This is a time of change in higher education in Canada.
David Agnew, former Cabinet Secretary for the Government of Ontario, current President of Seneca College, and Chair of Colleges Ontario, drew attention to the changes occurring in Ontario in a speech to the Canadian Club in October 20151. Some of the changes occurring in Ontario and across Canada increase access to, and success in, higher education for many who would otherwise not have been able to go to college or university. Other changes are not so positive, as Agnew also
observed. Some colleges and universities are struggling to survive while others appear to be thriving. Understanding the current and future dynamics of the higher education system is important, especially for those leading the system or developing the policies which guide it.
Background/Context:
Scarce research has been conducted examining why students choose to attend higher priced for-profit institutions over community colleges. The authors suggest that increased national concern over proprietary higher education warrants an in-depth comparative case study of the choice factors utilized by for-profit and community college students.
Gemmell grew up on a berry farm in Stirling, Ont., watching his father fx or create whatever equipment he needed with whatever materials he had. It was a childhood that stoked his own passion for industrial design. (He once built an insulated dog house for the family pet, complete with a Plexiglas room with a view.) But when his portfolio of “backyard inventions” wasn’t enough to earn him a spot in the industrial design program at Carleton University, Gemmell ended up on a 13-year trek through life and higher learning. He earned a bachelor’s degree in visual arts and psychology at Brock University, worked for a year as a web designer in Toronto, but “wasn’t really feeling it,” so he spent a year in Whistler, B.C. snowboarding, and teaching snowboarding, until he ran out of money.
Work-integrated learning (WIL) has been identified as a key strategy for supporting Canada’s postsecondary education (PSE) system in responding to an increasingly dynamic, globalized, knowledge-based economy. Ontario in particular has been described as a “hot bed” of co-operative education (Ipsos Reid, 2010). However, while there is a common belief that WIL improves employment outcomes (see Gault, Redington & Schlager, 2000; Kramer & Usher, 2010), research on this topic has generally been specific to certain programs and types of WIL (Sattler, 2011).
The COVID-19 epidemic has struck a blow to physical mobility worldwide. Notices about institutional closures, social distancing and self-quarantining have compelled us all to part ways with our established routines, in one way or another. This could, however, be an opportunity to re-examine higher education internationalisation, including its objectives, scope, strategies and intended impact.
Such pondering should not be seen as a knee-jerk reaction to recent developments and the sudden severity with which they have problematised business-as-usual. Rather, as I have argued in my book Internationalising the University: A spiritual approach, the best way forward will emerge not “from problem-solving in a crisis mindset” but from “a completely new point
of departure and framework of orientation”. There are several issues to consider.
National statistics indicate that more than 6.4 million children and youth with disabilities between 3 and 21 years-of-age received special education services during the 20132014 academic school year (U.S. Department of Education, 2015). In addition, 95% of these students received special education services in public schools, with 61% or more of them said to be highly included80% or more of their school dayin general education classroom settings (U.S. Department of Education, 2015). On one hand, these estimates may be quite positive given the high number of students educated in inclusive settings. On the other, they can be disconcerting because inclusion greatly relies on educators who are ill-prepared to meet the needs of all students, and would prefer not to do inclusion (p. 307).
In this paper we utilize interview data to explore the workings of a college–community partnership program that delivers tuition-free, for-credit courses to low-income adult students in neighbourhood-based settings. Addressing the interplay of individual and structural barriers on the educational readiness of students, our findings explore how the program builds participants’
confidence and self-belief, and how the neighbourhood-based delivery model encourages their engagement with post-secondary education (PSE). We find that the value of embedding PSE capacity and resources in low-income communities lies not only in its potential to engage adult learners, but also in how it nurtures a greater sense of community integration and social inclusion. We
conclude by suggesting that our study provides a useful foundation for institutions elsewhere aiming to recalibrate and extend their community outreach strategies when seeking to promote post-secondary access and engagement for low-income populations.
The number of postdoctoral researchers that burn out at an early stage of their career seems to be increasing, and mental health has been a hot topic at universities and institutes across the world. The scientist in me always wonders why it is this group that is particularly at risk? Funding struggles, job insecurity and pressure to perform are obvious contributors but do they explain the whole picture? In this post, I dare to suggest that dangerous habits of thinking
commonly found amongst the scientific community may also play a role. Do any of the following seem familiar?
Top motivations to study or train abroad remain the same as in recent years: the opportunity to live abroad and meet new
people, improve foreign language proficiency, develop transversal skills. Just after comes the wish to enhance employability abroad for more than 85% of students.
On average, Erasmus students have better employability skills after a stay abroad than 70% of all students. Based on their personality traits, they have a better predisposition for employability even before going abroad. By the time they return they have increased their advantage by 42% on average. While 81% of Erasmus students perceive an improvement in their transversal skills when they come back, 52% show higher memo© factors. In all cases, they consider the improvement of skills to be greater than they expected before going abroad.
Currently, there is great interest across Ontario in the expansion of pathway programs between colleges and universities. Through strategic partnerships, two Ontario-based postsecondary institutions (a college and a university) have developed innovative and effective pathway programs that facilitate the transition of students between institutions for the completion of degrees, diplomas, and certificates. These programs support the training of highly qualified, market-ready graduates. This paper reports on a mixed-methods study of the successes and challenges of a particular Ontario college and university
pathway program, with a focus on the Bachelor of Commerce Pathway program. Preliminary results indicate that pathway students were more academically successful than their traditional university student counterparts but did experience a number of challenges in transitioning from college into university. Principal challenges included inefficient communication between
program administrators, academic advisors, and students; lack of orientation activities for pathway students; lack of college student preparedness in communication and critical thinking skills; and difficulties experienced by college
students integrating into the social–cultural life of the university.
Want to make Gen Y good financial stewards? Let them learn from
each other—and be prepared to give up control.
This follow-up report, Faster, Cheaper, Smarter: Improving Efficiency at Ontario Universities, focuses on innovation through partnership. Universities continue to control costs through collaboration, shared services, and administrative efficiencies, while improving services for students and staff. The Ontario government’s Productivity and Innovation Fund (PIF) – a $45 million investment in Ontario’s postsecondary sector – was a major catalyst for collaboration that has achieved amazing results. We thank the government for this significant investment.
A recent Globe and Mail article pointed out that Canadian universities appear to be slipping in world rankings. This is not a good thing. Higher education institutions — because of the students they teach, the research and discoveries they make, and the communities they support — are some of the most critical public institutions in Canada positioning us for a robust economy with plentiful good jobs and the quality of life and civil society Canadians want and merit.
The challenge Canada faces in higher education is best summarized in this question: How can we deliver a better education to more students with no more money?
The Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation recently released a report demonstrating that those with a university degree comprised only 22% of the population but contributed 41% of income tax paid and only received 14% of government transfers. Concurrently, there is a very specific and tangible local economic benefit associated with a post-secondary institution operating in a community. In Kingston, ON, for example, an impact study in 2003 showed that, all told, Queen’s University injects approximately $500 million into the local economy each year. These economic benefits prove that an investment in
post secondary education is not only an investment in students and innovation, but also a true commitment to the future success and prosperity of the province and the nation.
The governance of complex, decentralised, multi-level education systems poses two fundamental questions for both policy- and research discussions: What are innovative contemporary governance strategies for the central level in education systems? How can these approaches be described and analysed to identify commonalities that might help to understand how and if they work? In addressing these questions, this paper’s aim is twofold: first, to inform the policy-discussion by presenting empirical examples of new governance mechanisms that central governments use to steer systems across their levels; and second, to contribute to the conceptual discussion of how to categorise and analyse the evolution of new governance structures. To do so, the paper starts with identifying core features of multi-level governance and the respective conceptual gaps it produces. It then introduces a simple analytical categorisation of modes of governance. An analysis of three
empirical cases (an institutionalised exchange between governance levels in Norway, a capacity building programme in Germany, and the Open Method of Coordination within the European Union) then shows how various education systems address these gaps and design the role of the central level in complex decision-making structures. A comparison of the three cases identifies – despite the heterogeneity of the cases – several communalities, such as multi-staged policy processes,
transparency and publicity, and soft sanctions. The paper concludes that the Open Method of Coordination, even though often criticised for its inefficiencies, might serve as a promising template for national approaches to soft governance in education. Further research on OECD education systems is needed to gather more empirical examples; these may help to get a better
understanding of what is needed for successful steering from the central level in decentralised contexts.
So many of our conversations about social media revolve around statistics: two billion Facebook users, 1.5 billion YouTube users, 800 million Instagram users. On a single day we produce 525 million tweets, upload 54 million photos, and watch five billion videos. It is the size of those audiences and the scale of the activity that prove so enticing to academics keen to descend from the ivory tower.
They always say that the country’s pillar of success can be view based on the quality of its education. For many, it is pivotal for the country to invest in education sector to ensure that its people can be able to attain a desirable employment and standard of living for themselves. That is why for the past decade we witness how the Philippine government restructured multiple times its basic educational system and continue to search for possible upgrade needed in the prevalent state of education in the Philippines. The latest is the implementation of K-12 program whose goal is add an additional two-year in basic schooling as senior high school and the inclusion of technical and vocational courses as part of the option especially to those students not planning to go to college, thus it will give them opportunities to be employed blue-collar work. The new curriculum was introduced and started in 2011 by Former DepEd secretary Armin Luistro. It has been a challenge but a strategic move on the part of the government because the successful implementation of the K to 12 programs in the country will ensure that our educational system can be able to produce graduates who are globally competent that are capable to get employed because they have skills needed to fulfil the pillars of globalized world.
Background/Context:Policy discussions in the U.S. and abroad have become increasingly studded with reference to the results of international tests like PISA. Unlike most assessments, PISA is not designed to measure whether students have mastered a particular school curriculum but rather provide a measure of students ability to meet future challenges irrespective of where in the world they live. Though growing in influence, the concept of a contextless form of accountability has an important antecedent in the history of American education: the Tests of General Educational Development (GED), which were developed in the 1940s to assist the transition of American World War II servicemen and women.
Abstract
Canadian students have academic and non-academic obligations, and their ability to balance them may impact university experience. Involvement in academic and non-academic activities, and the perception of balancing them was compared between students with and without disabilities. Results revealed that both groups of students participated in employment, social activities, and family obligations. Furthermore, perceived ability to balance academic and non-academic activities was associated with higher academic self-efficacy and resourcefulness in all students. Relative to non-disabled peers, students with disabilities spent fewer hours participating in non-academic activities, had fewer course hours, but studied as many hours. Students with disabilities who had difficulties balancing their multiple roles were less adapted to university. The time to access accommodations for learning may act as a barrier to adaptation. Creating university policies around accommodations for learning would benefit students with disabilities, and the incorporation of resourcefulness and time-management into university curriculum would benefit all students.
Résumé Les étudiants canadiens ont tous des obligations scolaires et parascolaires, et leur capacité à les équilibrer entre elles peut avoir des répercussions sur leur expérience universitaire. La participation à des activités scolaires et parascolaires, et la perception d’arriver à les équilibrer entre elles a été comparée entre étudiants avec handicap et étudiants sans handicap. Les résultats ont démontré que les étudiants avaient tous des obligations professionnelles, sociales et familiales, peu importe s’ils étaient affligés d’un handicap ou non. En outre, la perception de pouvoir équilibrer entre elles les activités scolaires et parascolaires a été associée à une meilleure efficacité scolaire autodidacte et à un meilleur esprit d’initiative chez tous les étudiants. Comparativement à leurs camarades sans handicap, les étudiants avec handicap consacraient moins d’heures à des activités parascolaires, disposaient de moins d’heures de cours, mais étudiaient autant d’heures. Les étudiants avec handicap qui avaient de la difficulté à équilibrer leurs multiples rôles étaient moins adaptés à la vie universitaire. Comme le temps nécessaire pour accéder aux installations d’apprentissage peut constituer une barrière à l’adaptation, l’élaboration de politiques universitaires autour des installations d’apprentissage serait bénéfique pour les étudiants avec handicap. De même, l’intégration de l’esprit d’initiative et de la gestion du temps dans le programme d’études universitaires profiterait à tous les étudiants.
I got a job offer. Yay! But I only got one offer, and I’m a brand new Ph.D., so I assume I don’t really have the standing to negotiate anything. That’s only for people who have competing offers or amazing records, right?
This is one of the most common misunderstandings about negotiating. Every candidate has the potential to negotiate elements of a job offer. That’s true even if you have no competing offer, and are a brand new Ph.D. The only reason ever to hesitate on this front is if you’ve picked up red flags about the institution being one that possibly rescinds offers.