U of T Considering Telling Its Poorer and Busier Students to FCE Off

The University of Toronto—apparently anxious to catch up with York in how alienated, poor, and frustrated students have been made there—is weighing a proposal disastrous for the bulk of its future students, all in the name of a fast buck.

On April 6, the University of Toronto's Faculty of Arts & Sciences—which represents the majority of the university's swelling student population—will be voting on a proposal that, if subsequently approved by the school's Governing Council, would charge all new U of T students, starting next year, a fixed fee for their courses, charging the equivalent of 5.0 courses (full course equivalents, or FCEs)—regardless of how many FCEs, from 3.0 to 6.0, students actually take. (A full-year undergrad course typically earns a student 1.0 credit, and a half-year course earns 0.5; full-time students are those who enrol in more than 2.5 FCEs.) In other words, students with either minimal financial means or maximal extra-curricular workloads, or both, will have to choose between being a part-time student (which would mean graduating in no fewer than eight years for undergraduates), staying in however many courses works best for them and incurring the financial burden of paying up to several thousand more dollars a year than current students do now (and taking student loans or gaining employment to cover it, thus reducing the time they could devote to school anyway), or—if they want to get their money's worth—taking the full course load, paying the full amount, and somehow coming up with both the money and the time that it would all require.

According to the Faculty's proposal [PDF], the average full-time U of T student is enrolled in 4.5 FCEs, and the forced change would generate "an additional $10M in base funding" and "would provide over $1.5M for student aid, and sufficient funds to hire an additional 17 faculty and 6 staff. A program fee will increase the net government grant per student." "Effectively," it notes, "the change will help maximize the per-student grant and tuition"...by raising the per-student tuition. Smart.

Though fixed-fee programs regardless of course load are not uncommon at other universities, and, here and there, at U of T, the proposal seems colossally out of touch with the reality of student experience at the country's largest academic institution in the country's most expensive city. For instance, the proposal suggests that "for students, there is a financial benefit in finishing their program in four years, as they would thereby avoiding [sic] the living costs, and lost income, from a fifth year of study." For many current students—like me; I'm a full-time U of T Arts and Science undergrad enrolled in fewer than 5.0 FCEs, though this change won't directly affect me if it's made—taking more than four years at the University of Toronto is a choice made out of necessity, because of either money or workload. Many students who take more than four years do so because of, not in spite of, financial issues.

And here's another paragraph that should blow the mind of anyone who's been in any Canadian university in the past few decades:

It should be noted that for domestic students with financial need, tuition fees are fully covered by government and/or University student aid. The possible increase in tuition would therefore not itself create a compulsion for students to increase their course load. Both they and their more affluent peers, however, would be wiser—at least from a financial point of view—to plan their academic programs to minimize their time-to-degree in order to reduce other in-school living costs and maximize their years of employment.

Tuition fees are not, for the vast majority of domestic students with financial need, "fully covered by government and/or University student aid"—they're covered by loans that must be repayed, with interest. Many, many students, especially the ones not so "affluent," already "maximize their years of employment" by being employed throughout university.

And here's another one:

Any intensification in overall course load could be imagined to have implications with respect to other non-academic or extracurricular issues, e.g. student time available for non-course activities including clubs, sports, employment, and related activities, or adversely affecting the overall student experience. The committee is not aware of any particular problems experienced by the other ten Ontario universities, or by other University of Toronto divisions, that currently have a program fee. Indeed, given our performance on measures of student engagement, one might suggest course intensification would have little to no impact or perhaps even have modest benefits.

Hahaha. Okay, U of T. Any good student with half-decent critical skills could tell you that "one might suggest" that sentences that begin with "one might suggest" and that end with wishy-washy conclusions, like assessing something as having "little to no impact or perhaps even...modest benefits," are not particularly convincing. The next part of that paragraph, as further proof, cites the Globe's annual university report card, noting that "the two Ontario universities that received top scores on 'overall student satisfaction'...Guelph and Western, charge program-based fees," even though that's not a causal relationship; it's the equivalent of saying that U of T should move to Guelph, since Guelph is in Guelph, and it does swell on overall student satisfaction. Problem solved!

U of T prides itself on being a school of future leaders, and its students—especially those most involved on and off campus—pride themselves on being part of a school that challenges them, holds them in high regard, and treats them with respect and understanding. A fixed fee program would be an enormous mistake: it would discourage students with significant financial needs from attending at all, and it would discourage extracurricular activities for students who want their time at the University to include work not done explicitly in or for a classroom. Sometimes future leaders can't take, or can't afford, a full course load.

Email This Entry


Comments (16) [rss]

If you're at U of T or considering coming to U of T next year please join us on facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=60973877806#/group.php?gid=60973877806

Also e-mail your professors and Departmental chairs, since many of the votes at Faculty Council are these people. Thanks!

-Dave at the U of T Students' Union

My initial reaction? The line between "business" and "institution of higher education" continues to blur to the point where the two are coming to be indistinguishable.

While it might be due to chronic underfunding at the provincial level, Universities continue to look to students to bridge shortfalls, prioritizing being financially viable over a student's learning experience.

That being said, for some students, post-secondary education is already seen as a business transaction: paying tuition = a degree. So why pretend that Universities are *not* in the diploma-printing business and looking to maximize profits (or, in the language of the UofT document "an additional $10M in base funding")?

While this new fee system might discourage some future (top) applicants from applying. There are many cases in which students have shown exemplary performance in academics while participating in more extracurricular activities than most students do on campus.

For example, a counter point would be to look at the Faculty of Applied Science (Engineering). For full time students, there is no choice but to take a full course load of 5.0 or even 6.0 FCEs. As a member of the engineering society I do believe that one can balance a large workload while being active in extra curricular activities.

I would fully agree with the issue of being "forced" to pay a flat fee; however, I do not think that extracurriculars should be dragged into this issue as there are many examples of honors students holding executive positions and demonstrating skule pride.

As a program-fee-paying undergrad, I took 5 or 6 courses a term, worked part-time, and was involved in extracurriculars.

And where do people get the idea that universities make profits off of student tuition?

I can't believe you're arguing for half-measures. The University needs to ABOLISH tuition--hell, students should be PAID for going to University, because we're doing society a service by become more productive future corporate drones who will pay higher taxes.

If ASSU and UTSU weren't so weak-kneed, this is what they'd be campaigning for. They're blind to the real struggle. They claim to be sticking up for students, but they miss the real point: tuition need to be ABOLISHED. They call themselves leftists, but they're just defending the status quo.

Who's with me?

Just because there are those of us choose to and *can* juggle a job, extracurriculars, and a full courseload doesn't mean all of us can/want to or, more importantly, should be financially compelled to.

I'm not sure that's really even the issue. The real issue is simple fairness: You pay for the courses you take, nothing less, nothing more. It's the argument often used against broad ancillary fees, but the amount is quite different. The gap here between 4.5 FCEs and 5.0 FCEs is a cost of hundreds of dollars.

I'm glad I graduated last year.

If this goes through, it'll be worse than York.

Which is ludicrous.

So ludicrous I'm convinced it's an April Fools Day prank.

@montauk: I actually thought it was an April Fool's joke too when I saw it in the Strand (which is Vic's student newspaper). I sort of thought "well, this isn't funny, and why aren't there any other joke articles in this issue?" I read it over a few times trying to parse whether it was a joke or not, and then set the paper aside, until I saw that the news was on the cover below the fold in the Varsity's (non-joke) issue yesterday. And then an e-mail to students was sent out by the Arts & Sciences Students Union last night, saying that students ought to fight the fee, and a Facebook group opped up that has grown to about a thousand people, and and the proposal really actually exists on the Arts & Sciences website. And it was in the Star this morning, which I found out after I wrote about it here. It's no joke.

Maybe it was originally conceived by the board as an April Fools joke and one too many people took it seriously and now it's too late to revoke it and they're all sitting around deeply embarrassed wondering how they can wash their hands of the whole thing. That's how York was founded, wasn't it? Ha ha ha, a satellite campus in North York, ha ha ha.

*sad sigh*

you know, american universities charge much much much much more.

my school charges 37 000.

But of course since I am poor and talented, they pay for most of it thru scholarships.

Let the rich pay for school.

I know there are shitloads of subsidies and bursaries and fellowships and scholarships out there.

schooling isnt cheap, nor should it be.

First, regarding these "shitloads" of bursaries and fellowships and scholarships. Let's say I'm a fifth-year psychology student, excellent grades, financial need, no meaningful minority status except Jewish, half-Asian and female. Now show me the shitloads. Honestly. Please tell me where I should pick up my shitloads, because it appears I've been blindly strolling through a minefield of lucrative shitloads and somehow didn't step on any. Or, alternatively, please direct me to the rich people you found who will give me shitloads of cash directly. I'll even make it easy - you can pretend I'm a first or second year student, because surely there are more shitloads for them. How about it?

And why shouldn't schooling be cheap?

First, regarding these "shitloads" of bursaries and fellowships and scholarships.

While this proposal has the potential to hit me hard, I will note that you come off as a little ignorant to me. Domestic students enjoy what is essentially a de facto bursary. The majority of our tuition is paid by the taxpayers, if that doesn't constitute a "shitload" then I don't know what does.

Agreed - taxpayers (myself being one of them) are absolutely instrumental in reducing the pre-existing cost of tuition before it gets handed down to the student. My concern is for students who struggle significantly to pay that "end-user" tuition (and I don't count myself among them - I work too much, but I know in the long run that I'll swing this).

I have a hell of a time finding bursaries and scholarships. So I can't even imagine being a busy young mother, for example, and being asked to list recent "extracurricular and community volunteer experience". Or another example - it seems like there's a plethora of scholarships and bursaries for Aboriginal students if you assume they have a socioeconomic breakdown similar to third/fourth generation white Canadians (as in, the minority are completely dependent on scholarships), but considering that the majority of them come from tough impoverished situations with significantly fewer job opportunities, the quantity of scholarships isn't proportional to the students who need them.

I went to Western, and I can tell you that I was irritated by the fixed-fee tuition once I realized that was how it worked. But, because it was fixed, I never enrolled in less than the maximum (I wanted to get my money's worth!). While I'm sure that Western makes some profit, I would be interested to know how much - I didn't know of any people who chose not to take the maximum amount of courses (unless, of course, they were in danger of failing and desperately needed to drop a course...ha!)

I'm also not sure how much this new fixed fee will actually influence high school students that are applying to university. I certainly didn't look into which university was giving me the most freedom. Of course, that might also be because I didn't know very much about post-secondary education at that time.

In any case, it still sucks. Especially for current students who needed and preferred the flexibility of the per-credit tuition.

When I went to university, I was only able to do it part time.

I think that this program will only exclude part time students and otherwise have little advantage.

I am dumbfounded that they actually think that this will somehow increase the revenue of the university?? To assume that people will continue to take the number of course they were under the old system, is just simple minded. Of course EVERYONE will take the max amount of courses, or at least as close to it as they can, if they are forced to pay the full fee. So exactly where does U of T think they are going to make their extra money??

If there was another reason for this other than increasing revenues, I might look at it. Otherwise I think this is a stupid move on U of T's part


Once again, the 'typical' U of Toronto "elitist" wannabe university, should take some advice from the real elitists who compete on the world stage like" Harvard", who actually treat their undergraduates with respect and invest in them to study at their university, and help them along the way...see you Harvard in 2010!!! This has been a long time coming and was always on the hush, hush agenda of Bureaucrats here. President Naylor has no interest in you 'struggling' students, kissing ass is part of the big players' nature... to impress those with $$$ and connections, and intelligence (only the best and the brightest will do! no pun intended). What so called, 'poor students' can do is get some sponsorship from the real economy established 'elitists' or those who have become such,through years of struggling at university (of Toronto?!) and kiss ass for some sponsorship....apparently, "no student should be turned away from completing their degree"...what student is that?...only the 'select' few chosen!
I am no sore loser...I am the daughter of a U of T Professor of Medicine and scientist...we are immigrants...he would be ashamed, but he is ill and cannot help me pay for University, and I am OSAP restricted forever, because he I made an 'unforgiveable' mistake of providing a few dollars $$$ off in income verification. shame on me! I was caring for a sick member of your university...my father! how many 'struggling' students find themselves in this same situation? Sadly enough, they will now hopefully get some attention from Harvard....

Post a comment (Comment Policy)

TIP US OFF

Tip us off with news, leads, links; anything at all.
Subscribe to get events, weather, contests, and stories in your email inbox—daily.

EMAIL (required)

About Torontoist

Torontoist is about Toronto and everything that happens in it. It's edited by David Topping and Marc Lostracco, and you should totally advertise on us.

More about Torontoist.

Recent Comments

The Tall Poppy Interview

Follow Torontoist...