Tag: Canada

Top govt figure in the dock for role in Kenyan scholarship scandal

Jonathan Bii, governor of Uasin Gishu, one of Kenya’s prominent counties, is now facing legal scrutiny over his alleged involvement in the controversial Uasin Gishu Finland/Canada Scholarship Program.

Bii, a member of the United Democratic Alliance, an affiliate of Kenya’s ruling coalition, is accused of supporting the scholarship scheme and requesting additional payments from students.

As per media reports, he later distanced himself from the initiative amid allegations of misappropriation of over KSh 1.1 billion meant for scholarships.

Individual accounts by parents of the students revealed that payments ranged from KSh 650,000 to over KSh 1.2 million (approximately USD$5,000–$9,230), with some families reportedly paying up to KSh 3 million (around USD$23,100).

These amounts covered expenses such as tuition, visa and insurance fees, and accommodation deposits.

Kenyan news outlet Daily Nation reported that a key witness, Mitchelle Jeptanui, testified before senior principal magistrate Peter Ndege that in June 2023, Bii held a meeting with parents to assure them that the overseas trip would receive approval shortly.

The parents, already anxious as their children had received admission letters from universities in Canada and Finland, were allegedly asked to pay an additional KSh 200,000 to KSh 300,000 (approximately USD$1,540 to $2,310) for accommodation fees.

However, despite the payments, none of the students were able to travel abroad.

My son never travelled. I am still hoping either for a refund or support for him to go
_{^{Benjamin Kibet, parent}}

When parents once again demanded answers, Bii allegedly shifted the blame to his predecessor, Jackson Mandago, who initiated the program.

However, testimony from seven out of eight witnesses last week confirmed they made their payments after Bii assumed office.

Benjamin Kibet, a parent of one of the affected student, told the court that he took out a loan of KSh 650,000 (around USD$5,000) to fund his son’s education at Stenberg College in Canada, after being introduced to the programme by Mandago and Bii.

“My son never travelled. I am still hoping either for a refund or support for him to go,” Kibet told reporters.

As the case unfolds, Mandago, along with former county officials Meshack Rono and Joshua Lelei, is expected to face criminal charges related to the alleged misappropriation of the scholarship funds.

Over the past two years, the scandal has shaken Kenya’s growing middle class, who have aspirations for overseas education.

A 2020 survey had found that more than half of Kenyan students preferred studying at international universities over local institutions.

Moreover, Kenya has been identified as a “high-growth potential” source market for international education.

It ranked as the leading East African market for US universities, with enrolments rising by 45% in 2022 compared to 2019.

Canadian institutions, a key draw for many of the students who ultimately became entangled in the scholarship scandal, also recorded a 12% rise in Kenyan student enrolments during the same period.

Kenyan parents have taken to the streets across Uasin Gishu County over the past few years, demanding answers, as the scandal has left over 300 students stranded at home.

Many of them have reportedly been expelled from Finnish universities or deported, as previously reported by The PIE News.

Source link

June 13, 2025
Over 5k HE job cuts in Canada since study permit caps
Over 5,000 higher education jobs in Canada have been cut since the government clamped down on study permit numbers – with Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec the hardest hit.

The thousands of job cuts tracked by a higher education expert are just those that have been made public, with the possibility that there have been many more.

Institutions are also having to consolidate the programs they offer, as billions of dollars worth of budget cuts make their mark.
More than 5,000 jobs have been lost in the post-secondary education sector in Canada since the federal government first imposed a study permit cap in January 2024, according to research from higher education consultant Ken Steele. Further restrictions – capping study permits at a scant 473,000 – were introduced in September.

But the cuts collated by Steele are just the ones that have been made public. A number of institutions are not disclosing their drops in employment in teaching and administration.

With Liberal Mark Carney triumphing in last month’s election, his new government must address worries about jobs disappearing, such as in the auto manufacturing sector, due to US President Donald Trump’s punishing tariffs.

Slashing jobs in education – due to the government’s own actions – is a huge mistake, Steele said.

“The unilateral imposition of extreme, abrupt, student visa caps have thrown Canadian higher education into crisis, decimated our reputation abroad and precipitously destroyed one of our major ‘export’ industries,” he told The PIE News.

For the past year, Steele has been tracking reported job losses at universities and colleges across the country. As expected, programs that relied heavily on international students were forced to make the biggest cuts.

According to Steele’s data, Mohawk College in Hamilton, Ontario, has eliminated almost 450 positions. The University of Windsor, also in Ontario, has reduced employment by 157 spots.

The total of 5,267 cuts across the country almost certainly underreports the actual job losses. “Many institutions are keeping quiet about their cuts, including the Ontario private colleges that were partnering with public colleges,” he noted.

It’s not just jobs that are being slashed. Post-secondary institutions have been forced to eliminate programs and reduce spending.

Fanshawe College in London, Ontario, appears to lead the way in getting rid of programs. It has suspended 50 fields of study, including advanced live digital media, construction project management and retirement residence management. In all of Canada, Ontario colleges are the top eight for suspending programs, accounting for two-thirds of the 453 cuts.

The financial hit is significant. “So far, I have tracked CAD$2.2 billion in budget hits at post-secondary schools across the country,” Steele said. This includes last year’s cuts as well as planned reductions for next year.

If Canada reopened its doors tomorrow, it would likely take until at least 2030 to recover the international enrolment momentum we had just two years ago
_{^{Ken Steele, education consultant}}

Ontario was most reliant on international revenues and has been hardest hit by the study permit cap. Steele’s figures suggest that 70% of the cuts have struck that province, with British Columbia and Quebec also suffering. The remaining seven provinces faced more modest losses.

In Vancouver last month, dozens of staff and faculty at several post-secondary institutions staged a protest of the study permit cap. Taryn Thompson, vice-president of the Vancouver Community College Faculty Association, said there have been 60 layoffs at her school alone, with more expected in the coming months.

The big question is: Will the new federal government ease the cap? The issue of post-secondary funding was hardly raised at all during the election campaign, overshadowed by concerns about Trump’s threats to annex Canada.

There’s also the concern about restoring Canada’s reputation following the study permit debacle.

“If Canada reopened its doors tomorrow, it would likely take until at least 2030 to recover the international enrolment momentum we had just two years ago,” warned Steele.
Source link
May 9, 2025
Adapting to the ever-changing world of international education as a public institution in Quebec, Canada
As a bilingual territory, Quebec offers students the chance to learn both English and French, which can be daunting for some. However, this bilingualism also provides a distinctive advantage in the global education market. This article explores how institutions like the Lester B. Pearson School Board are adapting to these changes and highlights key strategies for success.

Challenges and opportunities in Quebec

Quebec’s bilingual nature often makes it a secondary choice for international students who may prefer English-only environments. However, the opportunity to learn both languages can be a significant draw for students seeking to enhance their global competencies. Over the past two years, the field of international education has undergone significant changes, requiring institutions to adapt swiftly. Here are some of the changes:

New IRCC requirements since July 2023:
- Revised funds requirement for study permit applicants, increasing the financial threshold to ensure students are adequately prepared for the cost of living in Canada.
- End of the Student Direct Stream (SDS), affecting the expedited processing of study permits for certain countries.
- Revision of programs eligible for post-graduation work permits (PGWP), limiting eligibility to specific fields of study and designated learning institutions.
- Introduction of Provincial Attestation Letters (PALs), requiring students to obtain a PAL as part of their study permit application.
Adapting to new requirements: a strategic advantage

The introduction of PALs and the revised financial requirements had a minimal impact on the Lester B. Pearson School Board (LBPSB) due to Quebec’s existing Certificat d’acceptation du Québec (CAQ) process. The CAQ process already required higher financial proof than the new federal standards, positioning LBPSB at an advantage. This continuity ensured that our processes and requirements remained stable, providing a smoother transition for international students.

Shifting the message: beyond PGWP

Previously, programs eligible for post-graduation work permits (PGWP) were a major selling point, maintaining healthy student intake levels with minimal marketing effort. However, the focus has now shifted. The message is no longer solely about the PGWP; it is about acquiring a skillset that can be exercised globally. Montreal, an amazing student city, continues to be a prime study destination due to its quality of education, accessibility to higher education, cost of living, quality of life, and availability of a wide range of outdoor activities and hobbies. Montreal was always part of our marketing plan, but now it has become the marketing plan.

Maintaining stability and messaging

In the face of these changes, it is crucial to keep our messaging and name intact. As a public institution, the Lester B. Pearson School Board emphasizes stability and a long-term commitment to international education. Quebec offers an exceptional option for students to benefit from its established quality education system. Students study in state-of-the-art facilities, interact with local students, and immerse themselves in a new culture. This experience is not only about receiving a quality education but also about personal growth. The education and personal development gained here are invaluable and transferable anywhere in the world.

Addressing the housing crisis

While the housing crisis in Quebec is not as severe as in other parts of Canada, it remains a concern. The lack of housing has been cited as a key reason for limiting the number of international students in Canada, yet this approach overlooks a crucial fact: many international students, especially those in vocational programs like Lester B. Pearson’s, are essential to addressing the very housing shortage they’re being blamed for. These students are training to become carpenters, electricians, plumbers, and other skilled tradespeople—professions desperately needed to build more homes across the country.

To ensure accessibility to safe, secure, and affordable housing for international vocational students, the Lester B. Pearson School Board has partnered with 4Stay to offer a dormitory experience on campus for adult vocational students. This is a one-of-a-kind offering in Canada, with students enjoying turn-key housing, meal plans, and student life programming to ease their transition to life in Montreal.

About 4Stay

4Stay was founded by international students who experienced firsthand the challenges of finding student housing when they arrived in the United States for their education. Launched in 2016, 4Stay is driven by the mission to create a world where everyone has a “home away from home.” The company connects students and interns with local hosts, room providers, and roommates near their destinations, offering both short-term and long-term housing solutions.

4Stay works with educators and administrators to craft bespoke housing programs, tailored to the institution’s unique needs. Recognizing that every institution has their own set of unique interests, challenges, and strategic priorities, 4stay has a suite of services and strategies to source student housing options and manage them.

By providing affordable homes, 4Stay helps students find a supportive community that eases their transition to life in a foreign country. The company’s vision and values resonate deeply with the Lester B. Pearson School Board, making it an ideal partner to manage our student residence and enhance the student experience.

Building a supportive community

The partnership between LBPSB and 4Stay allows students to access residence options either as a short-term landing pad (up to three months) or as a long-term accommodation solution throughout their entire program. This initiative helps build a community of students who can support each other through the challenges of settling in a new country. By offering these housing solutions, the Lester B. Pearson School Board ensures that international students have a safe and welcoming environment, contributing to their overall success and well-being.

Conclusion

Adapting to the ever-changing world of international education requires innovative strategies and a commitment to providing comprehensive support for students. By leveraging Quebec’s bilingual advantage, shifting the focus of marketing messages, and addressing housing needs through partnerships like 4Stay, public institutions in Quebec can continue to thrive in the global education market. These efforts not only attract international students but also ensure they have the resources and community support needed to succeed in their academic and personal endeavors.

About the author:

Martine St-Pierre, MBA, is the director of international programs at the Lester B. Pearson School Board (LBPSB). With over two decades of experience in education, she oversees the recruitment and support of international students, ensuring they receive high-quality education and a welcoming environment. Her strategic vision and expertise have positioned LBPSB as a top choice for students worldwide.
Source link
May 5, 2025
Fascism Scholars, Trump Critics Leave Yale for Canada

As the Trump administration escalates its attack on universities, three fascism scholars and vocal Trump critics are leaving Yale University for the University of Toronto. But their given reasons for crossing the border vary.

Jason Stanley, Jacob Urowsky Professor of Philosophy at Yale and author of multiple books—including How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them—said he finally accepted Toronto’s long-standing offer for a position on Friday after seeing Columbia University “completely collapse and give in to an authoritarian regime.”

In a move that has unnerved faculty across the country, Columbia’s administration largely conceded to demands from the Trump administration, which had cut $400 million of the university’s federal grants and contracts for what it said was Columbia’s failure to address campus antisemitism. Among other moves, the Ivy League institution gave campus officers arrest authority and appointed a new senior vice provost to oversee academic programs focused on the Middle East.

“I was genuinely undecided before that,” Stanley said. Now he’s leaving Yale to be the named chair in American studies at Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy. According to the university, the intent is for Stanley also to be cross-appointed to the philosophy department. Two popular philosophy blogs previously reported the move.

“What I worry about is that Yale and other Ivy League institutions do not understand what they face,” Stanley said. He loves Yale and expected to spend the rest of his career there, he said; while he still hopes for the opportunity to return some day, he’s nervous Yale “will do what Columbia did.”

Stanley said Toronto’s Munk School “raided Yale” for some of its prominent professors of democracy and authoritarianism to establish a project on defending democracy internationally—an effort that began long before the election.

Also leaving Yale for the Munk School is Timothy Snyder, author of books including The Road to Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America, and Marci Shore, author of The Ukrainian Night: An Intimate History of Revolution and other works. Snyder and Shore are married.

Stanley said Toronto reached out to him back in April 2023, during the Biden administration, and he restarted conversations after the election. He finally took the job Friday. The university told Inside Higher Ed it had been trying to recruit Snyder and Shore for years, saying, “We’re always looking for the best and brightest.”

Snyder, the Richard C. Levin Professor of History at Yale, will become the Munk School’s inaugural Chair in Modern European History, supported by the Temerty Endowment for Ukrainian Studies. A spokesperson for Snyder said he made his decision for personal reasons, and he made it before the election.

In an emailed statement Wednesday, Snyder said, “The opportunity came at a time when my spouse and I had to address some difficult family matters.” He said he had “no grievance with Yale, no desire to leave the U.S. I am very happy with the idea of a move personally but, aside from a strong appreciation of what U of T has to offer, the motivations are largely that—personal.”

But when asked for her reasoning, Shore told Inside Higher Ed in an email that “the personal and political were, as often is the case, intertwined. We might well have made the move in any case, but we didn’t make our final decision until after the November elections,” she wrote.

Shore, a Yale history professor, will become the Munk School Chair in European Intellectual History, supported by the same endowment as her husband.

“I sensed that this time, this second Trump election, would be still much worse than the first—the checks and balances have been dismantled,” she wrote. “I can feel that the country is going into free fall. I fear there’s going to be a civil war. And I don’t want to bring my kids back into that. I also don’t feel confident that Yale or other American universities will manage to protect either their students or their faculty.”

She also said it didn’t escape her that Yale failed to publicly defend Snyder when Vice President JD Vance criticized him on X in January. After Trump nominated Pete Hegseth as defense secretary, Snyder—who has repeatedly excoriated the Trump administration in the media—posted that “a Christian Reconstructionist war on Americans led from the Department of Defense is likely to break the United States.”

Vance reposted that with the caption “That this person is a professor at Yale is actually an embarrassment.” Elon Musk, X’s owner, responded in agreement.

‘They Need to Band Together’

Leaving for Canada might sound like a futile move, given that Trump has threatened to annex it.

“That’s why I’m definitely not thinking of it as fleeing fascism; I’m thinking of it as defending Canada,” Stanley said. “Freedom of inquiry does not seem to be under threat in Canada,” he said, and moving there will allow him to be engaged in “an international fight against fascism.”

Nonetheless, he said it’s heartbreaking to leave the Yale philosophy department. He would consider returning to Yale “if there’s evidence that universities are standing up more boldly to the threats,” he said. “They need to band together.”

Yale spokesperson Karen Peart told Inside Higher Ed in an email that Yale “continues to be home to world-class faculty members who are dedicated to excellence in scholarship and teaching.” She added, “Yale is proud of its global faculty community which includes faculty who may no longer work at the institution, or whose contributions to academia may continue at a different home institution. Faculty members make decisions about their careers for a variety of reasons and the university respects all such decisions.”

To be sure, the Yale professors are not the first or only U.S. faculty to accept academic appointments outside the country. European universities, at least, have been trying to recruit American researchers. But before Trump’s re-election, there was a dearth of data on the previously rumored academic exodus from red states to blue, supposedly spurred by conservative policy changes.

Isaac Kamola, director of the American Association of University Professors’ Center for the Defense of Academic Freedom, said he’s now had conversations with multiple faculty members who are naturalized citizens “and still think that the administration might be coming after them.”

And while star professors at Ivy League institutions are more likely than other faculty to have the opportunity to leave, Yale law professor Keith Whittington, founding chair of the Academic Freedom Alliance, said he thinks such professors are more likely to take those opportunities now.

“I’ve seen efforts by high-quality academic institutions in other countries to start making the pitch to American academics,” Whittington said. He noted that even faculty at prestigious and well-endowed universities have concerns that their institution and higher ed as a whole are “not as stable as one might once have thought.”

He said the Trump administration has targeted specific universities with “quite serious efforts to threaten those institutions with crippling financial consequences if they don’t adopt policies that the administration would prefer that they adopt.” And such a playbook could easily be repeated “at practically any institution in the country,” he said.

Source link

March 26, 2025
Immigration policies in focus as Mark Carney sworn in as Canadian PM

Succeeding Justin Trudeau as Canada’s 24th Prime Minister, Carney’s swearing-in ceremony was conducted by governor general Mary Simon at Rideau Hall in Ottawa.

Carney’s appointment as Canada’s leader comes at a time when the country is navigating through an increasingly tumultuous relationship with its closest neighbour and ally, the United States.

Canada’s ties with the US have worsened after President Donald Trump imposed steep tariffs on Canadian goods and floated the idea of integrating Canada into the US, sparking strong backlash.

Considered a political newcomer, who played significant roles as the governor of the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England between 2008 to 2020, Carney is known for having a tough stance on immigration.

Calling Canada’s immigration policy “failures of executions”, Carney stated that Canada has taken in more people than its economy has been able to handle.

“I think what happened in the last few years is we didn’t live up to our values on immigration,” he said at a Cardus event – a Christian non-partisan think tank – in November last year, according to Canadian me d ia reports.

“We had much higher levels of foreign workers, students and new Canadians coming in than we could absorb, that we have housing for, that we have health care for, that we have social services for, that we have opportunities for. And so we’re letting down the people that we let in, quite frankly.”

Carney’s statement suggests that he will uphold the Canadian federal government’s plan to reduce immigration targets over the next three years.

Recently, the federal government announced a shift in its immigration strategy, cutting the number of newcomers by 21% – from approximately 500,000 in 2024 to 395,000 in 2025 and 380,000 in 2026.

In its race to reduce temporary residency numbers and overall inflow of immigrants, international students in Canada have faced the brunt of policy changes in the country.

Canada has imposed more caps on study permits, eliminated fast-track study permit processing, increased PGWP eligibility and English proficiency requirements, in an effort to “align its immigration planning with capacity”.

Over the past year, policy restrictions have already had a significant impact in Canada, with the total number of study permits processed by the IRCC expected to be 39% lower than in 2023.

A former international student himself, Carney is expected to continue with restrictive policies on the cohort, as he previously blamed Canadian provinces for “underfunding higher education”, which pushed institutions to rely on international students.

“Do we value higher education in this country or not? Well, if we value higher education, maybe we should start funding our universities,” stated Carney.

“On the foreign student side, it’s more on provincial policy, on squeezing universities, in a sense.”

Daljit Nirman, an immigration lawyer based in Ottawa and founder, Nirman’s Law, believes aggressive student recruitment has contributed to housing shortages, an oversaturated job market, and increased strain on health care, making effective newcomer integration in Canada more difficult.

“Given Carney’s stance and these recent policy changes, it is likely that Canada will continue implementing stricter controls on international student admissions during his tenure,” Nirman told The PIE News.

“This measured approach aims to preserve the benefits of international education while ensuring that Canada’s infrastructure can effectively support those who choose to study and settle in the country.”

According to Priyanka Roy, senior recruitment advisor at York University, while Carney’s stance on immigration may appear stricter, it will ultimately result in a more “balanced approach.”

“While it may seem like a tougher stance on immigration, we believe that Prime Minister Carney’s stance is to create a balanced approach to immigration, ensuring that international student enrolment aligns with Canada’s economic capacity and does not place undue pressure on local infrastructure,” Roy told The PIE News.

“York is proactively adapting by offering sustainable solutions, such as a four-year housing guarantee, on-campus job opportunities, and co-op programs; provisions that help our international students integrate into Canadian life while maintaining a balanced and healthy relationship with the local community.”

Prime Minister Carney’s leadership presents a valuable opportunity to rebuild stronger ties between India and Canada, fostering an environment of trust and collaboration
^{_{Priyanka Roy, York University}}

The former banker, who won the Liberal Party race by 86% of the votes, also acknowledged immigration’s role in contributing to Canada’s economic future.

Emphasising the need for productivity and a growing labour force, Carney has previously highlighted that Canada’s growing labour force is “going to largely come through new young Canadians”.

With immigration poised to be a key issue, rebuilding ties with India – one of Canada’s largest sources of migrants – will be crucial for the prime minister-designate.

Having already expressed a willingness to mend relations following a major diplomatic crisis, Carney’s efforts to indulge in discussions with India could spell good news for Indian students eyeing Canada as a study destination.

“Prime Minister Carney’s leadership presents a valuable opportunity to rebuild stronger ties between India and Canada, fostering an environment of trust and collaboration,” stated Roy.

“As diplomatic relations improve, we are confident that more Indian students will continue to view Canada as an attractive destination for higher education and realign their preference for higher education in Canada.”

Source link

March 14, 2025
Parents turn to international education as path to residency

If families looking to relocate to “top destinations” such as the US and Canada choose the right program for their children, they may be granted permanent residency as domestic students or even graduate from their chosen institution as residents or citizens, according to Tess Wilkinson, director of education services at Henley & Partners Education in the UK.

“We’re now seeing a real uptick in the types of families who are now becoming aware that there is an option for them,” she told The PIE News.

“For families looking at relocating, there can be real gains in the amount of fees they spend on education in places like Canada,” she explained. “They can they can save [up to] $150,000 on fees.”

The sheer number of clients asking for assistance in this area signals that education is swiftly becoming “one of the key drivers for people looking at second residences to citizenships”, she added.

Henley & Partners refers to itself as a “global leader in residence and citizenship by investment”. Its education arm, Wilkinson explained, helps to “advise transnational families who are looking for global education solutions”.

Working with families all over the world with children and adults of all ages – from K-12 to those seeking master’s degrees or MBAs – it “assists them to find the right match”, taking into account children’s individual needs and the types of residency or citizenship that may become available to its clients through educational opportunities.

“We can advise on all the top-tier destinations. So we have a family, for instance, who are considering the UK, the US and Australia and they’re putting in applications for all three countries,” Wilkinson shared.

We’re now seeing a real uptick in the types of families who are now becoming aware that there is an option for them
^{_{Tess Wilkinson, Henley & Partners Education}}

With immigration policies in key markets such as the UK, the US, Canada and Australia shifting all the time, Wilkinson acknowledged that it “is not something that is simple”.

But she said that, with expertise across a number of key markets, Henley & Partners can provide families with education counsellors to help match children to institutions that suit them best, as well as help with applying to universities or summer programs.

The ‘big four’ international education destination countries are all seeing turbulence in their respective markets. Some of these restrictive policies are having an impact on students’ ability to study in the countries, hindering them from securing post-graduate residency in their chosen destination.

Australia and Canada are both subject restrictions on international students, while UK universities’ international departments have been blighted by a crackdown on overseas students’ ability to bring their families into the country with them.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump’s second term as US President continues to present challenges to the sector, as he freezes study abroad funding, battles against DEI legislation and moves to arrest or even deport international student protestors.

Tess Wilkinson will be speaking at The PIE Live Europe at the PIEx Power Up Expanding horizons: accessing global education & opportunity via investment migration on March 11 at 16:00. Tickets are available online here.

Source link

March 7, 2025
Student Aid in Canada: The Long View

Note: this is a short version of a paper which has just appeared in issue 72:4 the Canadian Tax Journal. How short? I’m trying for under 1000 words. Let’s see how I do.

Canadian student aid programs existed in scattered forms since just after World War I but became a “national program” when the Dominion-Canadian Student Aid Program (DCSAP) was created in 1939. Under this program, the Government of Canada provided block cash grants to provinces who administered their own scholarship programs which provided aid based on some combination of need and merit. The actual details of the program varied significantly from one province to another; at the time, the government of Canada did not place much importance on “national programs” with common elements.

In 1964, this DCSAP was replaced by the Canada Student Loans Program (CSLP)—recently re-named the Canada Student Financial Assistance Program (CSFAP). This has always been a joint federal-provincial enterprise. But where the earlier program was a block grant, this program would be a single national entity run more or less consistently across all provinces, albeit with provincial governments still in place as responsible administrative agencies able to supplement the plan as they wished. Some provinces would opt out of this program and received compensation to run their own solo programs (Quebec at the program’s birth, the Northwest Territories in 1984 and Nunavut in 1999). The others, for the most part, built grant programs that kicked in once a student had exhausted their Canada Student Loan eligibility.

Meanwhile, a complimentary student aid program grew up in the tax system, mainly because it was a way to give money to students that didn’t involve negotiations with provinces. Tuition fees plus a monthly education amount were made into a tax deduction in 1961 and then converted to a tax credit in 1987. Registered Education Savings Plans (RESPs), which are basically tax-free growth savings accounts, showed up in 1971.

Although the CSLP was made somewhat more generous over time in order to keep up with rising student costs, program rules went largely unchanged between 1964 and 1993. Then, during the extremely short Kim Campbell government, a new system came into being. The federal government decided to make loans much larger, but also to force provinces in participating provinces to start cost-sharing in a different manner—basically, they had to step up from a student’s first dollar of need instead of just taking students with high need. Since this was the era of stupidly high deficits, provinces responded to these additional responsibilities by cutting the generosity of their programs, transforming from pure grants to forgivable loans. For the rest of the decade, student debt rose—in some cases quite quickly: in total loans issued doubled between 1993 and 1997.

And then, everything went into reverse.

In a series of federal budgets between 1996 and 2000, billions of dollars were thrown into grants, tax credits and a new program called “Canada Education Savings Grants,” which were a form of matching grant for contributions to RESPs. Grants and total aid rose; loans issued fell by a third, mainly between 1997 and 2001 (a recovering economy helped quite a bit). Tax expenditures soared, which due to a rule change allowing tax credits to be carried forward meant either students got to keep more of their work income or got to reduce their taxes once they started working.

Since this period of rapid change at the turn of the century, student aid has doubled in real terms. And nearly all of that has been an increase in non-repayable aid. Institutional scholarships? Tripled. Education scholarships? Quadrupled. Loans? They are up, too, but there the story is a bit more complicated.

Figure 1: Student Aid by Source, Canada, 1993-94 to 2022-23, in thousands of constant $2022

For the period from about 2000 to 2015, all forms of aid were increasing at about inflation plus 3%. Then, in 2016, we entered another period of rapid change. The Governments of Canada and Ontario eliminated a bunch of tax credits and re-invested the money into grants. Briefly, this led to targeted free tuition in Ontario, before the Ford government took an axe to the system. Then, COVID hit and the CSFAP doubled grants. Briefly, in 2020-21, total student aid exceeded $23 billion/year (the figure above does not include the $4 billion per year paid out through the Canada Emergency Student Benefit), with less than 30% of it made up of loans.

One important thing to understand about all this is that while the system became much larger and much less loan-based, something else was going on, too. It was becoming much more federal. Over the past three decades, provincial outlays have risen about 30% in real terms; meanwhile, federal ones have quadrupled. In the early 1990s, the system was about 45-55 federal-provincial; now, it’s about 70-30 federal. It’s a stunning example of “uploading” of responsibilities in an area of shared-jurisdiction.

Figure 2: Government Student Aid by Source, Figure 1: Student Aid by Source, Canada, 1993-94 to 2022-23, in thousands of constant $2022

So there you go: a century of Canadian student aid in less than 850 words. Hope you enjoyed it.

Source link

February 4, 2025
Re-capturing the early 80s | HESA

Most of the time when I talk about the history of university financing, I show a chart that looks like this, showing that since 1980 government funding to the sector is up by a factor of about 2.3 after inflation over the last 40-odd years, while total funding is up by a factor of 3.6.

Figure 1: Canadian University Income by source, 1979-80 to 2022-23, in billions of constant $2022

That’s just a straight up expression of how universities get their money. But what it doesn’t take account of are changes in enrolment, which as Figure 2 shows, were a pretty big deal. Universities have admitted a *lot* more students over time. The university system has nearly doubled since the end of the 1990s and nearly tripled since the start of the 1990s.

Figure 2: Full-time Equivalent Enrolment, Canada, Universities, 1978-79 to 2022-23

So, the question is, really, how have funding pattern changes interacted with changes in enrolment? Well, folks, wonder no more, because I have toiled through some unbelievably badly-organized excel data to bring you funding data on this that goes back to the 1980s (I did a version of this back here, but I only captured national-level data—the toil here involved getting data granular enough to look at individual provinces). Buckle up for a better understanding of how we got to our present state!

Figure 3 is what I would call the headline graph: University income per student by source, from 1980-81 to the present, in constant $2022. Naturally, it looks a bit like Figure 1, but more muted because it takes enrolment growth into account.

Figure 3: University income per student by source, from 1980-81 to the present, in constant $2022

There’s nothing revolutionary here, but it shows a couple of things quite clearly. First, government funding per-student has been falling for most of the past 40 years.; the brief period from about 1999 to 2009 stands out as the exception rather than the norm. Second, despite that, total funding per student is still quite high compared with the 1990s. Institutions have found ways to replace government income with income from other sources. That doesn’t mean the quality of the money is the same. As I have said before, hustling for money incurs costs that don’t occur if governments are just writing cheques.

As usual, though, looking at the national picture often disguises variation at the provincial level. Let’s drill one level down and see what happened to government spending at the sub-national level. A quick note here: “government spending” means *all* government spending, not just provincial government spending. So, Ontario and Quebec probably look better than they otherwise would because they receive an outsized chunk of federal government research spending, while the Atlantic provinces probably look worse. I doubt the numbers are affected much because overall revenues from federal sources are pretty small compared to provincial ones, but it’s worth keeping in mind as you read the following.

Figure 4 looks at government spending per student in the “big three” provinces which make up over 75% of the Canadian post-secondary system. Nationally, per-student spending fell from $22,800 per year to $17,600 per year. But there are differences here: Ontario spent the entire 42-year period below that average, while BC and Quebec spent nearly all that period above it. Quebec has notably seen very little in terms of per-student fluctuations, while BC has been more volatile. Ontario saw a recovery in spending during the McGuinty years, but then has experienced a drop of about 35%. Of note, perhaps is that most of this decline happened before the arrival of the current Ford government.

Figure 4: Per-Student Income from Government Sources, in thousands of constant $2022, Canada and the “Big Three” provinces, 1980-81 to 2022-23

Figure 5 shows that spending volatility was much higher in the three oil provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland & Labrador. All three provinces spent virtually the entirety of our period with above-average spending levels but the gap between these provinces and the national average was quite large both in the early 1980s and from about 2005 onwards: i.e. when oil prices were at their highest. Alberta of course has seen per-student funding drop by about 50% in the last fifteen years, but at the same time, it is close to where it was 25 years ago. So, was it the dramatic fall or the precipitous rise that was the outlier?

Figure 5: Per-Student Income from Government Sources, in thousands of constant $2022, Canada and the “Oil provinces”, 1980-81 to 2022-23

Figure 6 shows the other four provinces for the sake of completeness. New Brunswick and Nova Scotia were the lowest spenders in the country for most of the period we’re looking at, only catching up to the national average in the mid-aughts. Interestingly, the two provinces took two different paths to raise per-student spending: Nova Scotia did it almost entirely by raising spending, while in New Brunswick this feat was to a considerable extent “achieved” by a significant fall in student numbers (this is a ratio, folks, both the numerator and the denominator matter!).

Figure 6: Per-Student Income from Government Sources, in thousands of constant $2022, Canada and selected provinces, 1980-81 to 2022-23

An interesting question, of course, is what it would have cost to have kept public spending at 1980 per-student levels. And it’s an interesting question, because remember, total spending did in fact rise quite substantially (see Figure 1): it just didn’t rise as fast as student numbers. So, in Figure 7, I show what it would have cost to keep per-student expenditures stable at 1980-81 levels both if student numbers had stayed constant, and what it would have meant in practice given actual student numbers.

Figure 7: Funds required to return to 1980-81 levels of per-student government investment in universities, Canada, in millions of constant $2022

Weird-looking graph, right? But here’s how to interpret it. Per-student public funding did fall in the 80s and early 90s. But it rose again in the early aughts, to the point where per-student funding went back to where it was in 1980, even though the number of students in the system had doubled in the meanwhile. From about 2008 onwards, though, public investment started falling off again in per-student terms, going back to mid/late-90s levels even as overall student numbers continued to rise. We are now at the point where getting back to the levels of 1980-81, or even just 2007-08, would require a rise of between $6 and $6.5 billion dollars.

Anyways, that’s enough sunshine for one morning. Have a great day.

Source link

January 15, 2025
Where Canada lies in Global Trends with Alex Usher

Happy New Year and Welcome back to the World of Higher Education Podcast! I’m Tiffany MacLennan, your host for the day which means our guest is the one and only, Alex Usher.

In this episode, we’ll explore key global trends in higher education and then dive into how Canada fits—or doesn’t—within them. From widespread funding challenges to the politicization of universities and the evolving focus on vocational education, we’ll unpack how these issues play out on a global scale and what they mean for Canadian post-secondary sector. Let’s hear from Alex.

The World of Higher Education Podcast
Episode 3.15 | Where Canada lies in Global Trends with Alex UsherKelchen

Transcript

Tiffany MacLennan (TM): Alex, many of our guests this year discussed how their higher education systems are grappling with significant funding challenges. Can you tell me what some of the issues have been globally? Have there been any places that haven’t been struggling financially?

Alex Usher (AU): I think in the developed world, you’ve got very similar issues: slow economic growth, price volatility, an aging demographic, and frankly, increasing skepticism about how higher education translates into economic growth. What you’ve seen everywhere, I think, is a weakening in the desire to invest in higher education—certainly compared to where we were 20 years ago. Back then, when global rankings started, everyone wanted to climb higher in the rankings. That reflected a belief by countries that investments in knowledge paid dividends, that more top universities meant a better economy. I just don’t think people believe that anymore. And until that belief comes back, it’s going to be tough to get public funding. Private funding—through higher tuition fees, for example—is still possible, and it works in some places, like China. But in much of Europe, where taxes are high, people feel like they’ve already paid their dues and don’t want to pay tuition fees. In North America, Australia, and the UK, there’s growing skepticism about whether higher education is delivering value for money. The combination of those two have put higher education in a difficult position.

So, globally, there’s a gap. Universities and academics know what kind of product they’d like to offer the public, but nobody wants to pay for it—either privately or publicly. That gap, I’d say, is about 10-15% in most countries. India and Turkey being exceptions to the rule with recent increases.

TM: That’s interesting. Are these funding challenges playing out in the same way in Canada, or are there unique factors at play here?

AU: When it comes to public funding, I think Canada’s pretty much following the global trend. Maybe we’ve defunded institutions a bit more than some other countries, but that’s because we thought we’d found a workaround: international students. I always say public funding of public education is a public good, but foreign funding of public education? That’s a public great. If you can get another country’s middle class to subsidize your middle class’s education, why wouldn’t you do it?

And that’s what Canada did. We thought that marketization would save us and in marketization, in our case, was largely about internationalization. For a decade, every time governments said, “We’re not investing this year,” institutions said, “That’s fine, we’ll bring in another 10,000 international students.” And it worked—for a while, a decade really. But we weren’t the only ones. The UK, Australia, and the Netherlands became similarly dependent on international students.

And in all those countries, decades of nimbyism and a failure to build housing eventually hit a breaking point. Housing prices soared, and international students—fairly or unfairly—got blamed for it.

In Canada, we’ve seen the federal government move to cut international immigration, including reducing the number of international students coming in. That’s caused rental prices to drop for the first time in years. But it’s also exposed the vulnerability of this funding model. You can’t rely on international students forever if the public doesn’t want to pay for higher education.

TM: One of our past guests, Simon Marginson, has talked extensively about the growing polarization in higher education around the world. We’ve heard about this polarization in the U.S. with the Trump administration, in Russia, and in other places. Can you summarize what this polarization means and how it’s playing out globally?

AU: I’m not convinced that polarization is the right way to frame it. What we’re really seeing is the increased politicization of higher education, a public good.

For a long time, the idea was that publicly funded higher education would be responsive to the public. But if the public goes bananas—if they elect fascists—then higher education reflects that. It’s not polarization per se; it’s increased state control over higher education, regardless of how much governments are actually funding it.

In Canada and the U.S., for instance, governments don’t fund post-secondary education to a huge extent, but they’re exerting more and more influence over it. Meanwhile, in places like China and Russia, we’re seeing autocratic governments tighten their grip on higher education—not because of polarization, but because they see academia as a threat. Putin has been in Russia for 25 years, there’s not a new polarization, he’s now choosing to exert greater state control.

For years, there was this idea that higher education would democratize these countries. “Educate more people, and they’ll demand democracy.” But it didn’t happen. Instead, higher education made autocrats more aware of the potential for political dissent and using higher education to affect political change, and they’ve responded by cracking down on it.

I think this trend is almost universal. Governments are less democratic overall because of short time frames. You see it in Canada, where provincial governments increasingly order universities to do things. And next week, Alma Maldonado is going to talk about how a left-wing populist government in Mexico is doing similar things. It’s not a left-right issue—it’s about state control.

TM: Do you think Canada is more insulated from this politicization, or are we seeing divides within our own higher education system? It’s January 6^th right now, Justin Trudeau stepped down about 4 hours ago and we’re going to go into an election. How does this affect the next handful of years in Canadian higher education?

AU: We’re not insulated from it, but the pressures here are less extreme. For example, the Ontario government made a big deal about free speech on campus six years ago, but all it has amounted to is a two-page report every year from the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario and nothing else happened. It’s performative but the conservatives are happy because they showed those liberal jerks where to get off, and that’s fine. The right is satisfied with a certain level of performativity.

You’re seeing it right now in Alberta, there’s been some noise about shutting down equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) programs. Calgary and Alberta have rebranded EDI portfolios as “access, community, and inclusion,” but they’re not doing anything fundamentally different, even though they have different letters of the alphabet. Boards and universities know it’s worth being inclusive, and they’re not going to stop doing that.

So you have to give conservative governments symbolic victories over universities, but they still want their kids to go there. That’s different from the U.S., where we’re seeing a real shift in how Republican families view higher education and how many children, male and female, want to attend university. Here, I think we’ll see culture war issues pop up, but I don’t think they’ll reach U.S. levels.

TM: Another hot topic on the podcast this year has been the vocationalization of higher education—this push for more work-ready graduates. Is this part of a global trend?

AU: I’m not actually sure this is a new trend. Since at least the 1960s, as we’ve moved from elite systems of higher education to mass and then universal systems, vocationalization has been part of that shift. Once higher education is no longer a luxury good, it becomes more about what people can get out of it.

Massification has always been accompanied by vocationalization because most people want to know that what they’re studying will help them get ahead. That’s not new.

You do hear rhetorical volleys about this, like “We need more plumbers and fewer philosophy grads.” I think Rick Scott might’ve been the one to say that. But you don’t actually see governments translating that rhetoric into significant program changes. What really drives programming shifts is student demand—what applicants choose to study. Which is very different from governments coming in and making these changes. For example, are students less interested in the humanities? Sure. But we still have higher humanities enrollments today than for 99% of human history. They’re not as high as they were in the 1980s or 1990s, but they’re still significant.

In countries that are newer to mass or universal higher education—like in parts of Africa, Asia, and Latin America—you’re seeing more demand for vocational programs. That’s because it’s not just the upper class going to university anymore. Middle-class and lower-middle-class families want to make sure their investment in education leads to tangible returns, they don’t want to do it just because it’s a nice time.

So, is vocationalization a global trend? Yes, but it’s been happening for decades. It’s not a new phenomenon.

TM: In Canada, do you think recent changes to immigration and student work visa policies will shift the balance between vocational and liberal arts education?

AU: Let me start with vocational education in Canada, because I think it’s one of the best things we do. Over the last 60 years, we’ve built a remarkable system—completely unplanned, of course. Canadians don’t really plan higher education; we stumble into things. But we ended up with a system that offers a lot of options for people who don’t want to go to university or pursue more theoretical studies.

We’ve created pathways into the middle class through vocational education, which I think is the secret to Canadian egalitarianism. The community college system—whether it’s polytechnics, local community colleges, or CÉGEPs in Quebec—provides young people with opportunities that don’t exist in many countries. And they’re good options that lead to good jobs.

The problem is, like universities, no one wants to pay for it. Governments don’t seem to understand that not training enough people is part of what’s causing bottlenecks in areas like building things and meeting labour needs. It’s wild—especially in Ontario, where the Ford government has no sense of how this all ties together.

On the international student front, Canada’s college system has been attractive because it offers a pathway to permanent residency. That’s brought in a lot of international students, and some colleges have benefited immensely—especially those that took full advantage of this, and pigged out. They’ve become incredibly rich, and much of that money has gone into building infrastructure. But now, with changes to immigration and postgraduate work visa policies, we’re going to lose a lot of those students. It’s already starting to hurt.

In Ontario, for example, international students were cross-subsidizing some of the most expensive programs, particularly in the trades. Without them, it’s going to be tough to keep some of those programs running. We’re going to see closures and cuts.

Universities, on the other hand, won’t be as affected. Most international students at universities are in business, science, and engineering programs, which are less impacted by the policy changes. But for colleges, especially those that relied heavily on international students, the next few years are going to be very difficult. It’s carnage in the colleges and it’s bad for universities.

TM: Last question. Which of the recent trends do you think will stick, and what do they mean for the future of Canadian higher education?

AU: I think most of the trends we’re seeing now will stick around for a few years. I don’t foresee governments suddenly having a revelation and deciding, “We should fund post-secondary education more.” It just doesn’t seem likely. You might see some marginal changes, but they won’t be transformative.

Take Alberta as an example. Over the next decade, they’re expecting a 30 to 40 percent increase in the youth population. You’d think that would lead to investments in higher education capacity—this is as predictable as it gets with demographics—but it’s not happening. It’s not that they can’t see it; they simply don’t want to spend the money.

One way Canada stands out, though, is how limited our thinking has become when it comes to skills. The PIAAC data came out recently, but it barely made a ripple. Twenty years ago, governments would have looked at that data and asked, “What skills do our young people need to succeed in the world?” Now, when you mention skills, they only think about trades and healthcare. The broader idea of transversal skills—those that matter for the entire economy, not just specific occupations—has disappeared from the conversation.

Our policy community in higher education seems to have been lobotomized over the past couple of decades. We’ve stopped focusing on the big issues. That said, when governments are lazy or inattentive, institutions sometimes have the space to innovate. I think we’ll see some exciting developments around teaching, AI, and microcredentials. Maybe not as much as some expect, but more than I would’ve thought a few years ago.

I also expect shorter university programs to emerge—likely returning to three-year degrees, as we had in the 1980s and 1990s. With labour shortages becoming more acute, institutions won’t be able to keep students for four years anymore. This will take time—probably a decade or so—but I think it’s coming.

In general, universities are going to need to focus more on labour market outcomes, skills, and efficiency. Students will likely appreciate this shift, especially if institutions start respecting their time more. But it’s going to require universities to think differently about money. For decades, the solution has been to find more revenue and throw it at problems. That’s no longer viable. Now, they’ll have to look at the cost side and find smarter, more efficient ways to operate.

It’s going to lead to a very different kind of university system—one that’s more focused on cost-effectiveness, shorter programs, and labour market alignment. These changes could last five, maybe even ten years, but they’re coming, and they’re going to reshape the sector.

TM: Alex, thanks for joining us this week. Join us next week, when Alex is back as host, and Alma Maldonado joins us again to give an update on the Mexican higher education system. See you then!

*This podcast transcript was generated using an AI transcription service with limited editing. Please forgive any errors made through this service.

Source link

January 9, 2025
Reflections on Tenure in Canada vs Wisconsin – GlobalHigherEd

This entry is available at Inside Higher Ed as well.

~~~~~~

In the context of some intense debates about tenure in the University of Wisconsin System, and at UW-Madison, I’ve been acquiring some interesting information and views about tenure and related governance matters in Canada vs Wisconsin. Reflections and data have been kindly provided by Canadian leaders representing faculty and university administrative bodies, both nationally and in select universities.

Why focus on this issue in comparative perspective? First, leading Canadian universities (UBC, Toronto, Waterloo, McGill) have been poaching faculty from UW and could increasingly do so if proposed changes to tenure do not match existing standards/AAUP guidelines. Second, looking at different systems in a comparative way helps you realize what is working well here in WI, but also what might need to be changed, especially if higher education governance becomes more politicized in Wisconsin (as it has been in states like North Carolina).

In the end, it is similar and different in Canadian peer universities vs what we experience in WI. I think the biggest difference is it is more unionized in Canada (for ~80% of the faculty base) and the details re. tenure and layoffs are embedded in collective agreements. This said, some faculty associations at peers – the University of Toronto, University of Waterloo, McMaster University, and McGill University – though not officially certified as labour unions, nevertheless have negotiated collective agreements with standard grievance and arbitration procedures. Also, in Canada, the majority of part-time faculty are unionized and staff are unionized. It just goes to show you don’t necessarily need regulations re. tenure embedded in the state statutes (or equivalent) to guarantee strong tenure and shared governance, but, this said, there are other key differences (see below) so how it is all configured matters, a lot…

In the end, no tenured faculty in Canadian universities (including 100% of our peers, the ones poaching our faculty) lose tenure except for engaging in serious forms of unethical behavior (i.e. ‘due cause’). Exigency-related rules do apply but it has not happened, to date, for all sorts of reasons. And if exigency-related layoffs of tenured faculty were to be proposed, it happens at a broader university-scale and the guidelines typically state that a task-force is to be appointed with diverse membership and/or it can only happen in specified ways.

The other big (and important) difference is program-related changes are run through Canadian university senates and the senate is typically made up of senior administrators and elected faculty (the majority), staff, students, etc. See these senate membership lineups, for example:

The UW Board of Regents equivalent in Canadian universities does not need to sign off on program-related changes like the Board of Regents does here. So decisions on closure or redundancy are senate decisions (i.e. the locus of engagement and control is intra-institutional in nature). And in unionized environments, redundancy procedure, after senate has declared program closure, etc., are governed by collective agreement processes. In general the UW Board of Regents here in WI has not been too involved in the fine-grained details of program-related decisions or the funding of centers – they approve what has come up via shared governance pathways. But they could, in the future, become far more active and micro-management in orientation.

On a related note, boards of trustees or equivalent in Canada are university-specific and are more diverse and relatively autonomous from government involvement. You basically have government funded but privately (not-for-profit) autonomous universities. This keeps things less capital P political. The proposed New Badger Partnership (2011) Board of Trustees:

UW-Madison governed by 21-member Board of Trustees, including 11 members appointed by the Governor, with no Senate confirmation. Remaining 10 members represent UW-Madison constituencies (faculty, staff, classified staff, alumni, WARF). All remaining UW campuses governed by the current Board of Regents.

would have brought us half way to to this level of board autonomy vs the current system, though this proposed approach to governance should have also been applied to the UW System more generally and not just UW-Madison.

Thus, what you see is a relatively more autonomous/less politicized university and higher ed governance system in Canada; one where the norms of tenure and academic freedom are sometimes constructed via agreements but often are just part of institutional-organizational culture. The faculty trust the system more, I would say, than they do here now in what could become, if we don’t watch out, a hyper-politicized context. And they do so partly because of the unionized context, the codified agreements, and the fact the premier (governor equivalent) and the ruling party (or parties) tend to be much more hands-off. Increasingly, in Canada, governments through sector-wide bargaining or recalibrating funding formula, or setting tuition fee parameters, are exercising more hands on approaches. Budgets are, of course, political, but they’re just budgets for the most part and they don’t embed policy matters re tenure into budgetary processes in Canada like it has been happening here. It’s a more deliberative context: not perfect, this said, just more deliberative in structure.

The short-term take-away: don’t have unclear terms and procedures in a context where the potential exists for an increasingly more politicized and micro-management-oriented Board of Regents. Maintain tenure standards at UW-Madison and other universities in the UW System that match, in spirit and meaning, what they were before policy changes were injected into the Spring 2015 Wisconsin state budget. Faculty should not lose tenure except for ‘due cause’, as per AAUP guidelines. If program closure occurs after careful consideration by university-specific governance bodies, tenured faculty should have the right to shift to the unit of their choice, or become a professor of the school or college they are affiliated with. It is a clear and straightforward definition of tenure, and academic freedom, that helped make the US university system so well known, globally, for the production of innovative forms of knowledge. Unclear terms and procedures re. tenure has serious potential to destabilize the foundation of the entire system. And Canadian universities, not to mention hundreds of other US universities, will be salivating if this occurs.

The medium-term take-away: think about the potential role of faculty senates in future debates/steps. And think about tenure and shared governance in the context of the overall governance of the UW System (incl. what has been happening, and what should be happening). In my mind we have a legacy-based governance system that does not reflect the new realities of fiscal (tuition as a majority funding stream), economic (a globalizing knowledge economy), academic, and societal contexts. An unraveling of tenure in the next year will be a proxy indicator the entire UW System governance structure needs to be rethought.

We are, arguably, at risk of seeing the convergence of a legacy-based governance system with a more forceful and explicit political agenda – and this is not beneficial for a world-class university, and a world-class multi-campus state university system, in the 21st century. Anchor tenure, tightly.

Kris Olds

Source link

October 22, 2015