Higher Education Strategy Associates

Tag Archives: British Columbia

April 17

British Columbia: Provincial Manifesto Analysis

On May 9th, our left-coasters go to the polls.  What are their options as far a post-secondary education is concerned?

Let’s start with the governing Liberals.  As is often the case with ruling parties, some of their promises are things that are both baked into the fiscal framework and will take longer than one term to complete (e.g. “complete re-alignment of $3 billion in training funds by 2024”), or are simply re-announcements of previous commitments (page 85-6 of the manifesto appears to simply be a list of all the SIF projects the province already agreed to co-fund), or take credit for things that will almost certainly happen anyways (“create 1000 new STEM places”…. in a province which already has 55,000 STEM seats and where STEM spots have been growing at a rate of about 1700/year anyway…interestingly the Liberals didn’t even bother to cost that one…)

When you throw those kinds of promises away, what you are left with is a boatload of micro-promises, including: i) making permanent the current BC Training Tax Credit for employers, ii) creating a new Truck Logger training credit (yes, really), iii) spending $10M on open textbooks over the next 4 years, iv) reducing interest rates on BC student loans to prime, v) making minor improvements to student aid need assessment, vi) providing a 50% tuition rebate to Armed Forces Veterans, vii) creating a centralized province-wide admission system and viii) allowing institutions to build more student housing (currently they are restricted from doing so because any institutional debt is considered provincial debt and provincial debt is more or less verboten…so this is a $0 promise just to relax some rules).  There’s nothing wrong with any of those, of course, but only the last one is going to make any kind of impact and as a whole it certainly doesn’t add up to a vision.  And not all of this appears to be new money: neither the student loan changes nor the centralized application system promises are costed, which suggests funds for these will cannibalized from elsewhere within the system.  The incremental cost of the remaining promises?  $6.5 million/year.  Whoop-de-do.  Oh, and they’re leaving the 2% cap on tuition rises untouched.

What about the New Democrats?  Well, they make two main batches of promises.  One is about affordability, and consists of matching the Liberal pledge on a tuition cap, slightly outdoing them on provincial student loan interest (eliminating it on future and past loans, which is pretty much the textbook definition of “windfall gains”), and getting rid of fees for Adult Basic Education and English as a Second Language Program (which, you know, GOOD).  There’s also an oddly-worded pledge to provide a $1,000 completion grant “for graduates of university, college and skilled trades programs to help pay down their debt when their program finishes”: based on the costing and wording, I think that means the grant is restricted to those who have provincial student loans.

The NDP also has a second batch of policies around research – $50M over two years to create a graduate scholarship fund and $100M (over an unspecified period, but based on the costing, it’s more than two years) to fund expansion of technology-related programs in BC PSE institutions.  There is also an unspecified (and apparently uncosted) promise to expand tech-sector co-op programs.  Finally, they are also promising to match the Liberals on the issue of allowing universities to build student housing outside of provincial controls on capital spending.

Finally, there are the Greens, presently running at over 20% in the polls and with a real shot at achieving a significant presence in the legislature for the first time.  They have essentially two money promises: one, “to create a need-based grant system” (no further details) and two, an ungodly bad idea to create in BC the same graduate tax credit rebate that New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and now Manitoba all have had a shot at (at least those provinces had the excuse that they were trying to combat out-migration; what problem are the BC Greens trying to solve?).

Hilariously, the Green’s price-tag for these two items together is…$10 million.  Over three years.  Just to get a sense of how ludicrous that is, the Manitoba tax credit program cost $55 million/year in a province a quarter the size.  And within BC, the feds already give out about $75M/year in up-front grants.  So I think we need to credit the Greens with being more realistic than their federal cousins (remember the federal green manifesto?  Oy.), but they have a ways to go on realistic budgeting.

(I am not doing a manifesto analysis for the BC Conservatives because a) they haven’t got one and b) I’ve been advised that if they do release one it will probably be printed in comic sans.)

What to make of all this?  Under Gordon Campbell, the Liberals were a party that “got” post-secondary education and did reasonably well by it; under Christy Clark it’s pretty clear PSE can at best expect benign neglect.  The Greens’ policies focus on price rather than quality, one of their two signature policies is inane and regressive, and their costing is off by miles.

That leaves the NDP.  I wouldn’t say this is a great manifesto, but it beats the other two.  Yeah, their student aid policies are sub-optimally targeted (they’re all for people who’ve already finished their programs, so not much access potential), but to their credit they’ve avoided going into a “tuition freezes are magic!” pose.  Alone among the parties, they are putting money into expansion and graduate studies and even if you don’t like the tech focus, that’s still something.

But on the whole, this is a weak set of manifestos.  I used to say that if I was going to run a university anywhere I’d want it to be In British Columbia.  It’s the least-indebted jurisdiction in Canada, has mostly favourable demographics, has easy access from both Asia (and its students) and from the well-off American northwest.  And it’s got a diversified set of institutions which are mostly pretty good at what they do.  Why any province would want to neglect a set of institutions like that is baffling; but based on these manifestos it seems clear that BC’s PSE sector isn’t getting a whole lot of love from any of the parties.  And that’s worrying for the province’s long-term future.

September 27

Lying With Statistics, BC Edition

A couple of weeks ago I came across a story in the Vancouver Sun quoting a Federation of Post-Secondary Educators of BC (FPSE) “report” (actually more of a backgrounder) which contained two eye-catching claims:

  1.  “per-student operating grants have declined by 20 per cent since 2001 when adjusted for inflation.”
  2.  “government revenues from tuition fees have increased by almost 400 per cent since 2001”

The subtext here is clear.  20% down vs. 400% up?  How heinous!  How awful can the Government of British Columbia be?

Well now.  What to make of this dog’s breakfast?

Let’s start with the second point.  First of all, it’s institutional income, and not government income.  But leaving that aside, there was indeed a very big rise in tuition fees back in 2001-2 and 2002-3 (presumably why the authors chose 2001 as a base…if one used 2003 as a base, it would be a very different and much less dramatic story).   But if you simply look at average university tuition (college tuition is untracked) the increase since 2001 is only 110% (in nominal dollars).  Assume the increase for colleges was a bit higher because they were working from a lower base and perhaps we can nudge that up to 125%.  Still: how does one get from there to 400%?

First, remember that the authors (whoever they may be) are talking about aggregate tuition, not average tuition.  So some of this simply reflects an increase in enrollments.  In 2001-2, there were 196,000 students in BC.  In 2013-14, the last year for which we currently have data, there were 277,515 – an increase of 41%.  Back of the envelope, multiply that by the 110% nominal tuition increase and that gets you to a 176%.  Still a ways to go to 400% though.

Second, a lot of students are moving from lower-cost programs to higher cost-programs.  Some of that is happening within universities (e.g., from Arts to Engineering), but in BC it’s mostly a function of colleges turning themselves into universities and charging more tuition.  University enrollment rose from 80,388 to 179,917 while college enrolments went from 116,007 to 197,698.  That’s a lot of extra fees.

Third, BC has a lot more international students than it used to, and they pay more in fees on an individual basis than domestic students do.  Add those two factors together and you get another 19% or so increase in aggregate fees, which brings us to a 210% total increase.

That’s still nowhere near 400%.  So, I went and checked the source data – Statistics Canada’s Financial Information of Universities and Colleges (FIUC) for Universities (cansim 477-0058 if you’re a nerd) and the Financial Information of Community Colleges and Vocational Schools (cansim 477-0060) to try to find an answer.  Here’s what I found:


Yeah, so actually not 400%, more like 207% – reasonably close to the 210% from our back-of-the-envelope exercise.  The best excuse I can come up with for the Federation of BC Post-Secondary Educators’ number is that if you extend the universities number out another year (to 2014-15), you get to $1.258B, which is almost four times (actually 3.74x) of the 2001-02 figure (which is still only a 274% increase).  But you have to a) torque the living daylights out of the numbers and b) actively confuse percentage increases and multiples to get there.

But now let’s move over to the other side of the ledger, where the Federation notes a 20% drop in government support per student, adjusted for inflation.  Let’s note straight off the first inconsistency: they’re adjusting the government grants for inflation and not doing the same for tuition.  Second inconsistency: they’re adjusting the government grants for the size of the student population and not doing the same for tuition.

It’s easy to see why FPSE does this.  As we’ve already noted, student numbers were up by 41% between 2001-2 and 2013-14.  Just do the math: a 20% per student cut while student numbers are rising by 41% actually means that government support has risen by 13%.  In real dollars. (I went back to the source data myself and came up with 14% –  Close enough).  Chew on that for a second: FPSE is ragging on a government which has increased funding for post-secondary education by – on average – 1% over and above inflation every year since 2001-2.

So quite apart from any problems with the 400% number, FPSE is making a deliberate apples-to-oranges comparison by adjusting only one set of figures for student growth and inflation.  Here’s how those numbers compare on a number of different apples-to-apples basis (and I’m being nice to FPSE here and allowing different end dates for fees and grants based on different data availability):


Now, it seems to me there’s enough in the Clark government’s record to mount a decent attack without resorting this kind of nonsense.  It certainly under-invests relative to what it could be doing given the province’s growing population.  It carries a faux-populist pro-extraction industry line to the detriment of investing in expanding knowledge industries.  It has stayed out of step with most of the rest of the country in the last ten years by not improving student assistance.  And a fair, non-torqued comparison between student fees and government grants still shows students are bearing an increasing share of the cost.

So why stoop to using transparently false figures?  One might expect that kind of chicanery from the Canadian Federation of Students, which has form in this area.  But this is from an organization which represents professors: people who actually use statistics in the search for the truth.  So why is the organization which represents them using statistics in a way that wouldn’t pass muster in an undergraduate course?

I’m quite sure most profs wouldn’t be OK with this.  So why do FPSE’s member locals tolerate it?

March 31

The Development of Post-Secondary Education Systems in Canada

This is the title of a recent-ish book (subtitle: a comparison between British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec, 1980-2010) edited, and largely written by Don Fisher and Kjell Rubenson of UBC, Teresa Shanahan of York U, and Claude Trottier of Université Laval.  Despite a couple of significant faults, it’s well worth a read.

The book’s main strengths are the three chapters that act as histories of each of the titular provinces.  We haven’t had a really decent history of Canadian higher education since Donald Cameron’s More Than an Academic Question, which came out almost 25 years ago now, and so this is a welcome addition.  (OK, it’s missing the other seven provinces, but these three provinces are 80% of the system, so that’s not too shabby.)  These chapters are thorough, detailed, and do a reasonably good job of mixing narrative storytelling with data analysis.  That’s no mean feat.

Where the book falls down (to some extent, anyway) is on two points, in particular: the analysis of accessibility, and the analysis of what they call marketization and neoliberalism.

First, on accessibility.  It’s pretty clear from the text that accessibility is defined entirely in terms of tuition fees.  Their look at student aid is superficial.  In particular, the insistence on comparing Quebec’s efforts to other provinces without taking into account the Canada Student Loans Program indicates they don’t understand the system very well.  (There’s a similar problem on R&D and the role of granting councils – the absence of a section on federal policy occasionally makes it difficult to understand what actually happened.)

What the authors do instead, in contravention of nearly all the international literature, is make a distinction between accessibility (i.e., fees) and “participation” – which is what everyone else would call accessibility.  They proceed to do two things: first, they directly compare combined college/university participation rates across the three provinces without mentioning the fact that PSE in Quebec lasts five years, while in the other provinces it’s four years.  This makes Quebec look slightly better than the other provinces, which most analysts would say is not entirely warranted.  Second, they are then surprised (really?) that even with this juking of the stats, participation rates in QC are not higher then they “should” be, given the tuition differences.  This suggests a view of access/participation that is particularly one-dimensional, and not informed by much actual literature on the subject.

And yet the issue of fees is a central one in this book.  At least one of the book’s authors – my guess would be Fisher – is really desperate to make as much hay as possible out of “marketization” in higher education, and then use this as evidence of a “neoliberalism” in which “competition” and higher fees are believed to be a spur to quality.  And while there are definitely people out there who believe this trope, the evidence that anyone in either Ontario or BC ever believed it is pretty thin (in fact, both governments introduced new external monitoring bodies to oversee quality assurance).  Yes, the Harris Tories and Campbell Liberals both allowed tuition fees to rise (as did the the NDP and Liberals in Ontario, albeit at slower rates), but allowing tuition fees to rise and “marketization” (let alone “neoliberalism”) are not one and the same thing.

There are lots of goods for which government shares costs with individuals: public transit, for instance.  The province and city put in some dough, but individuals have to pay to use the service.  Over the past couple of decades, costs have risen.  In 2005, here in Toronto, I could get on the TTC for $2.50.  Now, it’s $3.25, a 30% increase in nominal terms.  Now, if I went around telling everyone we had a neoliberal transit system because of a change in costs – irrespective of how much each government puts into the service – people would think I was mental.  Yet that’s effectively what this book argues with respect to higher education, to its distinct discredit.

So, the history is good, but the analysis ranges from decent to terrible.  Still, I urge you to pick up this book if you’re a Canadian higher ed buff.  It’s worth it, flaws and all.

February 04

The “Skills for Jobs Blueprint”

I don’t pay as much attention as I should on this blog to matters British Columbian, mostly because I don’t get out there often enough.  But the province’s “Skills for Jobs  Blueprint” cries out for some critical treatment, because frankly it’s not all that smart.

Turn back the clock a bit: in April 2014, the BC government rolled-out a series of policies that were collectively branded as the “Skills for Jobs Blueprint”.  Much of it consisted of relatively sensible changes to trades training in view of the upcoming Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) mega-project.  However, included in this package was some other stuff that sounded like it had been dreamt up on the back of a cocktail napkin.  These included: more generous student aid to students enrolled in disciplines related to “high-demand” occupations, and requiring institutions to spend at least 25% of their budgets on disciplines related to “high-demand” occupations (to be phased in by 2017-18).

The student aid pledge was just silly: if these are truly high-demand occupations, they’ll pay more, and students will have less problem re-paying loans.  Why would you give more money to these people? The requirement for institutional spending had the potential to be ridiculous, but wasn’t necessarily so.  Whatever purists might think, public authorities spend money on higher education mainly to improve the local economy; and besides, depending on how broadly “high-demand” occupations were described, they might already be spending 25%.  There was the possibility, in other words, that it would require no change at all on institutions’ part.  But that would depend crucially on how BC defined “high-demand”.

This is where it gets maddening.  When the government finally released its definition of high-demand, it had nothing to do with a skills gap, and was not in any way based on analyses of supply and demand.  Instead, it was simply the 60 occupations with the most job openings.  Or, put differently: according to the government of BC, the highest-demand occupations are simply the 60 largest occupations.  Oy.

Now, it’s hard to tell whether institutions actually line up 25% of their spending on priority disciplines related to the “big 60”, since BC doesn’t work on any kind of funding formula.  However, it is possible to reverse engineer this kind of thing by looking at enrolment patterns, and assuming that spending weights are similar to what one would see in other provinces (read: Ontario and Quebec), as we demonstrated back here.  Which is what my colleague Jackie Lambert did.

The results were instructive.  Quite clearly, all colleges meet the test.  Among universities, it’s slightly more complicated.  If you simply take all enrolments in the academic programs most directly related to 59 of the 60 “most desired” occupations, and weight them in the ON/QC style, you find that province-wide, these programs already make up 32% of expenditures, and all universities except Emily Carr would meet the 25% cut.  However, the 60th occupation with the most “demand” is university professors (yes, really), which technically can be filled by doctoral students from any program.  Throw those in and you end up with almost 47% of all dollars being spent on “priority” areas.

Ideally, this result would mean the province could just declare victory (“Look!  25%! We showed them!”) and go home.  But these days, government can’t just be seen to be ordering institutions about; they have to actually be ordering them about.  So my guess is BC will avoid declaring victory, and instead use the ambiguity created by the lack of a funding formula to jerk institutions around a bit “(Spend here!  Don’t spend there!”), just to show everyone who’s boss.

Plus ça change…

July 28

Coming Soon to Ontario: a British Columbia Solution

Unless you’ve been out of the country, or under a rock, for the last couple of years, you’ll be at least vaguely familiar with the concept that the province of Ontario is broke.  So broke, in fact, that it has departed radically from previous practice and, back in 2012, effectively froze physicians’ pay for two years.  Not individual physicians, of course – but on aggregate.  A zero overall increase.  And the government is now working to try to extend this freeze for another couple of years.

That makes good sense.  Health care costs have historically risen at several percentage points above inflation, and have squeezed other parts of the provincial budget (education has held out OK, all things considered, but other budget lines have been less well-protected), and physician costs are a major item in the health care budget.  And so saving money in this area is to be welcomed, even if it is at the expense of physicians – who are a politically tricky group to offend.

So what might the provincial government think of the post-secondary sector handing its employees raises of 3-4% per year, on aggregate?  Do you think aggrieved doctors won’t point to this anomaly during this pay round?  Can you imagine any possible rejoinder the government could offer that would make the least bit of sense?

Don’t you think maybe this situation is about to come to a rather sudden end?

For whatever reason, universities in Ontario have not been able to resist rising wage pressure from full-time faculty.  Despite money getting tighter, they have felt compelled to sign agreements that are plainly beyond their means (Hel-LO, University of Ottawa!).  Some university presidents, unable to deal with this problem on their own, are saying that they need government to step in to play “bad cop”.

What does the “bad cop” look like?  Well, take a look at how BC has handled wage negotiations over the last few years.  There, universities (and all other public sector entities) are given a biennial mandate with respect to employee negotiations.  In 2010 and 2011, the deal was: negotiate what you like, but the net cost of any new compensation deal cannot exceed zero.  In 2012 and 2013, that was changed to: there could be increases, but they had to be balanced dollar-for-dollar with efficiency savings in other areas.  The 2010-11 arrangements, in conception at least, are close to the approach Ontario has taken with its physicians.  And it worked pretty well, at least in the sense that it has kept costs down with a minimum of political fuss.

Not everyone in Ontario agrees that the province needs to take the bad cop approach.  Quite a number of university presidents (you can probably guess which ones) oppose asking the province to legislate on their behalf; not only do they feel it morally incumbent on universities to manage their own books, but also it is tactical suicide to ask governments to legislate – once you go down that road, there’s no telling where they’ll stop micromanaging universities’ affairs.

The problem is, those presidents haven’t exactly been too successful at reigning-in costs, either (hello again, University of Ottawa!).  So it seems almost inevitable that some sort of BC-like solution is on the cards.  The idea that profs could gain 15% in salary over four years, while physicians get zero, simply isn’t politically tenable.

July 23

Go West

The key to understanding what post-secondary education is going to look like a few years down the road – say, 2017 – is to look at what is likely to happen to government funding.   We can’t know exactly what governments will spend on PSE, but we can know  how much money they are going to have available to spend simply by working out how much money each will likely have once health expenditures (which make up just 40% of the budget in most provinces) are accounted for.  Today, I’ll be doing this for the country’s 4 largest provinces, which make up 88% of the country’s population

With the exception of Ontario, most provinces’ governments move more or less in step with GDP growth.  Quebec and British Columbia keep their expenditures steady at around 20% and 15 of the economy, respectively.  Alberta’s fluctuate somewhat, usually in line with changes in hydrocarbon prices.  Since the Liberals took office in 2003, Ontario has been increasing the size of its government quite steadily from 13 to 18% of GDP.

 Figure 1 – Provincial Budgets as a Percentage of GDP, 2000-2013


Given this, it seems unrealistic to expect any of these governments to increase overall expenditures much faster than GDP growth.  Alberta and BC could conceivably inch up a bit after 2014 since their spending is currently slightly below the long term average.  For simplicity’s sake, though, let’s assume that growth in those two provinces will be restricted to growth in nominal GDP, which in both provinces is expected to average 4.5-5% for the foreseeable future.

Quebec and Ontario, meanwhile, can’t grow expenditures anywhere near that much because of their abysmal finances.  Quebec’s budget currently projects spending growth to be around GDP growth minus 1% out to 2017; in Ontario, program spending is frozen in nominal dollars through to 2017.

Now, the amount of money available for PSE (and other types of government spending) is limited by what happens to the health budget.  With the overall size of government more or less steady as a percentage of the economy, every time the health budget increases more quickly than GDP, the pool of money available for every other piece of spending – including PSE – must decline. In Quebec and British Columbia, the health budget has been growing at 5-6% annually for the past decade.  In Ontario, the figure is 7% and in Alberta it is a (frankly) ludicrous 9%. 

So, let’s assume that everyone can keep health care increases to just fractionally above expected GDP growth levels (say, 5% per year). Here’s what will happen to the pool of non-health dollars available in each province: 

 Figure 2 – Nominal Non-Health Dollars Available by Province, indexed to 2013.


Your eyes do not deceive you: that is indeed a 41% funding gap opening up between Alberta and Ontario over the next four years.  Given the assumptions above, non-health spending in Alberta can grow by 20% by 2017 and BC looks set for an increase as well.  Quebec should hold just about steady; Ontario, thanks to its need to get rid of its deficit without raising revenues, is going to see a fall of a little over 15%.

To be clear: I am not saying that PSE budgets will increase or decrease by these amounts.  What I am saying is that this is a good approximation of how the amount of funds available to PSE will evolve in each province over the next four years and that if historical funding patterns hold up, these kinds of changes in nominal funding are about what we can expect.  But politics still matter, and universities and colleges could still see increases to their budgets relative to the amount of available funding if they are smart in their lobbying (or cuts if they are not).  

A couple of years ago I said that differential patterns of higher education investment meant that the country’s intellectual centre of gravity was moving west rather quickly.  Notwithstanding recent cuts in Alberta and British Columbia, it seems to me that this trend can only pick up steam in the next few years.  

June 04

Some Insights Into Medium-term Education Outcomes

As I noted yesterday, Canada is unnecessarily bad at looking at medium-term outcomes of education. The only place where we have data on university graduates even five years out is in BC, and they publish the data in such a weird format (seriously: check it out) that no one really explores them.

It could be worse. In 2005, Statscan, did a 5-year follow-up of the class of 2000 and elected not to publish any results relating to employment or income. *Facepalm*, as the kids say.

However, because I have nothing better to do, I have put together three interesting figures on how graduates fare between years 2 and 5, in select disciplines (chosen because of sample size). It’s all courtesy of that same BC data on the graduating class of 2004. I won’t bore you with employment both at 2 and 5 years, it’s uniformly quite low. Let’s start instead by looking at incomes five years out. It turns out that while some disciplines do have precarious earnings in the first two years after graduation, median incomes rise across all fields by 35% between years 2 and 5 (that’s more than 10% per year, if you’re counting). Just for comparison, the median earnings among all Canadian workers in 2009 was $46,500. So, even in the “soft” disciplines, the ones that allegedly leave people without valuable skills like English and History, graduates five years out show median incomes above the national average.

Figure 1 – Median incomes, 2 and 5 years out, BC class of 2004, selected disciplines

Ah, you say: but are they using their skills? Aren’t they, perhaps, underemployed? Well, not really. Figure 2 shows the percentage who are in jobs which have been classified by the National Occupation Classification system as either being managerial or requiring university education. In the three disciplines where that percentage is lowest after 2 years (Biology, English, and Business) the rates of employment in high-skilled jobs jumps by 50-65% in the following three years. Five years out, the difference between history grads and computer science grads is only five percentage points.

Figure 2 – Percentage of graduates in jobs classified as “Management” or “Skill Level A” by NOC, 2 and 5 years out, BC class of 2004, selected disciplines

What’s perhaps most interesting is how graduates feel about how their education changes over time (figure 3). Across the board, graduates five years out feel less satisfied with their education and are less likely to say they’d do the same program again that they did at two. But while there’s a generalized malaise among students, the regret factor is clearly a lot higher in arts and science programs than it is in professional ones.

Figure 3 – Percentage-point change in graduates indicating satisfaction with program and indicating they would take same program again, 2 and 5 years out, BC class of 2004, selected disciplines

Anyways, that’s just what one bored dude can do with available data on a crappy 12-hour flight. Imagine if governments actually wanted to improve data and analysis in this area! Possibilities: limitless.

March 18

Comparing Outcomes Across Credentials

I was doing some random websurfing the other day and I came across the BC Student Outcomes Page, which makes freely available an absolute cornucopia of data on its graduates.  BC has a seriously decent survey set-up, in that they do surveys of each graduating class, every year – universities, colleges, apprenticeships, you name it.  Actually, it’s probably overkill, but for data nerds like me it’s absolute heaven.

Anyways, BC surveys all its graduates between 9 and 20 months after graduation (not ideal, I know, because a lot can happen in that period), and asks them about their satisfaction with their program, how they rate the usefulness of the skills they gained, and their employment status.  Given all the talk going on about shifting labour markets, and the need for greater emphasis on skills training, yadda yadda, I thought I would line up the combined results for the 2009, 2010, and 2011 surveys – that is, the years that cover the recent period of elevated unemployment – to see how people with each of the three credentials rated their education.  (DataBC released the pre-compiled results, here.)

First, satisfaction: how happy are Bachelor’s graduates, Diploma/Associate Degree/Certificate graduates (which, for the sake of convenience, I’ll call “Sub-Bachelor’s” graduates), and apprenticeship graduates, with the education they received?  Well, the answer to that question is so dull I’m not even going to post a graph (lest I be accused of doing this).  Across the board, 94% said they were satisfied or very satisfied.  The only sub-group that stood out were Bachelors-level students in Education, where the percentage was 89%.

The percentage of students saying they gained useful skills and knowledge is a bit more interesting.

BC Graduates Rating Knowledge/Skills Received in Their Program as “Useful” or “Very Useful”, By Level of Credential, 2009-2011













That apprentices are most likely to rate the knowledge/skills obtained in their programs as being useful is unsurprising, but the other two sets of numbers are more interesting.  In Bachelor’s programs, all programs except Arts/Science (78%) and Visual/Performing Arts (81%) are in the high-80s or low-90s.  In sub-bachelor’s program it’s a similar story, with General Arts and Science (53%) and Visual/Performing Arts (63%) pulling down other averages, which are in the high-70s to low-90s. Takeaway: provision of useful skills in BC colleges is pretty uneven.

Now, here’s the killer stat: unemployment rates.

Unemployment Rates of Recent Graduates, By Level of Credential, 2009-2011













Yes, really.  Break it down even further and you get even more interesting numbers: Visual/Performing Arts BAs – 8%; Arts and Science BAs/BScs – 9%; Construction trades apprentices – 11%.

Now, it’s great – obviously – that people are taking apprenticeships and skilled trades more seriously these days.  But this meme about how undergraduate degrees are inferior to other forms of education in terms of skills and job outcomes?  It’s factually incorrect.  It’s got to stop.