Alberta Politics

[thommyjo]

And for rankings, UofA is more like 5-10. You can check 10 other websites and UofA rarely cracks top 5. https://www.macleans.ca/education/u...est-universities-by-reputation-rankings-2021/

We're definitely strong in a few areas and rank top 3 in those, but as an overall school, to compare the overall budget, we are barely 5th.

More money doesn't always help and less shouldn't always hurt. Of course we need good funding, but it's worth considering why we've funded the UofA better than most schools historically and why it's not a top 3 school and also if it's sustainable to be paying so much more per student than other provinces...especially with oil money being turned off in the future.

As a recent uofa grad and a taxpayer, I want better fiscal management from our universities. You can still be progressive and want efficient use of funds.

 

[Edmonchuk]

View attachment 350367
Is it logical to be higher than provinces with multiple higher ranked unis?

Well if you show salaries at uofa, then show them for other institutions for comparison . Alberta is a rich province, oil/gas resource based economy. The higher spending/salaries are expected in this environment. Sometimes stupid spending (WAR ROOM). We were able to lure the best of the best by offering a better compensation. Don't forget we are also not the best climate to live in. I am not saying there are no room for improvement.

 

[kcantor]

i also don't think provincial funding alone - even on a per student basis - tells the whole story. even provincial campus funding alone doesn't tell a full story when the province also does things like cancelling their infrastructure maintenance grant to the u of a.

in regard to other sources, the university of alberta at 1.2 billion is only 5th in endowment fund monies with the university of toronto first at almost 3.2 billion.

in addition to provincial and endowment funding, you have to look at reduced federal and other government grants, lower sales from goods and services, and drops in non-government donations and grants.

it also needs to be noted - although this is not unique to the u of a - that their expenses are pretty much fixed long before they are able to determine their bottom line income. while you can potentially adjust for a year or two from reserve funds, having to deal with ever increasing reductions - particularly from your primary funder - is what will in short order destroy an institution. after the reserves are gone, the next available source is tuition fees followed closely thereafter by structural changes both of which risk irreparable damage to the institution.

 

[ChazYEG]

And for rankings, UofA is more like 5-10. You can check 10 other websites and UofA rarely cracks top 5. https://www.macleans.ca/education/u...est-universities-by-reputation-rankings-2021/

We're definitely strong in a few areas and rank top 3 in those, but as an overall school, to compare the overall budget, we are barely 5th.

More money doesn't always help and less shouldn't always hurt. Of course we need good funding, but it's worth considering why we've funded the UofA better than most schools historically and why it's not a top 3 school and also if it's sustainable to be paying so much more per student than other provinces...especially with oil money being turned off in the future.

As a recent uofa grad and a taxpayer, I want better fiscal management from our universities. You can still be progressive and want efficient use of funds.

The U of A consistently ranks at least 5th in Canada, with a rare occasion in which is ranks 6th (generally tied of the University of Montreal), in all of the most relevant, respected and reputable university rankings. It also ranks consistently between 100 and 140 in the world, without exceptions. There absolutely NO comparison between the U of A and McEwan, in in regard. The U of A is this province's flagship university, one of the most respected and reputable universities in the world, a top research centre (with a few Nobel Prizes under its roofs). Comparing the two on the basis of one Nursing major is borderline silly.
That said, the piece of article you used a few posts back says two things: despite consistently ranking below the U of A in ALL rankings (up to 5 positions in Canada and between 100 and 150 in the world), the U of C has seen their salaries increase more, and still we see the cuts hurting the U of A disproportionately. The other is that, by the number of people it says get paid over $145k, almost 100% must be professors, considering that the faculty accounts for over 2700 people (yeas, the U of A is a BEHEMOT employer).
Also, as Ken said, funding doesn't go all to salaries and a large portion of it goes to infrastructure and maintenance, which is where there's a lot of space for more efficiency (the U of A owns more land and buildings than it needs, that's for sure). One of the reasons why we don't rank higher is that the U of A is younger and less established than the likes of McGill and U of T, for example (by about 90 years or so) and the policy of investing to be competitive in attracting professors that would otherwise prefer such universities only started about 20~30 years ago (and in that period, the U of A rose between 6 and 8 ranking positions, on average, which is not bad). The UBC started it long before (and their weather and Vancouver's position as the main Western city in Canada also helped), which explains why they currently rank between 2nd and 3rd. If the status-quo is maintained, we would have the U of A ranking 4th consistently in a few years and, from there, it becomes more difficult, but would make sense to have the top 4 universities in Canada coming one from each of the 4 biggest and richest provinces.

As for the rankings, these are 3 of the 4 most respected and widely accepted university rankings, across the planet:

CWUR - 4th in Canada, 101st in the world

QS World University Ranking - 5th Canada, 126th in the world

US News Report - 5th in Canada, 138th in the world

Times Higher Education won't let me print it, but it lists the U of A in 6th in Canada and 123rd in the World.

Please, stop trying to apply a corporate mentality to an academic institution. These are two different things and should NEVER be run the same way.

 

[Edmonchuk]

It may sound exaggerating, but I see it as this UCP government is in pursue of destroying this very reputable institution, that served Edmonton as a catalysis for progressive thinking and potential contributor to the economy diversification and future development. 2023 can't come fast enough.

 

[thommyjo]

The U of A consistently ranks at least 5th in Canada, with a rare occasion in which is ranks 6th (generally tied of the University of Montreal), in all of the most relevant, respected and reputable university rankings. It also ranks consistently between 100 and 140 in the world, without exceptions. There absolutely NO comparison between the U of A and McEwan, in in regard. The U of A is this province's flagship university, one of the most respected and reputable universities in the world, a top research centre (with a few Nobel Prizes under its roofs). Comparing the two on the basis of one Nursing major is borderline silly.
That said, the piece of article you used a few posts back says two things: despite consistently ranking below the U of A in ALL rankings (up to 5 positions in Canada and between 100 and 150 in the world), the U of C has seen their salaries increase more, and still we see the cuts hurting the U of A disproportionately. The other is that, by the number of people it says get paid over $145k, almost 100% must be professors, considering that the faculty accounts for over 2700 people (yeas, the U of A is a BEHEMOT employer).
Also, as Ken said, funding doesn't go all to salaries and a large portion of it goes to infrastructure and maintenance, which is where there's a lot of space for more efficiency (the U of A owns more land and buildings than it needs, that's for sure). One of the reasons why we don't rank higher is that the U of A is younger and less established than the likes of McGill and U of T, for example (by about 90 years or so) and the policy of investing to be competitive in attracting professors that would otherwise prefer such universities only started about 20~30 years ago (and in that period, the U of A rose between 6 and 8 ranking positions, on average, which is not bad). The UBC started it long before (and their weather and Vancouver's position as the main Western city in Canada also helped), which explains why they currently rank between 2nd and 3rd. If the status-quo is maintained, we would have the U of A ranking 4th consistently in a few years and, from there, it becomes more difficult, but would make sense to have the top 4 universities in Canada coming one from each of the 4 biggest and richest provinces.

As for the rankings, these are 3 of the 4 most respected and widely accepted university rankings, across the planet:

CWUR - 4th in Canada, 101st in the world
View attachment 350422
QS World University Ranking - 5th Canada, 126th in the world
View attachment 350423

US News Report - 5th in Canada, 138th in the world

View attachment 350424

Times Higher Education won't let me print it, but it lists the U of A in 6th in Canada and 123rd in the World.

Please, stop trying to apply a corporate mentality to an academic institution. These are two different things and should NEVER be run the same way.

You literally said nothing different in this than what I said...

I read all the same websites.

My point is that the UofA is accomplishing less than other universities, while also having more funding.

As taxpayers, its not unreasonable to question why that is.

Taxes are investments. They are the allocation of money to provide public services and good. Universities are so important and critical, hence why we fund them so much. But it doesn't mean they're free from financial scrutiny. If a non profit fighting homelessness could better spend 20mil than the university, then we should reallocate. That's how taxes are supposed to work. It's a fight between needs and funding.

There's lots to be said about the ucp, their dumb decisions, etc. But its not wrong to look at efficiencies.

Especially, as said in that article, the majority of Albertans took pay cuts or freezes in the last 7 years. Why should we have to fund increased salaries when the rest of us are having to sacrifice?

 

[ChazYEG]

My point is that the UofA is accomplishing less than other universities, while also having more funding.

Please explain this better... Accomplishing less? Than who? No Canadian university climbed so many ranking positions in the past decade than the U of A. That's not to mention a Nobel Prize (just last year) and the consolidation as one of the top 5 institutions in Canada.
Again, universities DO NOT FREAKING WORK AS COMPANIES, their investment in human capital takes longer to move things for reasons that are very particular to the academic environment, of which you seem to have absolutely no understanding.

It too the UBC over 50 years of investment above the average to climb to the top 3, starting in the early 1950s, in a time where the required level of investment to do so was much, MUCH smaller, considering that the bar was lower (and the U of A only started this same movement about 25~30 years ago... And we don't have Vancouver's name recognition, climate or general attractiveness, both for students and faculty). A good analogy for this is how hard it is now for a developing country to catch up and make the jump to a developed one, compared to what it was in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. It's does NOT happen overnight, and maintaining yourself in such positions (and rankings are not everything, to be honest...) Is just as hard and demands a continued level of investment that, if we cut now, will mean throwing all of the investment done so far down the drain!

Especially, as said in that article, the majority of Albertans took pay cuts or freezes in the last 7 years. Why should we have to fund increased salaries when the rest of us are having to sacrifice?

You cannot compare apples to oranges. Things like Health and Education should NEVER be subject to cuts. The former due to it's absolutely essential characteristic, and the abnegate soul of the workers, whose value most people just came to appreciate recently (not the provincial government, though). The latter because it is the best investment that you can ever make in a country/province/city: it creates the opportunity and the means for technological advance, drives a better qualified labour force, higher wages... In the case of the Albertan universities, they're the potential catalysts for economic diversification, for a change in the political status quo, for a better stance on climate change and all that it entails... Universities, in general, are the best hope of a place to keep moving forward, and this is not just a passionate discourse, it's fairly easy to prove mathematically and empirically: every country, state, province or city that kept high levels of investment in educational, especially post-secondary, benefited from it in a much larger scale than the costs. Eg. South Korea, China, Singapore, Chile, Israel, Uruguay, Finland, Brazil...

And I'll keep hammering: WHY IS IT thar you see it being fair to cut on the universities, but not on the oil subsidies (that help keeping the salaries WAY above what the market would be paying, even for jobs not nearly as qualified as that of a PhD, for example)?

Why should education and health workers suffer cuts, when the provincial government set 1.5B on fire with the Keystone XL pipeline? Why not take the money to balance the bloody budget from the outrageous direct and indirect subsidies to companies that would still be among the more profitable on Earth without them?

Hell, why not cut the MLAs salaries in half? End their extra money for rent and travel? Why should an MLA get paid over $200k a year, on average, between salary and extras, especially when most of them keep their business incomes, etc...)?

Also, from an economic theory perspective, better than cut your limbs off, in the name of fiscal responsibility, your best choice is to make smaller, gradual adjustments AND GROW THE BLOODY ECONOMY.

 

[ChazYEG]

You literally said nothing different in this than what I said...

I read all the same websites

Also, no, I didn't. You stated that the U of A barely cracks top 5 most of the time, whereas it's the other way around. It barely falls from 5th, while it seems more plausible that it will rise to 4th in the near future, than that it will fall from 5th, if it's kept safe from the UCP's butcher block.

 

[kcantor]

^^^^

i would have to disagree with you - it most certainly is wrong to look at efficiencies if they are false.

you can't look at a single metric - ie cost per student - without also looking at the amount of class or lab or research space available to those students.

you can't ignore things like nobel prize winners, number of patents, or even things like the number of faculties. how do you assign an efficiency to medical students or researchers being able to access fine arts and industrial design students and vice versa along with the cross pollination including mutual respect that engenders?

how do you assess the efficiency of a transplant team that is ranked number 6 in the entire world vs law? how do factor in the completely disproportional cost of providing surgical units and labs and research facilities when your comparison is to open lecture halls and internet connections?

how do you assess the efficiency of institutions offering extensive - and expensive - sports programs against institutions that do not?

how do assess the efficiency of attracting and housing international students vs an institution whose primary enrolment is local? How do you put a value on the international friendships and understanding that nurtures in both directions?

universities aren't in the business of granting fungible degrees and job training. their goal is to develop individual students in a myriad of disciplines to be leaders in their disciplines not just locally but nationally and internationally while at the same time being "complete" people with the ability to relate to and respect those in other disciplines and to have a broad enough exposure outside of their own discipline to be independent critical thinkers.

what would you suggest is the appropriate cost per student per semester to achieve or reflect each of those things and more?

 

[occidentalcapital]

U of A must absolutely be restored to flagship funding and I would want NDP and UCP (under a future leader other than Kenney) to address this in their platform commitments. It is an asset for all of Alberta. It is money very well spent given where things are at in the energy transition and Alberta's economy.

 

[thommyjo]

"Things like Health and Education should NEVER be subject to cuts"

That is an irresponsible position that leads to the bloat and mismanagement we see in many public sectors.

Sure wouldn't want to see people's personal budgets when you're this lax about everything...

I deeply believe in the university. I am frustrated by the cuts and the sense that the UofA is being targeted. I'm angry about UCP waste and the pipeline jokes. We're aligned on a lot of this.

I just don't believe universities funded by US, the People, should be free from scrutiny.

When every other industry took pay cuts, I firmly believe the university should have too. Other organizations learn how to be competitive in tight times with less revenue. You'd think a school with brilliant thinkers and all the phDs could figure it out as well.

 

[EdmTrekker]

View attachment 350367
Is it logical to be higher than provinces with multiple higher ranked unis?

Provincial support numbers alone do not tell the whole story. One must look at endowments and other revenue streams. UofT has an endowment 3 times larger than the UofC and UA not much better. Revenues from that extra 2 Billion fund many salaries, research at UofT that the we in Alberta do not have access to. And grants from corporations for research to McGill, UofT and UBC are significantly higher than in Alberta. And there is the added complexity of meddling by the Province in how the Alberta Universities operate and the programs they offer. There was no need to open Ventinary at the UofC when the one in Saskatoon served the needs of the West adequately - same for Kinesiology that opened at UofC. These were political decisions pushed by lobbyists. Programs like this add to administrative costs and it piles on. Alberta has now realized it needs to try to reduce expenditures and is doing just that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_universities_by_endowment

 

[ChazYEG]

"Things like Health and Education should NEVER be subject to cuts"

That is an irresponsible position that leads to the bloat and mismanagement we see in many public sectors.

Sure wouldn't want to see people's personal budgets when you're this lax about everything...

I deeply believe in the university. I am frustrated by the cuts and the sense that the UofA is being targeted. I'm angry about UCP waste and the pipeline jokes. We're aligned on a lot of this.

I just don't believe universities funded by US, the People, should be free from scrutiny.

When every other industry took pay cuts, I firmly believe the university should have too. Other organizations learn how to be competitive in tight times with less revenue. You'd think a school with brilliant thinkers and all the phDs could figure it out as well.

Again, you refuse to understand that universities DO NOT operate the same way as most organizations, especially intensive research ones. Funding for research usually HAS to be a long-term commitment, for reasons that I assume are obvious.

Also, if you wanna talk about personal budgets, let's sit down and talk in person... I'd be delighted to show you mine... It's not being lax, it's understanding how an economy works and, especially, the difference between wasteful expenditure and long-term investment. You wanna talk about that, we can, as well.

As to what I said, let me rephrase that: Education and Health should NEVER be subject to cuts unless it is the ABSOLUTE LAST resort, which is not Alberta's case.

I'll say it again: stop thinking universities financial and economical cycles as ANYTHING comparable to a corporation. It works in an entirely different logic and should stay this way for the sake of all of us, and our future generations. The day we start treating the U of A as a typical corporation is the day it will be doomed.

 

[CaptainBL]

Not sure if this is the thread for my ranting observation or this belongs is something more reputational but between the recent Alberta government rollercoaster and the federal election I have noticed a very high frequency of Calgary front and center in the political action. Whether its interviewing political science professors from Calgary universities, politicians from Calgary (I have seen Nenshi on a dozen interviews giving opinions on the federal and provincial affairs), provincial government meetings and announcements from Calgary, news casts that are speaking with political experts in Calgary regarding the provincial government...you would almost be forgiven for thinking that Calgary is the capital of Alberta, or that another city in the province outside of Calgary exists at all. I have no scientific evidence or surveys that support what I am saying outside of observations but most of the federal election commentary from Alberta came from Calgary. The most recent that pushed me to this rant was watching a CBC Power and Politics panel that had 4 individuals from across the country speaking about Kenney's recent cabinet swap and the one Alberta expert was being interviewed from Calgary.

Are there no Edmonton political experts with clout and voice? Are most government functions and institutions and decisions, then analysis not run out of Edmonton? Yikes I get Edmonton lost the publicity battle to Calgary on being the corporate center of the province but has Edmonton's reputation sunk as low as its now forgotten as the capital and political city of the province as well?

 

[ChazYEG]

Not sure if this is the thread for my ranting observation or this belongs is something more reputational but between the recent Alberta government rollercoaster and the federal election I have noticed a very high frequency of Calgary front and center in the political action. Whether its interviewing political science professors from Calgary universities, politicians from Calgary (I have seen Nenshi on a dozen interviews giving opinions on the federal and provincial affairs), provincial government meetings and announcements from Calgary, news casts that are speaking with political experts in Calgary regarding the provincial government...you would almost be forgiven for thinking that Calgary is the capital of Alberta, or that another city in the province outside of Calgary exists at all. I have no scientific evidence or surveys that support what I am saying outside of observations but most of the federal election commentary from Alberta came from Calgary. The most recent that pushed me to this rant was watching a CBC Power and Politics panel that had 4 individuals from across the country speaking about Kenney's recent cabinet swap and the one Alberta expert was being interviewed from Calgary.

Are there no Edmonton political experts with clout and voice? Are most government functions and institutions and decisions, then analysis not run out of Edmonton? Yikes I get Edmonton lost the publicity battle to Calgary on being the corporate center of the province but has Edmonton's reputation sunk as low as its now forgotten as the capital and political city of the province as well?

I don't disagree with you there and, as much as I'm a Liberal and support both the federal government, the PM and my (possible) MP, I'm furious with JT for not coming to Edmonton. He went to EVERY other major Canadian city, he rallied with George Chahal, but even with two strong candidates in Edmonton (Ben and Randy) he didn't set foot here (as much as I like Chrystia, much more than I'll ever like him, He's still the Prime Minister, a post that I hope someday is hers...).