Jeffrey Doucet / The Silhouette
On Tuesday, Ontario Progressive Conservative leader Tim Hudak released a policy paper titled “Paths to Prosperity: Higher Learning for Better Jobs.”
The paper lays out a series of recommendations that would dramatically change the post-secondary education landscape in Ontario. There are several points in the paper that will catch the eye of students, professors and university administrators. The paper aims to advance policy that will change the way financial aid and education is delivered across Ontario.
The paper advances an argument that the Ontario government must hold universities and students more accountable, while gearing undergraduate education towards the job market.
Hudak boldly proposes to grant student loans based on academic achievement, calling it a market solution. “Decisions about who should receive loans and how much money is to be awarded should involve assessments of future employability and should reward good academic behaviour,” he says.
This is troubling. It is the role of the university to evaluate students and determine if they merit a university degree.
Giving OSAP the power to evaluate the worth of a student will undermine our universities. If Hudak believes that poor academic performance will lead to worthless degrees, he should push universities to improve undergraduate education.
While any paper on university education will get the attention of student groups, this paper begs for it. Hudak argues that both student unions and university administrations need to be held more accountable when it comes to student fees. Specifically, “students should be allowed to opt-out of paying fees that go toward political advocacy.”
This is a reaction to a small number of student groups across Ontario that have engaged in poor fiscal management and partisan political advocacy. Hudak references the McMaster Association of Part-Time Students (surprise) as well as two other student groups in Ontario. When you consider the number of student unions in Ontario – we have 47 Post-Secondary institutions – it seems absurd for the party to attack all political advocacy efforts by student groups. Advocacy from special interest groups is an important part of the democratic process, and the small number of groups referenced is evidence of a poorly crafted policy.
While some ideas floated in the paper are troubling, others would lead to a stronger undergraduate education.
They argue that universities should embrace teaching-only faculty as a means of improving learning quality and the student experience. This is a welcomed initiative, but will be difficult to implement. If elected, Hudak will be forced to navigate existing faculty agreements that bind faculty positions to research.
Hudak makes a strong push for focusing universities on job creation. The paper suggests funding universities based on levels of immediate employment for graduates. This would reward universities for programs that have high employment rates for their graduates immediately after education. While professional programs will likely welcome the idea and opportunity for enhanced investment, non-professional programs will reap little benefit from this policy. To implement this policy and funding mechanism, a Hudak government will have to define meaningful employment. With our current job market for new grads, good luck.
The Progressive Conservatives are leaning heavily on the assumption that we are in university to get a job.
They are gambling that we will accept less autonomy for our universities if it will increase job numbers. In the coming months it will be interesting to see reaction from student groups, professors, university administrators and other provincial parties. The official opposition has raised important questions that we as undergrads must answer.
We’re not in University to get jobs?
I think this is a good idea, although there will be some problems in implementing these new policies, I think it’s time the Ontario Government started to take a closer look at its investments.
“Decisions about who should receive loans and how much money is to be awarded should involve assessments of future employability and should reward good academic behaviour”
I’m in University for an education, not necessarily a job. I don’t think it should be looked at as a means to obtain employment.
I’m really not a fan of an idea like this, as it undermines the general foundations which Universities emerged. To educate and research. Discover new truths and teach old.
Also, this idea that students who choose degrees based on high employment levels should be rewarded is ridiculous and limiting to our futures as students. If we’re going to go off this logic of providing funding based on a degree’s level of employability, I would argue that degrees with lower levels employability get more funding than those that lead to jobs like an engineer, doctor, or entrepreneur, as those jobs will pay off student debt is a shorter period of time. But again, this type of logic would also be completely absurd.
This is a way of destroying arts and culture. We’re already seeing this in our high schools and even at McMaster. Instead of further discriminating against those with creative minds, we need to start celebrating the fact that art is what holds and carries Canadian culture through generations. Not our medicine, engineering or business practices.
thinking university exists mainly to train the children of the privileged classes to get jobs, and funding it accordingly, is tantamount to burning books. It ignores that university also exists to keep classes separate in other important ways, that only Liberals like. I guess the conservatives are only playing to their base though, with nonsensical corporate speak about market solutions – just like when Hudak wanted to implement chain-gangs. They realize there is still a sizeable hillbilly demographic if you drive like 2 minutes outside of any Ontario city. Then there’s former mac prof MPP in the conservative party that wants to cut that 30% funding rebate thing – thanks man, go fuck yourself
“They argue that universities should embrace teaching only faculty as a means of improving learning quality and the student experience. It is a welcomed initiative…”
I find this rather irritating. I have worked as an educator for over five years now and I every year I hear the same complaint; “my professor sucks, that’s why I failed”. There is a dynamic that exists between faculty, students and academia that needs to be addressed. Students who approach various subjects with a negative attitude are doomed to fail. While I admit there are individuals in an academic profession who dislike students it is rarely unwarranted. I have always tried to be approachable and enthusiastic when teaching but the negativity that some students bring to my classroom and office hours affects how I feel. The more negative the environment the harder to teach it becomes. University is about academics, it’s about going above and beyond and immersing yourself in a subject you are passionate about. Introducing faculty who are soley there to teach is a bigger detriment to the university experience than many undergraduate students realize. Students constantly ask “how to I apply this to the real world?”. While the examples are rare specific these questions are only answered by experience in research where academics have applied their education to a topic that peaks there interest. Without faculty who have a research background how can you expect research opportunities to exist? Undergraduate Student Research Awards are possible only because faculty members have experience in research.
There is more to the university experience than learning quality. It is an experience which is unique to every student. While issues may exist the solution is not “teaching only” faculty. If you spoke to a student who isn’t at university for a job but is here to learn you would see this.