Maclean's critieria for university ranking inconsistent withU of S mandate
Posted November 08, 1999
Tweet
| FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - Monday, November 8, 1999 | 99-11-07-OTHER |
Maclean's critieria for university ranking inconsistent with U of S mandate
Despite charging one of the lowest tuition rates in the country and providing a full range of high quality programs at a low cost to taxpayers, the U of S was ranked 14 out of 15 by Maclean's. MacKinnon noted, "Maclean's does not rank the amount of tuition charged to students. Because so many of the criteria used in the rankings rely on a healthy operating budget, the U of S is, in effect, punished by Maclean's for low tuition fees." The U of S has one of the lowest operating grants per weighted full-time equivalent student of any university in its category.
Citing student affordability, accessibility to the university for Saskatchewan residents, and targeted administrative efforts as among the values important to the U of S, President MacKinnon said, "The Maclean's rankings do not take into account the special mandates of universities like the University of Saskatchewan, whose first commitment is to serve the people of this province. And that, I feel, is its greatest weakness. I am dedicated to ensuring that the University of Saskatchewan is able to compete with any university in the country. But I am also dedicated to ensuring that we are competitive in areas that make sense for this university, and for this province."
For more information, please contact:
Peter MacKinnon, President
University of Saskatchewan
(306) 966-6612
U of S Fact Sheet
Maclean's Annual
Universities Ranking (1999)
On Nov. 8, 1999, Maclean’s published its annual universities ranking. Maclean’s measures and ranks universities against a set of criteria that, taken as a whole, suggest an "ideal" university. The differences among universities for most of the criteria are minimal, because most Canadian universities are quite similar. However, in some cases the values that underlie the choice of criteria are inconsistent with the University of Saskatchewan's mandate.
AFFORDABILITY
Maclean’s does not rank the amount of tuition charged to students. The University of Saskatchewan has one of the lowest tuition rates in the country, but affordability is not a value which is rewarded in the rankings. In fact, if the U of S were to increase tuition by $1,000 per student, it would continue to be competitive with other
universities such as the University of Toronto in cost to student, and would jump two spots in the rankings by investing the additional funds directly into Students Affairs & Services, and Scholarships & Bursaries.
ACCESSIBILITY
Maclean’s ranks universities based on the number of students they admit from outside of their home province. For many years, the U of S had a "Saskatchewan First" policy which ensured that Saskatchewan youngsters would have first claim to a seat at the university. To this day we continue to draw most of our undergraduate students from Saskatchewan, although we do attract more international graduate students.
A second component of accessibility is the grade point average required for admission. Currently, the average high school student entering the U of S has a grade point average of 82%. This is very close to the Canadian mean of 82.4%. If the U of S were to increase the grade point average to 85%, the U of S would climb two spots in the Maclean’s rankings. But what impact would such a move have on accessibility?
FRUGALITY
Maclean's assigns points based on operating grant per weighted full-time equivalent student; universities with higher operating grants receive more points. The University of Saskatchewan has one of the lowest operating grants per weighted full-time equivalent student of any university in its category, but the fact that it offers a full range of high quality programs at the lowest cost, without running a deficit, is a strike against it in the survey.
The size of an operating grant alone does not guarantee quality; it is possible to have a very large operating grant and be wasteful, but Maclean’s has no way of auditing the use of university operating grants other than the criteria used in the rankings.
SIZE OF OPERATING BUDGET
The size and flexibility of a university’s operating budget has a significant impact on how a university is ranked. The University of Saskatchewan’s operating fund makes up 49% of its total revenues. These are the funds that have the most flexibility in their use; they are the funds the university relies on to offer its academic programs. The other revenues the university receives are designated for a particular purpose, and cannot be diverted to meet operating needs. One example is research funds; another is capital funding for maintaining buildings.
This becomes significant when determining what proportion of its operating budget the university can devote to Student Affairs and Services, or Scholarships and Bursaries. This is why university leaders express concern about "starving the core;" having funds available to ensure a high quality academic experience for students. Special purpose funds do not replace core funding.
ALUMNI SUPPORT
Given the restricted flexibility of the university's funding, administrative efforts must be as targeted as possible. But this targeted approach, at least as it applies to alumni fund raising efforts, is another strike against the U of S in the Maclean’s rankings.
Maclean’s gives points for the number of alumni who have contributed within the past five years as a proportion of the total alumni. The size of the gift is irrelevant. This means that if the U of S were to solicit one dollar from 25% of its alumni, it would be ranked highest in this category, even though it would have raised only $20,000. Instead, the university's alumni fund raising efforts take the limited resources available and target them to those alumni in the best position to make a gift to the university. The result is an annual fund that raises $800,000 from alumni each year.
REPUTATION
The reputational survey is worth 15% of an institution’s overall ranking. This is the largest weighting given to any criterion, making it one of the most significant in affecting an institution’s ranking. The reputational survey is distributed to high school guidance counsellors, representatives of business and industry, and others who have a stake in the quality of university education offered in Canada.
Saskatchewan has few industry and business headquarters, and a proportionately smaller base of guidance counsellors when compared to Ontario or Quebec. The U of S could increase its spending to market itself more aggressively across Canada; and indeed, in the competitive environment in which it exists, it has no choice but to do so.
OTHER ISSUES
The Maclean’s rankings raise many other questions that need to be explored. Does having a class taught by a tenured stream faculty member automatically mean a better educational experience for students? Does class size affect the quality of education offered? What is the purpose of including the number of faculty with a PhD when the differences between institutions are miniscule? Why has Maclean’s chosen not to include CFI funding in the total research funding category? (While the University of Saskatchewan is ranked lower in amount of granting council research funding, it is second only to Toronto in total amount of CFI funding granted, and including CFI funding should benefit us in the rankings.) And what impact do library holdings have on the undergraduate education experience at a time when resource sharing between libraries is becoming the norm?
For more information, contact communications@usask.ca
