Opinion

Canadian universities are quietly being repurposed

It is difficult to see performance-based funding as anything but an ideologically based attempt to redesign the fundamental mission of our universities.

University Affairs

January 27, 2022

Posted in

In My Opinion

11 Comments

Like hackers secretly modifying an operating system, provincial governments are surreptitiously reprogramming and repurposing our universities, trusting that the public is looking the other way.

Misdirecting their electorate with seductive talk of performance-based funding, both Ontario and Alberta have in reality proposed using indicators that sharply narrow the meaning of “performance” to labour-market, industry and economic outcomes. For example, included among the 10 indicators Ontario has implemented are “Graduate employment earnings,” “Graduate employment rate in a related field,” and “Research funding from industry sources.” Alberta has previously stated it intends on using similar indicators, but has not officially announced the final set of metrics it will employ. Now, Manitoba and Saskatchewan are each poised to implement their own similarly-focused funding frameworks, with New Brunswick and Quebec openly musing about following suit.

To some, this may all sound well and good – I mean, who is against performance? – but given the clear evidence, it is difficult to see the most profound policy changes to the postsecondary sector in decades as anything but ideologically based attempts to redesign the fundamental mission of our universities. The metrics coerce universities away from fostering critical, creative, and well-rounded citizens – while performing research in the public interest – and instead toward drastically retooled, narrowly conceived “outcomes” focused on serving the current labour market and performing corporate-styled research and development. In this struggle, what is at stake is nothing less than the heart and soul of our universities.

For starters, the rationale for using current labour-market realities to direct future postsecondary education funding is dubious at best. A case in point is Alberta’s optimistic investment in petroleum engineers 10 years ago and the reality of the job market those graduates now face. In a similar vein, 10 years ago few predicted the mushrooming demand for social media managers, engineers specializing in sustainability, and as my attention turns to headlines, I feel compelled to add epidemiologists.

That being said, what will be of no surprise to any observer is that the nature of work is changing, as highlighted by the federal government’s 2017 Expert Panel on Youth Employment. We are shifting away from manufacturing to service and knowledge economies with a greater emphasis on problem-solving, communication, interpersonal skills, and critical-thinking expertise. The report concludes, perhaps obviously, that “the world of work is transforming rapidly” and that the key to navigating such a future is to remain flexible and fluid; it goes on to state, “Some of the next job opportunities may not even exist today.”

It’s precisely in the fields of thinking and people skills where universities excel, with the main benefit being that such skills are portable and may be applied in many different and ever-changing and evolving contexts. They are flexible and global, rather than overly narrow and context-specific.

Let’s not rob our youth of options and choice of program of study. Nor should governments be judging or devaluing such decisions when students choose lower paying careers that they find to be more meaningful and fulfilling – especially when many of these professions are vitally important to the health of our communities and society. Moreover, given that students are increasingly asked to shoulder a greater percentage of the cost of their degree programs, tackling the growing cost of tuition would seem a much more useful direction for a policy re-boot to take. This is not to suggest that students shouldn’t be presented with accurate employment and income data for each program so they may make informed choices, but to judge or punish them or universities for fluctuating job market realities over which they have little control, is plainly misguided.

In fact, recent research that examined the outcomes of performance-based funding in 41 U.S. states that have adopted this model in one form or another confirms what many of us feared: tying student enrollments and their future employment to specific outcomes, as both Ontario and Alberta propose, would skew rewards towards institutions that enroll students with the most social capital and the best chances of being employed at the highest pay immediately after graduating, at the expense of prospective students from marginalized groups. This negates meritocracy as an aspirational ideal, since equally qualified, but racialized Canadians are hired with less frequency and less pay than their non-racialized counterparts, further sabotaging hopes for equity, diversity, and inclusion gains.

It is equally misguided to pressure institutions to seek out even greater industry-funded research contracts, and to reward them for doing so. Such an emphasis impacts society by directing scholars away from discovery-driven, community-based, and otherwise valuable research that cannot easily be measured or reflected by a simple financial calculus. Rather than uncovering groundbreaking ideas, following uncertain but innovative paths that become potential game-changers, or working in the service of the communities in which they reside, under performance-based funding frameworks scholars are incentivized toward targeted, often secretive, corporate-research, in a system that perversely prizes competition between researchers and universities over collaboration.

Universities must continue to be valued and upheld for their core mission, which is to be much more than mere entrepreneurial training centres to be patted on the back for performing short-sighted corporate-styled research and worker development. If our goal is a future where we can thrive and grow, our graduates have to be capable of envisioning and implementing a better tomorrow, and our scholarship and research approach must be as diverse as the creative imagination permits. Alarmingly, these proposed performance-based funding schemes appear to be more aptly labeled “malware.”

Marc Spooner is a professor in the faculty of education at the University of Regina.

University Affairs

11 Comments

Alberta University Faculty Member here: Thank God I’m retiring.

Thank God I’m retired now (faculty/senior admin). Thet way it was pre-pandemic is over. It’s a brand new world out there. Lack of funding, cutbacks, fighting for dollars, zoom, too many PhD doctors and not enough jobs, etc. etc. etc. Best of luck, folks.

“It’s precisely in the fields of thinking and people skills where universities excel”
Which is why a better idea than merely restructuring universities: close down 80-90% of the programmes you offer.

over the last 1/2 century our federal governments have changed the tax structure to favour the corporate world. Consequently, we have less money to shared around, less money to give to Universities, and the corporates have more money. Years ago the U of Manitoba took money from Monsanto who when allowed on campus to conduct experiments they deemed of value and then patented whatever.
There has been a quiet revolutions, against the commons, favouring the rich and powerful. The sad part, voted for by the common electorate!

So happy to read this. I truly think the sector is losing its way, to the cost of future Canadians. And I too am glad to be retired from my university professional staff position.

As someone who has written extensively on the edubusiness orientation of North American universities over the past 200 years (see Nelsen 2017 for example) I appreciate Marc Spooner’s insightful review of the latest iteration. Those of us entrusted to care for the university need to continue being critical of the direction currently being charted. Time to fight back to save whatever is left of the university as a place that promises critical observations and creative thought. It is past time to wake up. Randle W. Nelsen
Professor Emeritus of Sociology
Lakehead University

This article should be posted on the walls at every HE institution to help remind students, faculty and staff what we’re up against. I can’t believe how many comments are saying “glad it doesn’t affect me” this is so much bigger than the day-to-day of the privileged position you enjoyed and now get to draw pension.

I may share a similar concern for universities morphing into another arm of the industry. Still, I see much-needed temperance for the trajectories of universities as unconcerned for economic realities or the livelihoods of students, especially as publicly funded and highly esteemed institutions.

From a student’s perspective, I would challenge the premise that Canadian universities serve their students well when they do not consider how a university education can be tangibly used outside academia. Most students want a job after their degree. It is also unclear whether Canadian universities successfully foster critical, creative, well-rounded citizens. There is quite a lot of evidence to the contrary.

Students are also becoming more disillusioned about the university and its promises of social mobility, higher lifetime earnings, or even the more basic claims of critical thought. Look at the rates of underemployment and student debt. Look at the messaging from universities to keep students in academia. Look at the cynicism, disregard for history, and scoffing at the “less educated” coming from the student body. Innovation, creativity, and character happen outside of academia too. Students must be actively encouraged to consider other educational and vocational pathways and to see them as equally worthwhile to entering university or a career in academia.

There seems to be a considerable amount of doublespeak, saying that student choice matters but implying the choice ought to be to stay within academia, that neither students nor universities should be judged or punished “for fluctuating job market realities over which they have little control”, but doing exactly so to the universities. The article seems equally, if not more, ideologically based than the topic it addresses.

No need to imply here, just cite the arguments in the context they were made:
“Let’s not rob our youth of options and choice of program of study. Nor should governments be judging or devaluing such decisions when students choose lower paying careers that they find to be more meaningful and fulfilling – especially when many of these professions are vitally important to the health of our communities and society. Moreover, given that students are increasingly asked to shoulder a greater percentage of the cost of their degree programs, tackling the growing cost of tuition would seem a much more useful direction for a policy re-boot to take. This is not to suggest that students shouldn’t be presented with accurate employment and income data for each program so they may make informed choices, but to judge or punish them or universities for fluctuating job market realities over which they have little control, is plainly misguided.”

Some publication surveyed which U.S. institutions of higher education’s grads were the most financially successful. The result: Caltech and MIT came out on top. Caltech is very narrowly focused in math, science and engineering. MIT at least has the possibility of economics for those who decide that STEM is not for them. The point is that eliminating most of the fields universities serve skews the results dramatically. One can easily imagine university administrators dropping languages, music, literature, philosophy, and so on to improve their scores on a $-based metric.

Reading the comments, I’m struck by how many people who are retired are content to shrug off this problem because they’re retired. Who do you think will be caring for you and planning the policies which are meant to meet your needs (or not) when you’re no longer able to care for yourself? Just because you’re not working in it anymore, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t impact on you. People need to look beyond their immediate situation, especially when it is rooted in privilege, and develop a broader worldview.

Reply to