HESA

Higher Education Strategy Associates

Category Archives: Canada

May 26

Tuition Fees and Inequality

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: it’s unfair that some people graduate with debt, and others don’t.  The ones that do tend to have started off poorer to begin with.  And so instead of being a means of social mobility, tuition ends up being a means of perpetuating it – the ones who start off poorer end up poorer.  That’s bad, and that’s why we should have no tuition.  Eliminate tuition and you eliminate inequality.

Let’s take this one-by-one.

First of all, eliminating tuition doesn’t eliminate debt.  Sweden, famously, has both free tuition and significant debt.

Second of all, while the notion that the poor are the ones with debt is mostly true, it’s not entirely so.  Some well-off kids borrow – usually in their fifth year when their parents’ income no longer counts against them in the need assessment process.  And some poorer kids get through without loans by working and living at home.

But the most important of all is a point articulated by the American writer Matt Bruenig in this article: eliminating tuition does not, in any way, change inequality between rich and poor students.  To a large degree, the kids who graduate without debt do so because their parents pay their bills.  If you make tuition free, it reduces (but does not eliminate) the need to borrow; it also means that wealthier parents get to save their money.  The gap between rich parents and poor parents is not made narrower: they are both saving the same amount of money.  And the idea that the gap between graduates is made narrower depends entirely on the notion that rich parents will look at all that money they’re saving and not pass it on to their kids.

Does anyone really believe that?  Does anyone really believe that if rich parents had more money they’d pass less of it on to their kids?  No?  Then your argument relating tuition to the perpetuation of inequality is wrong.

Bruenig makes the argument – correctly – that if you are going to base your tuition policy around the idea that it should serve to reduce inequality (something many sensible people would think is nuts), then the only way to do that is by charging sharply progressive fees.  Ask the kids from poorer families to pay little or nothing, and ask the kids from wealthier families to pay more.  And in practice the way you do that is by charging high fees and off-setting it with need-based grants.

Anything else fails the inequality-reduction test, simple as that.

May 23

New Data on Student Debt: the 2010 National Graduates Survey

The National Graduates Survey figures on debt for the class of 2010 were (quietly) released yesterday.  Unlike the employment data they released a few weeks ago, this data actually *is* comparable to results from previous surveys.  It is thus a good way to check on whether/how student debt is actually reaching “out of sight” levels.

So, let’s start with some interprovincial comparisons.

Average Government Student Loan Debt at Graduation, Borrowers Only, By Province and Type of Institution, Class of 2010

image001

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The national average government debt among borrowers was $22,300 for university graduates, and $14,000 for college graduates.  However, this conceals some pretty wild differences between provinces, especially at the university level where the provincial means extend from $11,900 in Quebec to $35,000 in New Brunswick.  Of particular interest is the fact that Ontario, the province with the highest tuition, actually has among the lowest levels of debt (indeed, between 2000 and 2010, it fell nearly 17% in real terms).

Looking at the data over time, the next two figures show how government student loan debt has evolved:

Incidence and Mean Amount of Government Student Loan Debt at Graduation, Bachelor’s Degree Borrowers Only, 1982-2010

image002

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Incidence and Mean Amount of Government Student Loan Debt at Graduation, College Borrowers Only, 1982-2010

image003

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The takeaway here: despite steadily rising tuition, the percentage of students taking out need-based loans to finance their education hit a thirty-year low in 2010.  Debt was still high, but in real dollars was below where it was in 2000.

Now, while need-based government debt has been falling, non-need-based (or at least, not necessarily need-based) private debt has been rising.  Private debt is a mish-mash of credit card debt (which most surveys suggest is pretty small), private bank loan debt, and debt to family members – the last of these is presumably fairly soft debt in the sense that it is available on highly negotiable terms and there is a reasonable chance of some form of debt forgiveness.  Incidence of all forms of these debt combined has risen from 19% to 26% among bachelor’s graduates since 2010 (16 to 22% among college grads), and average debt from these sources (among those with any amount of such debt) has risen from $13,170 to $17,700 for bachelor’s graduates ($8,300 to $10,000 for college graduates).

It’s not clear what to make of the private debt figures.  For the 15% of the student population that has both public and private debt, one assumes that the recourse to private debt is indicative that for this part of the student body, the existing student aid packages are inadequate.  This is a group we should be pretty concerned about.  As for the other 11% who only have private debt, it’s hard to say what the issue is.  Why are they choosing private money over public money?  Are they actually fairly well-off, and hence ineligible for aid?  We simply don’t know.

In any case, as a result of this increase in non-public debt, total debt is up very slightly, as we see in the figure below.  But while the averages of debt are up, the incidence is down – from 53% to 50% on the university side, and from 49% to 43% on the college side.  And this, recall, in a period where participation rates were growing sharply.

Average Total Debt at Graduation, Borrowers Only, By Type of Institution, Classes of 2000, 2005 and 2010

image004

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So: government debt down, private debt up.  Incidence of total debt down slightly, average debt up slightly.  Any way you look at it, the basic picture on student debt is right where it’s been for the last decade.  And meanwhile, interest rates have fallen, and after-tax incomes have risen.

I know facts never get in the way of a good story, but: There.  Is.  No.  Crisis.  Period.

May 16

Deans and Multiple Personality Disorders

Imagine two scenarios.  In the first, an academic is threatened with termination if he/she speaks out publicly against the university’s proposed strategic plan.  In the second, a manager is fired for disobeying a direct order from a superior about running down the company he/she works for.  For most readers, I’d guess the first scenario is abhorrent, and the second quite understandable (if perhaps somewhat harsh).  Yet both scenarios describe precisely what happened to University of Saskatchewan’s Dean, Robert Buckingham.

The Buckingham incident goes to the heart of a real live issue in Canadian universities: for whom do deans work – the President and Provost, or the faculty?  Are they management’s tool to keep faculty in line, or do they represent the interests of their faculty in the halls of the power?

I don’t think there’s much doubt in a legal sense that Deans answer to senior management rather than faculty.  But the way Deans are chosen usually incorporate a large amount of feedback from professors in that department, who want to make sure that the Dean is – to the extent possible – sympatico with their interests.  And whether the Dean is a likable figure or not, he/she is very much expected to fight for the interests of that faculty and its members when it comes to things like resource allocation.

So, to Saskatoon where, as part of the university’s restructuring process, the 5-year-old School of Public Health Buckingham headed was slated, along with the School of Dentistry and the college of Medicine, to become part of an enlarged Faculty of Medicine.  The School, which at least in its own eyes is pretty hot stuff having just received European accreditation for its program, was less than thrilled with the notion of being under the same roof as the College of Medicine, which has had a rough time with accreditation issues for the past few years.

Buckingham fought his corner spiritedly but quietly for several months.  When Deans were recently told that the time for chat was over, and it was time for all the managers to fall in line, Buckingham chose not to do so.  Instead, he wrote a letter (available here) that wound up in the StarPhoenix in which he effectively implied that: a) the President and Provost lacked courage, and b) that the College of Medicine was sub-standard.  Within the next 24 hours, Buckingham was not only removed as Dean, but was also fired as a tenured professor, and escorted from campus.

Now, given the high level of tension on campus, and that Buckingham was only a few weeks away from retirement, it might have made more sense to let this incident go with a reprimand (and indeed, after much media attention, and an emergency meeting called by Advanced Ed Minister, Rob Norris, the University “reconsidered and reversedparts of its initial decision).  But make no mistake, within a managerial capacity, it was a fire-able offense: you can’t have your Deans going off and running down their colleagues’ departments in public.

Simply put, the freedom of comment that one has as a faculty member doesn’t apply to management.  Buckingham’s line about “I’ve never seen academics be silenced like this” is somewhat disingenuous: Deans are management and held to a different standard.  Saskatchewan was within its rights to ditch him as a Dean; where they overstepped, and have since clawed back on their decision, was in firing him as a professor, because that raises legitimate issues of academic freedom.  As far as I know no professor has been dismissed for speaking out about university management since Norman Strax at UNB in 1968, and that’s not a place we want to go back to.

Both sides stepped over the line here, but it’s easy to see how it happened, and how it is likely to happen again.  At the end of the day, deans’ identities and allegiances are split between their role as academics and their role as administrators.  It’s a thankless and occasionally dangerous position.

May 14

Trends in Applications

Some interesting trend data to review from Ontario today.

First, there’s the fact that applications from secondary schools have dropped by 3% this year, from 92,892 to 89,609 (as of the February snapshot, which for most purposes is as good as the final numbers, since something like 95% of all applicants apply before the end-of-January line).  This is a moderately big deal since it’s the first time since the double cohort that numbers have fallen.

Figure 1: Applications from Secondary Schools by Year, Ontario, 2004-14

image001

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some university officials have waved this away as being a result of declining population, but there’s no evidence that the population of 18 year-olds has fallen by 3%.  Statscan hasn’t published data for 2014 yet, but between 2010 and 2013 the number of 18 year-olds actually increased by 2%, even though the agency’s population projections had suggested their numbers would fall somewhat.  In the chart below, which shows the ratio of secondary school applicants to 18-year-olds over time, I average Statscan’s projection with the actual annual increase for the past four years, and assume a fall of 1.6% in 2014. So even accounting for population change, university applicant numbers are still down.

Figure 2: Applications from Secondary School as a Percentage of 18-Year-Olds, Ontario, 2004-14

image002

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The fact that the percentage of 18 year-olds attending Ontario universities has fallen is notable, but we shouldn’t overstate the implications.  In the first place, it hasn’t fallen far – just back to where it was in 2012.  Second, these numbers are only for Ontario applicants; they don’t include all the many international students whose numbers are still rising.  Fact is, most institutions will be OK for awhile yet.

More interesting, perhaps, is what’s going on with applications by field of study.  Check out, for instance, what’s happening with the “big four” fields, which account for slightly over 70% of all enrolments.  Applications to Arts subjects have been falling for some time; in 2003, 35% of all applications were to Arts Faculties, now it is just 27% (albeit of a much larger applicant pool – in absolute numbers they are about where they were in 2003).  Science and Business have more or less kept their share of enrolments steady over time, while Engineering has seen its share grow from 8% to 11%.  That might not sound like much, but in absolute terms it represents an increase of 81%, from 5,515, to 9,984.

Figure 3: Arts, Science, Business, and Engineering Applications as Percentage of Total, Ontario, 2004-14

image003

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But look a little more closely at the data, at some of the smaller fields of study, and you can see some really amazing shifts in numbers.  Nursing, by some distance, is the “hot” discipline (not surprising, given the 100% placement rate and the $50K plus starting salaries), with applications increasing by close to 150%.  Social Work has seen applications double, and Math applications are up almost 90%.  Fine Arts applicant numbers have stayed very stable over the past decade; only Journalism has seen a major negative shock, with applications down by over a third from their 2008 peak.

Changes in Application Numbers, Selected Fields of Study, Ontario, 2004-14, Indexed to 2004

image004

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The disciplinary enrolment shifts are of significantly more importance than 1-year changes in total enrolments.  They show that, over time, students do in fact respond to changes in labour market conditions, but that it may take a few years for the response to be evident.  Quite properly, students might want to see sustained evidence of change before committing to a different field of study.  And that’s a good thing, whatever the usual Labour Market whiners might say.

May 08

Why (Almost) Everyone Loves International Students (Part 2)

Yesterday, I showed how good international students were for universities’ bottom lines.  But it’s not quite as simple as I made it out to be.  Whether admitting international students makes sense or not depends on four factors:

1)      How much of the income do you get to keep?  In Quebec, international students in “regulated” programs (which include Arts) are worth essentially nothing to institutions because the government claws it all back.  On the other hand, in block-grant provinces (and in Saskatchewan, which is part-formula, part block), international students are basically pure profit.  The only reason to not take international students is if the provincial government might punish you for it, because of fears of crowding out local demand (cf. Alberta).  In most formula-funding provinces, and for Quebec’s unregulated programs, the return is somewhere in-between – institutions can charge what they want for international students, but get zero subsidy for them from the province.

2)      What’s the marginal cost per student?  Remember: marginal, not average.  There is a tendency to think that international students are more financially beneficial in Arts or Business because average costs are lower there than in Science and Engineering.  And while, to some extent, that’s  true, what really matters is how close to capacity each program is.  An extra Engineering student in a class of 29 with a capacity of 30 is actually going to be cheaper than an extra Arts student in a class of 30 with the same capacity, because being the 31st student means starting a new class section, hiring a new instructor, occupying more classroom space, etc.  The problem for most institutions is that they have only the barest notion of what marginal costs are across the institution at any given time.

3)      What’s the cost of recruitment?  At most mid-sized institutions these days, recruitment costs per international student are – all told – in the $6-7K range, once you take agent fees, overhead, and everything else into consideration.  Assuming the student is coming for four years and is going to generate 60-80K in fees, that’s pretty good (less so if your school has a problem with international student retention).  But it’s even better if you’re McGill, Toronto, or UBC; with so much brand prestige you don’t need to spend so much.

4)      What’s the opportunity cost?  Now that you know your income and expenses from international students, you can work out what your net income is by field of study.  But opportunity costs matter, too; your potential earnings from domestic students need to be taken into account.  For most institutions outside the big cities, the answer is “nothing” because the alternative to an international student is no students at all.  In these cases, the decision to admit international students is obvious.  Where it gets less obvious is where you can gain income from a domestic student.  At that point, you need to work out how net (not gross) income from a graduate student compares with net income from government grants and tuition fees.  At some institutions, in some fields of study, it will sometimes make more sense to enroll a domestic student over an international one.  But it’s close.

Got all that?  Good.  Now go build your strategic enrolment plans.

May 07

Why Everyone Loves International Students (Part 1)

A nice simple post today: why universities are going bananas for international students.

The first figure shows undergraduate tuition fees for international students in each province.  They range from a little under $10,000 in Newfoundland, to just over $25,000 in PEI.  The national average for this period is $18,840; in Ontario it is $23,000.

International Undergraduate Tuition Fees by Province, 2012, in $2013

image001

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What’s more, fees for international students have been going up quite steadily for two decades.  Over the last 21 years, fees for international students have risen annually by an average of 4% in real terms (i.e. over and above inflation).

Average International Undergraduate Tuition Fees by Province, 1990-2012, in $2013

image002

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And these fee rises seem to have no effect on demand.  Check out the rise in the number of international students.  Is that great or what?  High fees?  Lots of international students.  Raise fees?  MORE International students!

International Student Enrolments, 1992-2011

image003

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does anyone expect universities to turn down that kind of money, from an apparently inexhaustible source?  Especially when the amount they get from government is flat, and tuition is tightly regulated?

OK, yes, the decision to take in international students is, in fact, marginally more complicated than I’m making it out to be here.  I’ll get to that tomorrow.  But the basic case for international students is right there in those three graphs.

Money talks, you know.  Gotta pay the bills.

April 28

Mobility Responsibilities

Saying that we should remove barriers to student mobility sounds like a motherhood issue.  But scratch a little deeper, and you’ll see that, in fact, Canadians are pretty equivocal on the concept.

For starters, while everyone loves inbound mobility (come here!  It’s a great place!), there’s a pretty deep streak of protectionism in Canadian provincial governments on the issue of outbound mobility.  The sentiment of “let’s keep our kids at home” runs deep in many parts of the country.  It wasn’t until the advent of the Millennium Scholarship Foundation that all student aid programs became portable in most provinces (though Quebec maintains a policy of not funding students to go out of the province, unless the program is not offered in the province, “and it is in the interest of the Quebec collectivity”.  Yes, really).

But whose responsibility is mobility in the first place?  In Europe, with respect to tuition and student aid, it’s the receiving country who bears the cost – no matter where they’re from, students pay whatever the locals do, and have access to whatever student aid program the locals provide.  In Canada, our default assumption is that host provinces are supposed charge equal tuition to all Canadians regardless of their place of origin, but the responsibility for mobility on student aid lies with the sending province.  One can move from Nova Scotia to Manitoba and pay Manitoba rates of tuition, but one still has to rely on Nova Scotia Student Aid.

But there are exceptions.  The most clear-cut is Quebec’s insistence on charging tuition fees to out-of-province students.  Less clear-cut (but still clearly discriminatory), are the cases of Nova Scotia and Ontario.  The former provides tuition rebates to Nova Scotia students, but not to other Canadians.  Ontario has a variety of subsidies that are only available to Ontario students attending Ontario institutions (the tuition tax rebate is one, as are the many provincially-mandated, institutionally-managed access funds – funded through a “tax” on tuition paid by Ontarians and non-Ontarians alike).  These are all anti-mobility measures: they effectively create a two-tier tuition policy within a province, and (in Ontario’s case at least) provide extra subsidies to students who chose not to leave.

Interestingly, while Quebec’s two-tier tuition system is usually portrayed as a piece of xenophobia and rank insolence to other Canadians who, through equalization, are partially picking up the tab for Quebec’s lower tuition, Nova Scotia and Ontario are given a total pass, despite their policies having almost identical effects.

What that tells us is that Canadians don’t mind mobility barriers as long as they are dressed-up as “affordability enhancements”. Ultimately, such measures are self-defeating; as with trade barriers, eventually everyone is left worse off.  But there are enough small-minded politicians out there to ensure that these kinds of tactics always have a potential audience.  As budgets get tighter over the next couple of years, there’s a good chance we’ll see more examples of discriminatory tuition fees, loans, and grants being made non-portable across provincial borders.  I hope that’s not the case, but history doesn’t give me huge grounds for optimism.

April 25

Nova Scotia Ditches a Bad Subsidy

About a decade ago, a really bad policy idea started making its way across the country’s “have-not” provinces.  I can’t remember if it started in Saskatchewan or New Brunswick, but within a couple of years it had spread to Manitoba and Nova Scotia, as well.  The details (and generosity) of this policy varied somewhat, but the gist of it was this: “let’s pay our graduates not to leave the province by refunding a portion of their tuition, via tax reductions, once they graduate”.  Sometimes this was dressed up as a “talent attraction policy”, in the sense that it would benefit people coming in from outside the province; in the main, however, it was understood that this money was mainly about keeping “our” kids at home.

Now this was a dumb idea from almost any policy perspective you can imagine, but the two most obvious ones are:

1)      Effectiveness.  Most youth, even in the most economically depressed provinces, tend to stay where they are: in the provinces where these programs were introduced, the “stay” rate ranged from about 75-85%.  So even if you bring the stay-rate up by 10 percentage points, that still means that for every student you successfully keep, eight others will get to keep cash for doing exactly what they were going to do anyway.

2)      Horizontal equity.  If you have a couple of tens of millions in cash that you want to devote to youth – and lord knows there isn’t much of that around – why in the name of all that’s holy would you hand that money over to the group of youth who are the most employable, and have the best prospects?  Especially if you’re not actually changing their behaviour, all this does is reduce the cost of education and make it easier for tomorrow’s upper-middle class to start accumulating assets.

Anyways, though it wasn’t much noticed outside the province, Nova Scotia dropped the tax rebate, largely because it was ineffective – young people continued to leave the province.  While it drained a lot of money, it simply wasn’t big enough to change many people’s minds about leaving.  And this makes sense: if the reason someone moves from Halifax to Toronto is a $10K/year difference in pay, a $2k tax rebate isn’t going to change their mind.

Of course, it would have been a lot better if the Nova Scotia Government had actually put that money back into some other youth-serving purpose – the community college, say, or student assistance (a category in which Nova Scotia remains among the most miserly in the country).  But with the province hemorrhaging money, it’s not exactly a surprise that this money is going straight to deficit-reduction, no matter how unfortunate that might be.

Interesting trend, though: first Quebec and now Nova Scotia have started dialling back on tax credits – with no apparent backlash.  Hopefully, this is the start of a trend that allows us to restore some sanity to the way we subsidise higher education.

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.

Page 20 of 38« First...10...1819202122...30...Last »