Higher Education Strategy Associates

Tag Archives: Laurentian University

August 30

A Francophone University for Ontario?

On Monday, the Government of Ontario released a proposal for a francophone university in Ontario, saying, effectively, “it’s about time we had one”.  This came as a surprise to many, who wondered “well, what about University of Ottawa, Laurentian University and Glendon College?”

But of course, none of these are truly francophone. Well, U of O is in theory but it was swamped by anglophones long ago and now does a majority of its teaching in English.  Laurentian was from its founding a bilingual university rather than a francophone one, but in practice it has not always lived up to the ideal, much to the irritation of some of its francophone staff.  And Glendon – well, Glendon’s a francophone college, but it’s part of York University, which is about as anglo as it gets.

Where this new institution is supposed to be different is that it will teach only in French,  And it will be governed entirely by francophones.  Which, to the francophone community, makes quite a difference. And with over half a million francophones in the province, it’s not difficult to argue that maybe such an institution exist.   But the question is: will students actually attend?  Whatever the rationale for such an institution, can it compete with Ottawa/Laurentian/Glendon – let alone anglophone institutions?

Well, here’s where it gets tricky.  The recommendation in the report suggests that the new institution be set up in Toronto, which I think strikes many people as odd because the city is not exactly known as a francophone hub.  Supporters of the ideas can turn around and note that over a third of the province’s francophone population lives in Central and southern Ontario.  That said, there aren’t many employers in the region that would put much of a premium on French education, which may limit its attractiveness to students in the area.

Perhaps more to the point: if there were significant demand for French education in the city, you kind of think that either Laurentian or Ottawa would have met it by delivering programs there.  The fact that they haven’t may suggest that predictions of thousands of students flocking to a new institution with no track record may be based more in hope than reality.

(The report itself suggests 1,000 FTE students by 2023-2024 and 2,220 by 2030.  This is pretty much a fantasy, and I suspect it owes at least something to a piece of market research which was conducted on the idea about four years ago which was – and I am not exaggerating here – the actual worst piece of social science I have ever seen.  Among many other data atrocities – bar graphs adding up to over 100%, that kind of thing – it calculated potential attendance at a new university by asking students in francophone high schools in south-central Ontario if they wanted to go to university in French but never probed about alternatives to a new university such as Laurentian, Ottawa and Glendon.   SMH, as the kids say.)

Back in the early 1990s, there was an attempt to provide French-language college-level programming in Toronto, through a new institution called College de Grand Lacs.  It failed through lack of enrolments within about five years, with Collège Boréale eventually coming in to pick up the pieces.  That’s not to say this institution will necessarily suffer the same fate; but it’s not a great precedent and probably more consideration should have been given to it in the report itself.

Now low enrolments aren’t necessarily a barrier to creating and maintaining a minority language institution.  It’s really a question of how much you want to pay and what kind of programs you expect to support.  Could Toronto support something like Nova Scotia’s Université Ste. Anne or Manitoba’s Université St. Boniface?  Almost certainly, though getting up to the latter’s status might take more time than the report suggests (getting students to go to new universities is hard– no one wants to be a guinea pig).  And if that’s the ambition, then it’s probably do-able.

But if the ambition is something more Moncton than Manitoba, then that probably won’t fly.  Like it or not, Laurentian and Ottawa will be competing for these same students: and that’s a lot of fish in a not-terribly large pond.  Bottom line: this is a manageable project if ambitions are small, but the greater the ambition, the riskier this idea becomes.

September 23

Another Reason to Get Serious About Measuring Workloads

So I see the Laurentian faculty union is threatening to strike.  The main issues are “workload” (they’d like to have lower undergraduate teaching loads to deal with an influx of graduate students) and pay (they’d like to “close the gap” with the rest of Ontario).

This is where the entire system would be well served by having some understanding of what, exactly, everybody is getting paid for.  Obviously, if you’re doing the same amount and type of work as someone else, you’ve got a pretty good claim to parity.  The problem is that what professors do – that is, their expected workload and outputs – can vary significantly from one place to another.

Lets’s take the issue of graduate supervision.  Laurentian profs are doing more of it than they used to – overall, 6% of full-time enrolments at Laurentian were at the graduate level in 2012, up from 4% five years earlier.  But if we’re going to use “the Ontario average” as a goal, it’s worth noting that across the province, 12% of full-time students are graduate students.  So on average, Laurentian professors do only about half as much graduate supervision as other professors across the province – and probably less if we were to weight doctoral supervision more highly.

Well, what about undergraduate teaching – maybe they do more of it that others?  On paper, they teach 3/2 (except in Science and Engineering, where its 2/2).  That’s the same as at most smaller Ontario institutions, and somewhat more than you’d see at larger institutions where 2/2 or even 2/1 is the norm.  But that’s not the whole story: class sizes are smaller at Laurentian.  Sixty-seven per cent of all undergraduate classes at Laurentian are under 30 students, compared to just 51% at York (though, surprisingly, the figure at Queen’s is almost the same as Laurentian – 65%).  But ask yourself: which takes more work, a 2/1 with average class sizes of 60, or a 3/2 with an average class size of 30?  Hard to tell.  But how can you make arguments about “equal pay for equal work” unless you know?

Then there’s research output.  If you use tri-council funding as a metric, and normalize for field of study, Laurentian profs in Science and Engineering are winning about 55% of the national average – higher than Ryerson, but less than half of what Carleton gets.  That’s not too bad.  In humanities and social sciences, however, Laurentian wins only 21% of the national average – about a fifth of what they get at Ottawa, and a third of what they get at Laurier (all data from our Measuring Academic Research in Canada paper, available here.  I could go on with data about publications and citations, but you get the idea: Laurentian professors’ research output isn’t all that close to the provincial average.

To recap: Laurentian is a school where (on average) professors have lower graduate teaching responsibilities and research output than the Ontario average, and an undergraduate teaching load that is higher than average in terms of number of classes, but is arguably lower in terms of total students taught.  So where should their pay be, relative to the provincial average?  Probably somewhere below the average, which indeed is where it is.

But the question for this dispute is: how far below?  Better comparative data, combined with some agreement about the relative weight of different parts of the professorial job, would take a lot of heat out of this debate.