HESA

Higher Education Strategy Associates

Author Archives: Alex Usher

April 24

Using Comparative Labour Market Outcome Data to Think About Education

So, recently, a colleague sent me some data produced by CMEC on the subject of labour market outcomes by educational attainment, among 16-65 year-olds.  Here’s the first one, showing outcomes for Canada.

Labour Market Status by Educational Attainment, 16-65 Year-Olds, Canada, 2012 (Source: The Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies, 2012)

image001

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And here’s a similar one, showing the same thing for the OECD as a whole.

Labour Market Status by Educational Attainment, 16-65 Year-Olds, OECD, 2012 (Source: The Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies, 2012)

image002

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Just so we’re clear, when talking about the OECD as a whole, “College” means PSE below bachelor’s degree [ISCED 4/5B for higher ed data nerds], “university” means PSE bachelor’s degree or higher [ISCED 5A/6], and “PSE” refers to the two combined.  That’s not a perfect translation of what those qualifications mean in other OECD countries, but it’s close enough.)

If we compare Canada and the OECD, we notice two things right away. First, there are some pretty massive differences in education levels.  Fully 60% of Canadians have some kind of credential, compared to an OECD-wide average of just 36%.  Second, there is also a difference in employment levels: 75% in Canada versus 69% in the OECD.

An optimist (or at least a higher education lobbyist) would no doubt try to link these two factors, and say: Yay Canada!  Our higher attainment rate causes higher labour force participation rates!  And while that’s certainly one way to read the data, it’s not the only way.

Try looking at it like this: in both the OECD and Canada, exactly one-sixth of the PSE-educated population is either unemployed or not looking for work (6/36 in OECD, 10/60 in Canada).  In Canada, 35% of people with no PSE are either unemployed or not looking for work; in the OECD, 39% are.  Not a huge difference.  A much more pessimistic reading of this data, therefore, is thus: to a large degree, Canada educates people to no real purpose. The fact that we have a higher percentage of the population educated hasn’t appreciably increased the probability (at least vis-à-vis other OECD countries) that those with higher education are employed.

There is, of course, a third reading of the data: that education levels and employment levels aren’t linked statically in any meaningful way.  National labour markets develop in different ways over time, in response to varied economic conditions.  Countries with varying education/skill compositions can have similar levels of employment (though not necessarily similar levels of national income); conversely, countries with identical sets of skills can have quite different levels of employment and output, depending on a host of other institutional and environmental factors.  As a result, generalizing about economic outcomes based on educational ones is a bit of a mug’s game.

I’d kind of like the first option to be true.  But overall, my money’s on number three.

April 23

The Implications of Net Zero Tuition

Over the past two days, I’ve been explaining how Canada spends as much on non-repayable aid as its PSE institutions collect in tuition fees for domestic students – meaning, in net terms, that Canadian students pay zero tuition.  Today I want to explore the implications of this.

Let’s start with what it doesn’t mean: it doesn’t mean that many people are going to school for free.  All this funding is pretty lumpy. Many Quebecers and Newfoundlanders are receiving significantly more money than they are paying – ditto First Nations and students in Quebec CEGEPs.  On the other hand, education is pretty expensive in Alberta because of the way the provincial government chose to slash student aid funding at the outset of the recession.

Another group also making out pretty well is graduate students in non-professional fields.  They make up about 10% of the post-secondary student body, yet with their hold over the bulk of government and institutional merit scholarships, and their being nearly all independent students (and hence receiving more generous student aid packages), they are likely taking home something like 25-30% of the entire non-repayable available aid (of course, one could make the case that money for graduate students shouldn’t really be thought about in the same way as student aid, since it’s really support for research.  There’s no hard-and-fast line here, but it’s worth a debate).

But here’s what it does mean: at over $7 billion in aid, 90-95% of it going to full-time students, we are spending something on the order of $5,500 per full-time student in non-repayable aid – and that includes those full-time CEGEP students who are paying $0 in tuition.  Pure and simple, it makes a mockery of the idea that there is some sort of generalized affordability crisis.   Nobody – absolutely nobody – is paying sticker price for tuition, and a substantial proportion of students are paying nothing at all (or very close to it).  The next time someone (say, the Canadian Centre on Policy Alternatives, for instance) tries to peddle an “affordability crisis”, they need to be refuted vigorously.  Insufficient student aid money is not the problem.

What is a problem is that not enough of this money gets to the right students.  Sometimes, this is because the money is geographically restricted (e.g. too much aid in Quebec, not enough in Alberta), but the main reason is that our tax credit system, which puts $2.5 billion in the hands of students and their parents each year, is a colossal waste of potential.  Re-distributing that money more according to need (as Quebec, in the one decent thing to come out of the Red Square movement, did back here) is long overdue as a policy measure.

That some students need extra funds is not in doubt, as all serious observers of Canadian higher education know.  What separates the serious people from the cranks and the dilettantes, however, is precisely the ability to believe this without concluding that the problem is a generalized one, or that the only solution is to freeze or reduce tuition.  Net zero tuition makes that position completely untenable.

April 22

Canadian Students Pay Net Zero Tuition

Yesterday, we noted that Canada hands out over $10 billion to its students each year.  Of that, $6.6. billion goes to students in the form of tax credits or grants; another $700 million is spent on savings incentives of various sorts.  All told,  over 70% of the $10 billion is non-repayable.

How does that compare to what students spend on tuition?  Well, this isn’t entirely straightforward.  We know from CAUBO/Statscan statistics that in 2011-12, universities collected $7.37B in fees from students.  What we don’t know is how much of this comes from Canadian students and how much comes from foreign ones.  At best, what we can do is approximate.  The Canadian Bureau for International Education (CBIE) says that in 2011, there were 131,500 international students in Canadian universities, of whom roughly 12% are doctoral students.  Stastcan says that in that year, international undergraduate fees averaged $17,500.  Let’s assume that the doctoral students among them are paying zero, but the rest are paying full freight.  That means: .88 times 131,500, times $17,500 = $2.025 billion in foreign student fees.   And by extension, $ 5.35Bn in domestic student fees.

What about on the colleges side?  That’s a little more fuzzy.  For starters, the latest college data I have floating around the office is from 2007-08 (it’s a free email, people, you get what you pay for).  It showed colleges collecting a little under $1.9 billion in fees  (in $2011) from all sources, including continuing ed and trade-voc programs.  Build in a wee bit of growth and we’re probably talking about something in the neighbourhood of $2.2 billion in terms of total fee intake.

What share of that is domestic?  Again, it’s fuzzy.  The CBIE data isn’t clear about colleges’ share of international students, but it’s probably the lion’s share of “trade” and “other PSE” combined, so call it about 18% of the 239,000 international students here in 2011, or about 43,000 in total (Colleges Ontario’s 2012 environment scan says there were 18,000 international students in Ontario alone in 2011, so that seems about in the ball park).  We have absolutely no idea what international student fees are in colleges because nobody tracks that, but let’s really low-ball it and say the average is $7,000.  That would imply international student fee income of about 300 million on the nose, and, by implication, a domestic tuition “take” of $1.9Bn.

So, just to tally things up here:

1

 

 

 

Total domestic tuition income in = $7.3 billion.   That’s almost exactly, on the nose, what goes out in non-repayable aid to students and their families each year.

Net zero tuition.  I’ll look at the implications tomorrow.

 

April 21

Canada’s Annual Student Assistance Bill: $10 Billion, Most of it Non-Repayable

Let’s just count up all there is out there, shall we?  Just for fun.

There’s loans, obviously.  In 2010-11, there was a little under $4 billion of those.  Of that, however, about half a billion was forgiven through loan remission, meaning  that “Net Loans” – was about $3.5 billion.  On top of that, there was about another $1.3 billion in up-front grants given out that year (roughly half from the feds, half from the provinces).

(How do I know this, you ask?  Because I’ve been doing surveys of provincial and federal student loans for over 10 years.  I have a database.  Well, CMEC technically owns it, but you know what I mean.)

Government Student Aid by Type, Canada 1993-94 to 2010-11, in ‘000s of $2011

image001

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then there are the various federal and provincial tax credits for tuition, plus the education and textbook credits. These are calculated by using CRA taxfiler data (most recent years available here) to see how many credits have been claimed, and then multiplying out by federal and provincial tax rates to calculate the value of the credits claimed.  Altogether, that’s another $2.3 billion going to students and families for higher education (roughly two-thirds of it from Ottawa).

Canada Education Savings Grant?  Canada Learning Bond?  Another $700 million, or so, combined.  Then throw on another $350 million for provincial merit grants and tri-council scholarships.  All told, that $5.13 billion in non-repayable aid given out each year (call it $4.4 billion if you want to exclude the CESG/CLB, which, after all, is for future students), plus another $3.5 billion in loans.  Total?  $8.6 billion in assistance, only 40% of which is loans.

But wait!  We’re not finished here.  According to the annual Canadian Association of University Business Officers/Statscan Financial Survey, universities collectively gave out just over $1.5 billion in scholarships.  Toss in another $350 million or so in First Nations’ Band Funding under the Post-Secondary Student Support Program, and we’re up to $10.6 billion in aid going to individuals each year, fully $7 billion of which is non-repayable.  And that was three years ago.  It’s gone up since then by maybe another $300 million, all told  (mostly driven by Ontario’s 30%-off tuition grant, and increased institutional spending on scholarships).

$7.3 billion – or even the $6.6 billion if you don’t want to include the CESG/CLB stuff – is a heck of a lot of money.  It’s almost the size of the entire budget for the province of Newfoundland.  It’s more money than governments spend on our entire national college system.  And it all goes to students.  And it’s all non-repayable.

How about that?

An interesting question is: how does this figure stack up when compared to how much students pay in tuition?  Tune in tomorrow.

April 17

The Changing Face of Student Protest

You may have missed this story, what with disappearing airliners, annexations in Crimea, and whatnot, but there has been a major and quite unique student uprising going on in Taipei over the past month.

The “Sunflower Student Movement” was born in mid-March when the Kuomintang government decided to try to ram a new trade treaty with China through the legislature, without permitting a clause-by-clause review or substantive public hearings.  Since the KMT are known to favour (eventual) reunification with China, many in the opposition saw the reluctance to face any oversight as evidence of a potential sell-out.  The result was a student-led occupation of Parliament for a little over three weeks, which eventually ended in a partial climbdown by the KMT.

Historically, this kind of student protest is pretty common.  When you look at the phenomenon of student protests in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, what you mostly see are political movements.  In South Korea, the dictatorship of Syngman Rhee was overthrown by students (the next military dictator prudently relocated Seoul National University across the river from the centre of government); in conjunction with the military, students did similar things in Bolivia, South Vietnam, Sudan, and Ghana.  Even in the developed world, student movements of the 60s had broad political aims – protesting the war in America, for social revolution in France, and for the “nationalist” cause in Quebec.

However, something very strange has happened to student politics over the past thirty years.  During this time, as higher education massified, student movements and organizations became less political.  Today, these movements have become much more concerned with “student” issues, such as student welfare, tuition fees, etc  (in the literature, these are known as “etudialist” issues).

Back in the 60s, when big names in Political Science like Seymour Martin Lipset thought it worth their time to edit books on student politics, this would have seemed unlikely.  The expansion of educational opportunity to poorer students was widely seen as being likely to further radicalize the student body. Yet, in fact, what massification seems mostly to have done is to make the student body more like the world at large: big, diverse, and anything but homogeneous in political thought.  And while that makes them less likely to be vanguards for social or political revolutions, it doesn’t preclude them from uniting to fight defensive battles when they feel their interests are threatened (for example, on tuition fees).

Thus, most of the really large student protest movements in the past three years – Chile, South Korea, and Quebec – have all fundamentally been about fees.  Conversely, while there have been some enormous social and political protests in places like Cairo, Kiev, and Athens, students have rarely played the leading roles that their counterparts did 40-50 years ago.  Only in Taiwan and – to a lesser extent – Venezuela, where student groups have been at the forefront of protests against the chavista government of Nicolas Maduro, have we seen students in the kinds of political confrontations that were the norm only half a century ago.

April 16

Rewind on Those Foley/Green Numbers

So, you may remember that last week I published this neat little graph from the National Graduates Survey, showing university and graduate incomes across all ten provinces, three years after graduation.  Note that although the numbers vary by province, the university number is always higher than the college number.

Median Earnings of College and Bachelor’s Graduates Three Years After Graduation, in 2013

image001

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The super-keen among you may also remember something I wrote three weeks ago, about a paper by Kelly Foley and David Green, which I summarized thusly:

“In Ontario and Quebec, returns to education are what you’d expect: higher for graduate degrees than for Bachelors, which in turn are higher than for college diplomas.  But it turns out that both in the Atlantic and in the West, the returns to college education are actually higher than the returns to university.  Indeed, in western Canada they are even higher than they are for graduate studies.”

How can both be true ?  Basically, it’s because they’re using slightly different definitions of university and college.

Here’s the issue: Foley and Green used the Labour Force Survey data.  That’s quite a different source of data from NGS.  For instance, it includes graduates of foreign universities, who tend to make less than those educated locally. There’s not many of these in the 25-29 category, but it does reduce the university number a bit.

But the major reason is this: Foley and Green included “trades certificates and apprenticeships” in their definition of college.  At one level that’s fair enough, because most (though not all) of the technical training that occurs in apprenticeships occurs in colleges.  But on the other hand, it does obscure some important differences between the two.

Start with income.  Ten years ago, males 25-29 holding trade certificates and college diplomas made almost the same amount; now, there’s an enormous gap.

Median Weekly Wages, Males Aged 25-29

image002

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, look at the distribution by region of Foley/Green’s “college” population.  In Ontario, less than 20% of this population holds a trade or apprenticeship credential; in Alberta it’s over 35%.

Distribution of College/Trade Credentials Among Males 25-29, Ontario and Alberta (Source: National Household Survey)

image003

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, to summarize: Within the Foley/Green description of college graduates there are two distinct groups, one of whom makes more than the other.  And the better-off group is more prevalent in the west than it is in Central Canada.  So it’s not that young Western Canadian male college diploma holders are better off than young Western Canadian male university bachelor’s graduates, it’s that young Western Canadian males who received training in colleges are better off than young Western Canadian male university bachelor’s graduates.

I hope that’s clear.

This college/trade advantage disappears relatively quickly after age 30, but I’ll get to that another time.

April 15

Happy Birthday, Canada Student Loans Program (Part the Last)

For the first thirty or so years of its existence, the CSLP changed little, and was rarely the subject of any political attention.  The annual loan maxima drifted gradually upwards from its initial $1,000 per year, but the only real innovations were the introduction of interest relief (the nucleus of today’s Repayment Assistance Program) in 1984, and a short-lived, ill-advised experiment in administrative cost-recovery in 1990 – during which the government levied a 3% fee on loans to pay for overhead, but which was withdrawn in the run-up to the 1993 federal election.

This stasis didn’t indicate widespread love for the program.  The Rowat-Hurtubise Report on “University, Society and Government” in 1970 recommended that the program be turned over to allow provinces to make their own, more coherent programs.  And in the mid-90s, after the Quebec referendum and Lloyd Axworthy’s 1994 Green Paper on student assistance – when the federal government became convinced student aid was a loser file that would never give them any credit – HRDC made discreet inquiries of the provinces about the possibility of withdrawing from the field.

What changed everything was the seemingly minor policy tweak of increasing the federal lending limit in 1994.  To reduce costs, the feds ended the long-standing formula where CSLP was responsible for 100% of need, up to $105 per week, and the provinces could decide to do whatever they wanted on top of that.  In its stead, the feds introduced a policy of covering 60% of every dollar of need, up to $165/week.  The corollary here was that provinces suddenly had to cover need from the very first dollar.  Coming at a time when government budgets were under huge pressure, the result was that most provinces radically reduced their grant programs, and replaced them with loans.  Cue a rapid rise in student debt, and subsequently (as I described back here) the arrival of a broad-based coalition to improve student aid.

The next few years saw almost annual changes in student aid.  CSLP first started issuing grants in 1994, but these were expanded in 1997 to include grants for students with dependents, and then again in 2005 when low-income grants were introduced.  Interest relief was made much more generous in 1998, and then expanded into the current RAP in 2005.  Tax credits were increased in 1996, 1997, 2000, and 2006.  Education savings grants were introduced in 1998, and then expanded again in 2004.

And, of course, there was the Millennium Scholarship Foundation.  The feds’ decision to create a whole new delivery vehicle for student aid was primarily motivated by the fact that: a) it was an accounting ruse to get rid of a one-year surplus over many years; and, b) it could do an end-run around CSLP’s opt-out clause, so that it could spend federal dollars in Quebec (if there was ever a politician who believed in the power of l’flag sur l’cheque, it was Chretien).  But it was also motivated by a view (in the Finance department and PMO ) that CSLP wasn’t up to much, policy-wise.  Ten years later, when the Foundation’s mandate was up for renewal, the PMO and Finance felt otherwise: the Foundation wasn’t renewed, and CSLP was suddenly managing a $600 million grant portfolio, in addition to its $1.5 billion in loans.

Since its inception, CSLP has lent $44 billion (in real dollars, it’s probably $100 billion or more), to roughly 5 million Canadians.  Few government programs have had as big an effect on the country’s economy, and few, if any, joint federal-provincial programs are run as smoothly.  It’s a Canadian success story – which of course means nobody recognizes it as such.  Even the government itself has chosen not to commemorate this 50th anniversary.

But that doesn’t mean we can’t raise a toast.  L’Chayim, CSLP.  And here’s to the next 50.

April 14

The Birth of the Canada Student Loans Program (III): The Deal

Pearson’s election manifestoes of 1958, 1962, and 1963 (mostly written by Englishman and former Winnipeg Free Press editor, Tom Kent) all contained proposals for both a loan scheme and a system of scholarships.  But upon coming to power in the last of those three elections, loans weren’t the new government’s first priority.  In fact, Pearson’s team quickly became bogged down in a completely different policy arena: namely, pensions.  The Liberals had promised a national contributory pension system, but were having an enormous problem getting buy-in, since both Ontario and Quebec had their own ideas about how a pension system should be run (for a real blow-by-blow of this, read P.E. Bryden’s, Planners and Politicians).

On March 31st, at a federal-provincial conference (remember those?  They used to be quite common) on the pension issue, Premier Lesage provided an outline for what would become the QPP.  It was widely judged to be a more advantageous plan than the one the feds were putting forward, and there was the prospect of the federal plan collapsing if some kind of arrangement could not be made (it seems ridiculous now, but at the time, the impasse over pensions was seen as being a threat to confederation itself – Peter C. Newman’s, The Distemper of Our Times does a good job of capturing this).

Over the course of the next two weekends, Kent and his Quebec counterpart held secret talks (so secret, in fact, that Pearson kept their existence hidden from the nominally-responsible minister, Judy La Marsh) to try to hammer out a deal.  As the talks wore on, it became clear that this discussion needed to be about more than just pensions: what Quebec was really after was a more general freedom to craft its own social programs.  What emerged on the 16th of April – 50 years ago this Wednesday – was a deal that cemented not only the CPP/QPP arrangement we have today, but also cemented the practice of “opting-out with compensation” from federal social programs.  The first program to which this applied?  The Canada Student Loans Program, which promptly started operation (oddly enough, under the auspices of the Minister of Finance) on August 1st of that year.

The CSLP was supposed to be complemented by a national scholarship system, but the plan never quite came to pass.  Kent’s idea was a radical one: he wanted to get rid of the institutional grants, and move all the money into the scholarship fund; institutions would be able to raise their fees, and students would be able to access a massive need-based aid fund.  The universities, predictably, thought this was a terrible idea.  Much as was the case in the US when Pell grants were introduced, institutions far preferred money in their hands rather than in students’.  But unlike the US, where grants were introduced by a Johnson administration at the height of its powers, by 1965 the Pearson minority government was an exhausted mess.  Eventually, this promise morphed into a commitment to provide greater support to funding institutions so they could expand.  It would not be until the 1990s that the Government of Canada would eventually fulfill the promise of non-repayable aid.

More tomorrow.

April 11

Happy 50th, CSLP (II): The Road not Taken

The Progressive Conservative Party under John Diefenbaker won a crushing majority in 1958, and his platform hadn’t contained anything with respect to education or universities.  Though he was known for his “Vision for Canada”, universities weren’t really a part of that vision.  He retained the Saint Laurent policy of paying money directly (via the AUCC) to individual universities on a more-or-less per capita basis.  The only change he made was to agree to a deal with the Duplessis government (which had forced its institutions to refuse the federal money) to use Quebec’s allotment to increase the provincial corporate tax abatement instead.  But student aid simply wasn’t on his radar.

But of course, not all Tories had the same view.  The younger ones in particular felt that they had to have some kind of policy to counter the “national scholarship” proposal the Liberals had swiped from the National Federation of Canadian University Students.  Ted Rogers (yes, that one) was the PC Youth Chair in the late 1950s, having played a major role in getting Diefenbaker elected in the first place.  And it was he who came up with a Tory policy on higher education: namely, tax deductions for tuition, usable either by the student or his/her parents.

This wasn’t a completely out-of-the-blue suggestion.  During passage of the National Defense Education Act in the US in 1958, Eisenhower had suggested using tax credits instead of loans on the grounds that it would provide greater benefits to the middle class, and required less government intervention (I should note that there’s no evidence this is where Rogers got the idea, but it’s a plausible scenario).

In any case, Rogers sold the Chief on the idea.  But, mindful of the views of his Quebec caucus and the deal he had struck with Duplessis on grants to universities, Diefenbaker wanted to make sure the new Lesage government would be onside with the proposal.  And so, he sent the one man he trusted in Quebec City to negotiate the deal with Lesage: a gregarious PC Youth Vice-President who was finishing his legal studies at Laval.  A young fellow by the name of Brian Mulroney.  By December 1960, the deal was done, and the tax deductions became law in 1961.

(The tax deductions stayed almost unaltered in form or value for 30 years, despite the 1971 Carter Commission having made the point that such deductions were regressive because they were worth more to high-income individuals than lower-income ones.  It wasn’t until the 1991 budget that Michael Wilson turned this – and a number of other deductions – into tax credits, which are fairer because they are worth an equal amount regardless of family income.)

This was a partisan move by the Tories – and an attempt to head-off Liberal demands for scholarships.  Since then, of course, tax measures have been adopted by both parties (Paul Martin was a noted enthusiast), such that the government of Canada now spends significantly more on education tax credits than on need-based student aid.  But in the shorter-run it was a failure: student groups weren’t impressed, and within two years, the Liberals were back in power, with plans to implement precisely the aid program the Tories had tried to forestall.

More tomorrow.

April 10

Happy 50th Birthday, Canada Student Loans Program

The Canada Student Loans Program, which over the years has helped upwards of 3 million Canadians obtain a post-secondary education, turns 50 this year.  And since the Government of Canada seems to be either too shy or too partisan (it was a Liberal creation after all) to celebrate this anniversary, I thought I’d do it here, by spending a few days giving you a bit of history about how the program came about.

(Why now?  Why not August 1st, the actual anniversary of the start of the program?  Patience grasshoppers.  There is a relevant anniversary coming up, but I don’t want to ruin the story).

The federal government was providing student assistance as early as 1919, when they offered loans of up to $500 to WWI veterans who were returning to complete their studies (the offer was only for those who had been enrolled prior to enlisting… everyone else was out of luck).  After that, the Government of Canada stayed out of the field until the late 1930s.  In 1937, they started a matching grant program with the provinces to develop facilities for vocational training; in 1939, they expanded that to a cost-sharing program for student aid, called the Dominion-Provincial Student Assistance Program (DPSAP).  PEI and the Western provinces joined in 1940 – everyone else was in by 1944 (Newfoundland joined the program shortly after entering confederation, Quebec withdrew for all the usual reasons in 1954).  Additional loan and scholarship programs  to support Science and Engineering students for the war effort began in 1941, but ended when the war did, in 1945.

DPSAP wasn’t in any sense a federal program – basically, the feds would match whatever the provinces were doing, subject to some fairly minor conditions.  Certainly, there were no national rules; basically, each province did their own thing and got some federal money to go along with it.  One or two provinces had loans, most provinces had “scholarships” (at the time English was like French, and didn’t have words to distinguish between need-and merit-based awards).  But they didn’t spend much – this matching program only cost the feds $5 million over 25 years, and rarely provided aid to more than about 4000 students in any given year.

After the war, both the Massey (1951) and Gordon (1957) commissions made it clear that they thought greater federal assistance to higher education was needed.  In short order, this led to St. Laurent’s efforts to give grants directly to Canadian universities (a move correctly and mercilessly ridiculed by Pierre Trudeau in his 1957 essay, Federal Grants to Universities); student aid wasn’t immediately forthcoming, but the main student group of the time, the National Federation of Canadian University Students (NFCUS) began pushing for a “national system of scholarships”.  In the United States, the examples of the GI Bill and the National Defense Education Act (1958) provided reformers in Canada with lots of ideas about how student aid might be run.  But by then, Canada was led by John Diefenbaker’s Tories, who had precious little interest in education as a policy field.  Nevertheless, what they ended up doing in higher education would have a huge long-run impact on higher education finance.

More tomorrow.

Page 1 of 5512345...102030...Last »