- Instruction expenditure: $525 million (Up 91% since 2001, Up 26% since 2010)
- Library expenditure: $34 million (Up 24% since 2001, Down 0.4% since 2010)
- Academic Salaries (Academic Ranks) in Instruction: $254 million (Up 79% since 2001, Up 24% since 2010)
- Academic Salaries (Other Instruction & Research) in Instruction: $39 million (Up 94% since 2001, Up 16% since 2010)
- Total Academic Salaries in Instruction: $293 million (Up 81% since 2001, Up 23% since 2010)
- Total General Operating Expenditure: $929 million (Up 98% since 2001, Up 29% since 2010)
- Enrollment – 35,034 (Up 59% since 2001, Up 22% since 2010)
All the preceding Topics impact the level of each university’s commitment to its Academic program. Prudent spending in Support areas allows a higher level of funding to reach the Core Mission areas; excessive spending on Support and administration has the reverse affect. This, as the saying goes, is where “the chickens come home to roost”.
This Topic assesses Academic Commitment by measuring budget allocation levels to Instruction, the Library, and Academic Salaries. Included in the assessments is a measure of the degree to which each university pursues cost savings by reducing its utilization of full faculty and leaning more heavily on adjunct faculty, sessional lecturers and teaching assistants (see CAUBO definitions below).
Academic Salaries (Academic Ranks) covers “both full and part time staff members who hold an academic rank at the reporting institution and are engaged in instruction and research activities.” These are the most senior and experienced faculty.
Academic Salaries (Other Instruction & Research) covers “payments to both full and part time staff and non-staff members without academic rank at the reporting institution, but who are engaged in instruction and research activities.” This category includes adjunct faculty, sessional lecturers and teaching assistants.
The following chart shows the change across the Top 25 since 2001 in “Real PSE Dollars” (adjusted for both inflation and increased enrollment). Positive values denote increases exceeding inflation and increased enrollment combined:
7 A) Changes in Real Expenditure Per FTE Student – By Function or Type (Top 25)
1 A) 2024Download this table (Opens in new tab)
Again, we see significant declines in the shares of Total GO Expenditure allocated to key elements of the Academic program – despite the continual increases in enrollment.
2024 Shares of Total GO Expenditure (Top 25):
- Instruction – 56.5% (58.6% in 2001, 58.0% in 2010).
- Library – 3.7% (5.9% in 2001, 4.8% in 2010).
- Academic Salaries (Academic ranks) in Instruction – 27.4% (30.4% in 2001, 28.6% in 2010).
- Academic Salaries (Other Instruction & Res’ch) in Instruction – 4.1% (4.2% in 2001, 4.6% in 2010).
- Total Academic Salaries in Instruction – 31.5% (34.6% in 2001, 33.2% in 2010).
The reduced expenditure levels for the Library are understandable, given the technology-based change in the nature of academic materials. However, the overall change in Resource Allocation suggests that the resultant savings were not kept within the Academic category.
There are signs of a notable change in the Academic area, more evident at some universities than others – the replacement of full Faculty with less experienced, but cheaper, adjunct faculty, sessional lecturers and teaching assistants. These staff have borne much of the pressure resulting from higher enrollment and increasing class sizes.
All these numbers make it difficult, if not impossible, for many universities to claim that their primary focus is delivering quality education. They also add credence to student claims that they are constantly being required to “pay more for less”, and faculty contentions that they are continually expected to “do more with less”.
This topic, perhaps more than any other, provides a measure of the relative effectiveness of provincial ministries. If there was only one factor on which the effectiveness of their PSE oversight could be judged, it must surely be the answer to the question “How good are your institutions at maximizing the delivery of student and public funding to the classroom?”
Very few provinces fare well in that critical test, but some fare worse than others. The level of Academic Commitment can vary at the individual university level, sometimes with valid reason, but when multiple institutions in the same province appear to be under-performing, the province is under-performing. That represents a failure of oversight at the ministry level.
That, in turn, represents a failure by the provinces to fulfil something even more important – their fundamental duty to the province’s taxpaying public and – distressingly – to its younger generations.
It’s long overdue for ALL the provinces to start holding themselves to account and, individually and collectively, start fixing these deeply damaging issues.
Efficiency Ranking
The underlying methodology for the Efficiency Ranking can be seen HERE.
7 B) ACADEMIC COMMITMENT: 2024 EFFICIENCY RANKINGS (TOP 50)
6 C) 2024Download this table (Opens in new tab)
Key Efficiency Indicator and Relative Cost Impact
The underlying methodology for the Key Efficiency Indicator and Relative Cost Impact calculation can be seen HERE.
These measures are provided for the Top 50, with 2020 as the base year, and for the Top 25, with 2010 as the base year. The Top 25 table shows the major dollar consequences of the efficiency decline in that timeframe.
7 C) KEY EFFICIENCY INDICATOR AND RCI: 2024 vs 2020 – and – vs LATEST GROUP AVERAGE (TOP 50) – Opens in new tab
7 D) KEY EFFICIENCY INDICATOR AND RCI: 2024 vs 2010 – and – vs LATEST GROUP AVERAGE (TOP 25) – Opens in new tab