except in words? In short, you can't.

Still, there are essential ingredients that contribute to the quality of
the undergraduate experience and, yes, some of those ingredients can be
counted. Between the 1995 Maclean's ranking and this year's report,
published last week, universities reported a seven-per-cent drop in the
number of full-time faculty. And not coincidentally, the number of
first-year classes taught by tenured faculty dropped by seven per cent as
well. Meanwhile, the proportion of students arriving at university with
grade averages of 75 per cent or higher rose, too: again, by seven per
cent. Given that undergraduate enrolment in Canada has been on the
rise,these factors paint a clear picture: there are fewer faculty to learn
from,and admission standards are rising.

In other words, what Maclean's is counting counts. Let's take a look at
Ontario, home to 40 per cent of Canadian high-school and university
students. Since the 1977-1978 academic year, basic operating grants on a
per-student basis have plummeted by 50 per cent: from $4,000 to $2,000 in
real terms. In ranking the rate of public investment in higher education
over the past five years, Ontario places 57th out of all 60 North American
jurisdictions. Only Newfoundland, Quebec and Hawaii have diminished their
support at a more rapid rate. Is it any coincidence, then, that for the
first time this year more than half of the 17 Ontario universities fell in
the Maclean's rankings? Can anyone predict what this will mean for the
thousands of Canadian students heading to university in that province over
the next decade?

This fall, David Smith's former university has appointed a dean's task
force to examine the quality of a Queen's arts and science education. As
dean Robert Silverman points out, some of what counts at Queen's has been
cut: in 1990, the student-faculty ratio was 14.7:1. Today, it sits at
19.3:1. The task force, composed of three faculty and three students, will
determine what is needed to restore quality. The group's first priority? To
figure out what is desirable, what is measurable, and then put a dollar
value to it. "The primary question," says Silverman, "is determining what
level of quality we want to return to."

If the decision is to return to the quality of 1990, Silverman has two
options. He needs to cut 2,000 students or hire 131 professors. Neither
will fly with the Ontario government: it's not about to approve enrolment
cuts, or ante up the necessary $13 million to hire the faculty. A third
option? Boosting tuition fees, a move that would also need government
approval. "What's the best thing that could happen?" asks Silverman. "A
miracle that would have government recognizing that an educated society is
worth the investment. We're a lot cheaper than health."

Even Smith would agree: sometimes what counts can be counted. For 10 years
now, as Maclean's has taken the measure of undergraduate education at
public universities across Canada, government support for higher education
has faltered. Ten years ago, the provincial operating grant for McGill
accounted for 70 per cent of its operating budget. Today, it accounts for
50 per cent. At more than a third of Canadian universities, the government
operating grant accounts for half or less of the operating budget. Let's
get the nomenclature straight: these are now publicly assisted
universities. And perversely, as government support has decreased, the
political will to control the agenda has risen.

Last February, when federal Finance Minister Paul Martin transferred $2.5
billion to the provinces for postsecondary education and health, health got
all the thunder. What will it take to move education to the top of the
public agenda? A parents' revolution, which will come as the baby boom
generation begins to grasp the quality gap. Until then, all I can say is:
don't shoot the messenger.