Maclean’s determinants of quality mislead readers

University quality is more than the average entrance grade

Emõke Szathmáry

Illustration by Ted Barker

In her November 16 assessment of the 2005 Maclean’s university rankings and the placement of the University of Manitoba, Tessa Vanderhart writes that the problems with our university become “entrenched by time and mediocrity.” She concludes that, “The problem is with our university, regardless of any other explanation.”

Ms. Vanderhart draws some comparisons between the University of Manitoba and the next closest medical-doctoral university, the University of Saskatchewan. On finances, she compares us with McGill University. Fair enough, but because scores fluctuate year by year on any measure, to draw weighty conclusions, we need at least a three-year time horizon.

On the matter of retention rates

Ms. Vanderhart notes that prairie universities generally have lower retention rates than universities elsewhere. However, she asserts that at the University of Manitoba, “students are uncommonly willing to leave,” as we have the second-lowest retention rate among the 15 medical-doctoral institutions. Over the past three years, however, the U of S consistently had a lower rate of retention (average: 82.9 per cent) than did U of M (average: 84.5 per cent). Further, the University of Saskatchewan ranked 10th overall among medical-doctoral institutions, showing that being in the “top 10” overall does not preclude students’ early departure, and at an apparently higher rate than at the University of Manitoba.

Entrance grades and other measures of the student body

Students at the University of Saskatchewan have higher average entering grades (86.7 per cent) than do students at the University of Manitoba (83.1 per cent). The fraction of incoming students with marks of 95 per cent or higher is also higher at Saskatchewan than at Manitoba (In 2005: U of S ranked first of the 15 universities, at 11.2 per cent; U of M ranked fourth at 7.9 per cent). Does it then follow that U of M students are of lower quality relative to the students at U of S? Not necessarily, for performance in high school depends on several factors.

One test of student quality, regardless of entrance grades, is student performance according to external standards. To assess this, we can use the number of national awards received per 1,000 students over a three-year period. Over the past three years, according to Maclean’s, our students have received almost twice as many awards as have students at U of S (average: 5.2 at U of M, 2.9 at U of S).

It is worth noting that Maclean’s assigns a weight of 11 per cent to the average entering grade, but only three per cent to the number of student awards received. It ignores the fraction coming in with marks of 95 per cent but assigns a score to those coming in with marks of 75 per cent or higher. To me, not only is the treatment of incoming marks arbitrary, but it also makes no sense that the marks students bring from high school should be regarded as more important than the national awards they receive in university.

Another factor that should indicate that performance in university is more important than are the grades brought in from high school is the proportion of students that graduate within a year of their expected date of graduation. Maclean’s, however, assigns a weight of only two per cent to this measure.

Nevertheless, on this measure, we again outperform the University of Saskatchewan. A higher proportion of students graduated here last year (90.5 per cent at U of M, 87.2 per cent at U of S), and the three-year averages are 87.6 per cent here, 87.5 per cent at U of S.

To me, these scores do not reflect mediocrity in neither our students nor the faculty who teach the students, nor the counselling staff who work with them to help them achieve success.

Money, Money, Money . . .

Ms. Vanderhart focused a great deal of attention on finances, and she makes some claims- for example, McGill’s having the “lowest tuition in Canada,” -that are true only if one believes that the institution has a single tuition fee. In fact, M cGill has three different undergraduate tuition fees: one for Québec students, another for out-of-province students, and yet another for international students, with Québec students paying the least. McGill also charges significant ancillary fees.

The tuition fees reported by Maclean’s for the University of Manitoba, as for McGill University, represent an average of the tuition paid by students in arts and science. The University of Saskatchewan chooses to report its fees without averaging, that is, separately for students in arts and for those in science. Only Québec universities have different tuition fees for students from other provinces.

Does this table support the assertion that McGill University gets by financially, even rises to the top of the Maclean’s ranking, in spite of having the lowest tuition in Canada? The answer depends on three perspectives: students who pay the in-province tuition fee and the large ancillary fees that go with it, students who pay the out-of-province fee plus the ancillary fees, and finally, students who pay international student fees, which are even higher than the out-of-province fees. Québec students may say “yes” to the question, but a student from Manitoba studying at McGill would disagree. In fact, what matters is not what specific groups of students pay, but the total tuition income flowing to an institution.

Because McGill attracts a greater percentage of out-of-province students (33.2 per cent to U of M’s 8.5 per cent and U of S’s 7.7 per cent), it is easy to show that, with this kind of differential proportions of in-province and out-of-province students and differential fees charged for students from other Canadian provinces for the same number of students, McGill University actually receives more fee revenue for its operating budget than does the University of Manitoba.

Do McGill University and the University of Toronto receive as much federal funding as U of M and U of S?

Contrary to Tessa Vanderhart’s assertion, the U of M does not “receive just as much funding from the federal government” as do other universities, whether those are named as McGill or Toronto or Saskatchewan. The federal government does transfer funds, but it transfers them to the provinces rather than to the universities.

Further, the funds transferred from Ottawa are not for universities only, but include money for colleges along with health care and social services, and each province decides how it wants to apportion the total funds. To date, in every province, health care has been getting the bulk of the funds, rather than the universities.

It should be noted that if the operating budget is not sufficient to meet a university’s needs, that fact does not constitute a problem in some jur isdictions. McGill University, for example, had an accumulated operating deficit of $18 million this past spring, and as Québec universities may run deficits annually, it is not alone. Laval’s accumulated deficit is $117.8 million and Montréal’s is $39.6 million! Manitoba, however, has balanced budget legislation, and the U of M struggles to avoid an operating deficit every year.

Did U of M propose to use provincial funds for “technology upgrades”?

I have no idea where Ms. Vanderhart conceived the notion that last June, contrary to the University of Winnipeg, the University of Manitoba was “demanding more money to avoid debt, and then covering it up with promises to improve technology.” We did neither.

Last May the U of M projected that it would be able to balance its budget this fiscal year and would not have to impose any cuts if three new ancillary fees were implemented in September 2005. However, we were invited to make a proposal for one-time funding rather than charge students new ancillary fees. The U of W may have proposed improving its technology and infrastructure; we did not.

Our proposal was for the Council on Post-Secondary Education (COPSE) to fund with a supplementary grant, that portion of the U of M budget that had been reserved for contractual obligations incurred years ago under our systems renewal plans. More staff than students will know that the U of M’s mainframe computer is charitably called an antique, and has to be replaced by the end of 2006.

The new hardware and software is expensive, but these new systems are essential because they ensure, for example, that staff are paid correctly and on time, and that grades are calculated correctly and on time, among myriad other administrative functions they perform. Systems renewal costs for the current year are $7.2 million.

COPSE was willing to provide $6.9 million, which is equivalent to the sum that the three new ancillary fees would have provided were they implemented in September. COPSE’s promise made it clear that there was no need to levy new ancillary fees to balance the budget and to maintain staff and services in areas that matter to students: student services, library services, admission services. We could direct the money freed up from the reserve for systems renewal and use it for these purposes this year.

This is not deception; it is fact. We said we would use the funds to pay for systems renewal contracts that are due this year, and we are using the government’s $6.9 million to pay for what we proposed.

Real problems, no solutions?

Tessa Vanderhart asserts that, “The problem is with our university, regardless of any other explanation.” My response to her is that, while the University of Manitoba can certainly improve its true performance — rather than the items that Maclean’s measures — the problem is not with the U of M. To me, matters such as those outlined above are more than “petty numerical critiques,” which is how Ms. Vanderhart summarized criticisms of Maclean’s methodology.

The evidence shows that the University of Manitoba is underfunded relative to other medical-doctoral universities; nevertheless, the University of Manitoba outperforms comparable universities in a number of areas important to students. The problem, I believe, is not with us but with those who choose to judge us.

Emõke Szathmáry is president and vice chancellor of the University of Manitoba.