Is Tuition Really THAT Unreasonable in Ontario?

[murf]

Forum Sponsor

Not sure on Europe but in the USA they have associate degrees which are basically the first two years of a bachelors. If you want to go on to a bachelors you (typically) have two more years. What we call a university they call a either a college or a university (same thing to them). They also have "community colleges" but again most bachelor programs give full credit for what was learned there (assuming it was related and is RA). There are issues with RA and NA programs but as long as your credits are RA (regardless of source) you can use them to move forward with your education.

In Canada the University system has been dragged kicking and screaming into acknowledging college credits at all. The two school types have different accreditation (where in the US they are all RA, well the worth while ones are). In the best cases here if you go to college first they will give you one year credit for a two year program and maybe two for a three year program. In some cases my three years of college is worth only 7 credits in a related university program here! They will make you take all the same courses over again (in many cases the exact same content)...

Where our system is broken, college and university are diverging paths (and have separate accreditation). Universities make it as hard as possible to use you college credits towards a degree. At the same time people are graduating university and then taking a college course to get the knowledge they need to get a job (I know many that have done this).

The sad part is, once you have worked a few years the college education is pretty much a worthless piece of paper to both the university and business worlds. Degree is king, college may get you the job but not much more. The irony is, my college education is pretty much worthless to Canadian Universities but is considered three years of RA university, 90 (actually more) credits in the US!

As a graduate of a respected three year college program researching degree completion paths I am very familiar with the US and Canada systems of acknowledging the Canadian college education. There are some Canadian universities that have specific articulation agreements but they are few and far between, there are always minor exceptions.

Although there are not many topics where I would suggest looking to the US as an example, the accreditation structure (not cost!) of the post secondary system is one of them. Our colleges and universities should have the same accreditation, college credits should be fully acknowledge by the university system. Someone who completes two or three years of university (or community college) should graduate with the equivalent of today's diplomas (two year) or advanced diplomas (three year) if they go the full four years get a bachelors.

Some Universities are starting to do joint programs with local community colleges here to implement something like this for specific programs but there is a very long road ahead. Some community colleges are fighting the good fight to offer in-house degrees but it is a long and hard battle. The arrogance of the university establishment is nearly unprecedented (the people who run the system).

-----------------------------------------------------

In the USA our automotive designers were from community college. Later they were forced to go to university and get a 2 year associates degree. Their community college was similar to college in Canada. When I went to university one needed an extra year of high school - OACs, and to get to college you just needed 4 years at a lower level (general) with no Calculus. So the person going to university was at a different level than the one going to college. After the first year of post secondary schooling the college student would not be equivalent. I realize it's different now, but are they equivalent......I doubt it. The entrance requirements are different as well as the tuition cost, not that familiar with the courses anymore but at Durham college the educators don't even need a PHD, and some are part time.

 

[CrazyKell]

-----------------------------------------------------

In the USA our automotive designers were from community college. Later they were forced to go to university and get a 2 year associates degree. Their community college was similar to college in Canada. When I went to university one needed an extra year of high school - OACs, and to get to college you just needed 4 years at a lower level (general) with no Calculus. So the person going to university was at a different level than the one going to college. After the first year of post secondary schooling the college student would not be equivalent. I realize it's different now, but are they equivalent......I doubt it. The entrance requirements are different as well as the tuition cost, not that familiar with the courses anymore but at Durham college the educators don't even need a PHD, and some are part time.

You don't need a PhD to teach at a university either.

University credits aren't even recognized from province to province. I transferred from Ontario to BC and even though I had OAC (while in BC they only had Gr 12), most of my credits were not given the weight they deserved and I essentially started again from scratch.

 

[AdRath]

You don't need a PhD to teach at a university either.

Nor does a PHD make a better teacher. In my experiences some of the most technically brilliant people were the worst teachers.

 

[CrazyKell]

Nor does a PHD make a better teacher. In my experiences some of the most technically brilliant people were the worst teachers.

Ed Zachary.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

You don't need a PhD to teach at a university either.

You do, however require a certain number of doctorates in order to be accredited as a university.

 

[AdRath]

You do, however require a certain number of doctorates in order to be accredited as a university.

It seems to me that having PHD's on staff is more about doing research and getting published with the universities name attached and very little with giving the students the best education. I bet if most professors didn't require their books as material they wouldn't sell more than 10 copies. That stuff is exactly why it has never appealed to me to know how brilliant some of the prof's are because chances are they will have very little interaction with you and your education.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

It seems to me that having PHD's on staff is more about doing research and getting published with the universities name attached and very little with giving the students the best education. I bet if most professors didn't require their books as material they wouldn't sell more than 10 copies. That stuff is exactly why it has never appealed to me to know how brilliant some of the prof's are because chances are they will have very little interaction with you and your education.

Oh course it is. That changes nothing about the requirement though.

 

[murf]

All my proffesors had PHD's.
I interviewed at a college to teach and was shocked at how low the pay was. Not sure what kind of talent that attracts. The comment was to change the system to better compete on the global stage. I think we would need to know what the systems are in Europe, China etc. I'm pretty sure the graduates of MIT, Harvard etc in the USA command a premium for a reason.......do you think their proffesors have PHD's?
Elementary school teachers in Parts of Europe have 7 years of university which I find interesting.

 

[Freestyle72]

For those that are saying college is somehow ont he same level of education as university must be dreaming. It's a totally different type of education. University is much more difficult than college in academic and technical aspects. It's so much more difficult that I would compare college more to extended highschool than I would to University. Not saying that to insult anybody but there is a reason why the entrance standards are much lower at *most* colleges than *most* universities. Not saying college doesn't have it's own challenges.

Even my GF who is a college graduate admits that college was much more economically viable but was also the "Easy" choice. She is now exploring the possibility of going back to university to get a degree so she can improve her chances at scoring a more lucrative employment opportunity.

I on the other hand am contemplating taking some welding courses at the local college but more as a hobbiest than to use it in my work, even though it will have some benefit to work.

From my experience at work University Degree will get you the job and maybe a higher salary. A college degree will get you pretty much the same job with maybe slightly smaller wage. Work experience on the other hand is extremely valuable regardless of where you graduated from. But having the university degree really opens many many more doors. One of the main driving factors for this I find the construction company that I work for has to send in resumes for the employees being assigned to the jobs for clients like OPG, Imperial Oil (Exxon), Detour Gold, etc etc... So it's easier to justify project cost when you have a team with a strong resume fortified with university education, years of field experience and more importantly to the clients thing like P. Eng (which is easier to acquire via university). These kinds of things show accountability to the client and I believe that is another reason there is a big rift between college and university educations.

Just to give a frame of reference I went to UWO and my only experience with college has been friends and acquantances at Fanshawe in London, and Mohawk College in Hamilton and from the people I met the entrance requirementss must have only been having a pulse. Unless that changes what makes a college degree significant at all? Let's not kid ourselves you learn your job in the first 3 months of doing it no matter what company you start at. You don't learn **** at school related to the specific job you get after graduation.

 

[CruisnGrrl]

Elementary school teachers in Parts of Europe have 7 years of university which I find interesting.

When I looked into teaching some years back I believe the requirements were your regular degree (4 years) and a teaching degree (3 years) how ever the teaching degree could be done concurrently to the regular degree.

 

[AdRath]

Oh course it is. That changes nothing about the requirement though.

Your right I should have been more clear. I wasn't refuting that they needed PHDs but was commenting on it making a difference in the education of the student body. I'd rather get other students feedback when choosing a university then looking at the accolades of their staff.

Elementary school teachers in Parts of Europe have 7 years of university which I find interesting.

I think it is very wrong to assume # of years of university education makes a better teacher. So if a country required teachers to have 12yrs of university that would make them better? doubtful. In the end they are still teaching elementary level material. Personality and temperment have more to do with being a quality elementary teacher than years in school.

University is much more difficult than college in academic and technical aspects. It's so much more difficult that I would compare college more to extended highschool than I would to University.

It all depends on the courses you are comparing. Some are just as expensive and just as difficult. I went to Sheridan College and I know Ryerson (isn't it considered a University now?) has almost the exact same course. There is no difference in difficulty or in pay grade in the field. If anything those who have gone to college have had much more hands on experience and more skills over theory.

she is now exploring the possibility of going back to university to get a degree so she can improve her chances at scoring a more lucrative employment opportunity..

Again it all depends on the field of work. My wife has a bachelor degree and makes less than I do at the same job. I have a few co-workers with university degrees and outside of those with MBA degrees (taken later in life) they all make the same or less than I do and most had to go to college to get the actual skills to get a job outside of the theory aspects they learn in university.

I know there is a lot of generalizations here from both sides. I don't believe there is a single 'better choice' and feel strongly that a lot of misquided guidance councillors push people toward university when it isn't the best option for the career they want to get into.

 

[CrazyKell]

When I looked into teaching some years back I believe the requirements were your regular degree (4 years) and a teaching degree (3 years) how ever the teaching degree could be done concurrently to the regular degree.

4 year undergrad + 1 year of teacher's college if taken in Ontario.

 

[murf]

I think it is very wrong to assume # of years of university education makes a better teacher. So if a country required teachers to have 12yrs of university that would make them better? doubtful. In the end they are still teaching elementary level material. Personality and temperment have more to do with being a quality elementary teacher than years in school.

.

would going to school for three months make them better......doubtful.

 

[backmarkerducati]

I still think the core problem we have is a two tier divergent path system. Because the path has to be selected up front and it is not easy to change streams this places people in university that really should be in college overloading the system. It also means if you complete three years of your degree and drop out (can't handle the work, go broke, etc.) you have nothing but credits.

As for cost, if the same knowledge is in the material who cares how much one costs v the other. Too bad someone selected the higher cost alternative (and is not the entire point here lowering cost...).

As for entrance requirements, well if first year college math is considered a bridging course and not a university credit, so be it...

As for difficulty it really depends on the program and how people learn.

We also have to keep in mind that university has a significant general education requirement (to supposedly make people well rounded) that college does not (this includes sciences). In some cases (three year diploma) this is the majority of the difference in the end knowledge of the program (talking hard knowledge programs like technology, engineering, accounting).

Just imagine a utopian world where most of the college credits are accepted in university, and university credits at college (with the exception of some first year bridging courses...). Students can save money by taking the same course at the a college knowing the credits will be accepted. Students don't have to select divergent paths. There are exit points in year two, three and four. Where graduates had the practical skills college teaches and the theory of the current university system. Where the arrogance of the university system is replaced by co-operation. Where the teachers have actual hands on, real world experience as well as theory (and not just X years of education). Crazy idea, I know...

 

[nfq]

“Well, the world needs ditch diggers, too.”

 

[backmarkerducati]

“Well, the world needs ditch diggers, too.”

Totally agree, fast food employees as well, otherwise there would be no need for liberal arts degrees

 

[AdRath]

would going to school for three months make them better......doubtful.

Obviously there is a set amount of knowledge needed. My point is that there is diminishing returns so length of education doesn't imply better. I'd wager the upgrade courses and refreshers during their career are more helpful than more time prior to teaching. Real world experience > classroom time once the basic knowledge is done. Taking a year to assist in real classrooms as upposed to adding more years of university in my opinion are the way to go.

I am not a teacher so by no means do I have any experience.

 

[backmarkerducati]

Obviously there is a set amount of knowledge needed. My point is that there is diminishing returns so length of education doesn't imply better. I'd wager the upgrade courses and refreshers during their career are more helpful than more time prior to teaching. Real world experience > classroom time once the basic knowledge is done. Taking a year to assist in real classrooms as upposed to adding more years of university in my opinion are the way to go.

I am not a teacher so by no means do I have any experience.

I think Ontario should consider moving to a four year B.Ed program (like some other provinces) if your first career is going to be teaching (you go straight into the four year B.Ed right out of high school).

Then there should be another B.Ed (or maybe call it a diploma) for people that already have a degree or trade that is 30 credits or so but this one should only be open to people who have worked in a field (say min 10 years work experience) and want to teach that subject it in high school.

The problem we have today, Ontario grads are not getting enough teaching knowledge (and in many cases English language competency) in the one year program (based on the comments from the many teachers I know, including my wife). There are way too many grads because the B.Ed becomes a desperation move after realizing the degree you have is not employable (so there are way more grads than jobs, specially outside of the GTA--making teaching almost unemployable...). The desperation move also means that many of the grads do not have their hearts in the job (it was plan B). Four year B.Ed solves all this.

As noted, I think we still need to have a one year program for people who want to move into teaching with their knowledge and experience in areas like technology, business and trades (and others) but only if they have worked in these actual fields for some period of time. In these cases the experience and knowledge is more important than the school taught teaching knowledge. If they had to go back for the full four years we would lose these people.

Of course the four year program should be compatible with portions of ECE so that if they decide to leave after two years....

 

[nfq]

I think Ontario should consider moving to a four year B.Ed program (like some other provinces) if your first career is going to be teaching (you go straight into the four year B.Ed right out of high school).

Then there should be another B.Ed (or maybe call it a diploma) for people that already have a degree or trade that is 30 credits or so but this one should only be open to people who have worked in a field (say min 10 years work experience) and want to teach that subject it in high school.

The problem we have today, Ontario grads are not getting enough teaching knowledge (and in many cases English language competency) in the one year program (based on the comments from the many teachers I know, including my wife). There are way too many grads because the B.Ed becomes a desperation move after realizing the degree you have is not employable (so there are way more grads than jobs, specially outside of the GTA--making teaching almost unemployable...). The desperation move also means that many of the grads do not have their hearts in the job (it was plan B). Four year B.Ed solves all this.

As noted, I think we still need to have a one year program for people who want to move into teaching with their knowledge and experience in areas like technology, business and trades (and others) but only if they have worked in these actual fields for some period of time. In these cases the experience and knowledge is more important than the school taught teaching knowledge. If they had to go back for the full four years we would lose these people.

Of course the four year program should be compatible with portions of ECE so that if they decide to leave after two years....

Well said.

 

[CrazyKell]

I think Ontario should consider moving to a four year B.Ed program (like some other provinces) if your first career is going to be teaching (you go straight into the four year B.Ed right out of high school).

Then there should be another B.Ed (or maybe call it a diploma) for people that already have a degree or trade that is 30 credits or so but this one should only be open to people who have worked in a field (say min 10 years work experience) and want to teach that subject it in high school.

The problem we have today, Ontario grads are not getting enough teaching knowledge (and in many cases English language competency) in the one year program (based on the comments from the many teachers I know, including my wife). There are way too many grads because the B.Ed becomes a desperation move after realizing the degree you have is not employable (so there are way more grads than jobs, specially outside of the GTA--making teaching almost unemployable...). The desperation move also means that many of the grads do not have their hearts in the job (it was plan B). Four year B.Ed solves all this.

As noted, I think we still need to have a one year program for people who want to move into teaching with their knowledge and experience in areas like technology, business and trades (and others) but only if they have worked in these actual fields for some period of time. In these cases the experience and knowledge is more important than the school taught teaching knowledge. If they had to go back for the full four years we would lose these people.

Of course the four year program should be compatible with portions of ECE so that if they decide to leave after two years....

Teaching is unemployable in a large part to the cash grab by the province opening up WAY more spots than needed (and the resultant Plan B's getting in) and the retired teachers who continue to double dip. But that's another thread entirely.

Forum Sponsor