We talked on Monday1, because UQAM is relatively better at receiving operating grants than other institutions. We only examine in this text the main subsidy from Quebec intended for the operation of the establishments. We wonder in this second text if UQAM is a victim of “linguistic inequities” when looking at its total funding.
For comparison purposes, private funds (tuition fees, donations, investment income, etc.), federal grants and provincial grants for infrastructure are therefore added to the provincial operating grant. This last subsidy is granted on the basis of the depreciation of the buildings, in preponderance on the English-speaking campuses. This apparent inequity has recently been pointed out by highlighting a generous subsidy granted to McGill in the last budget.
However, it is an incomplete analytical prism to analyze only infrastructure subsidies. You could actually argue the opposite, that you are funding the replacement of these buildings precisely because they are depreciated. If we want to correctly analyze the fairness of infrastructure subsidies, we must also take into account the condition of the buildings and their value (which constitutes the basis of the evaluation made by Quebec). And beware of false amalgams: an examination of certain infrastructure projects funded by English-speaking universities also shows the integration of activities of French-speaking institutions. This concept of advantage conferred “on the English” also needs to be qualified.
When it comes to federal funding and private revenue, there is no doubt that McGill is the champion (Figure 1a). His income from tuition fees is very high. Changes to provincial rules allow universities to waive operating grants from Quebec in exchange for arbitrarily high student fees, which the government then allows to continue.
McGill and Concordia have exercised this right for certain programs. In doing so, these establishments can charge higher amounts and Quebec can then redistribute the funds previously allocated to these programs to other establishments. This approach thus increases the resources available in English-speaking universities, but also for other institutions. Obviously, this approach generates inequalities.
These inequalities are institutional, but also student-related, because Quebec students benefit from a higher subsidy because international students pay more. It is an “international tax” financing Quebecers.
Finally, note that it is the National Institute of Scientific Research (INRS), a small French-speaking university of the University of Quebec, which sits at the top of the list of the highest total funding per student (Figure 1b). The INRS is certainly not a large university, but recalling its position on the list serves to better separate the facts in terms of funding from a narrative aimed at opposing the establishments on a linguistic basis.
Undress John to dress Paul?
The theme of language of course makes Quebec vibrate. This is perhaps why it is used to talk about university funding. The latter will also be abused if it is examined through other prisms that sometimes resonate with readerships or electorates: immigrants, leftist students, the Voyageur island, neoliberalism, or any other theme crystallizing opinion. If we’re looking for a solution, we’ll have to focus on reconciling conflicting interests. We could modify the subsidy granted to UQAM so that it depends in a lower proportion on registrations.
In addition, some funding programs aimed at supporting philanthropy (the “University Placement” program) have questionable effectiveness, and certainly contribute to the imbalance of private funding between institutions. These funds could certainly be put to better use.
In addition, UQAM could rethink its program offer by examining those who are struggling, but also by being given the possibility of opening them in “paying” disciplines deemed to be priorities for the work (for example, nursing).
The work of Daniel Parent (HEC Montréal) is the most convincing in illustrating the impact of the creation of the Université du Québec on the education of Francophones in the province. The latter have seen their education increase more rapidly than Francophones in neighboring provinces, without a dedicated network (of course, CEGEPs have also helped). Parental education and income are the most important factors influencing the schooling of the youngest. Institutions that bring young people from uneducated backgrounds to university not only contribute to immediate schooling, but also create future educated parents. The latter in turn influence their children and so on.
This role of intergenerational catalyst suits UQAM particularly well. Barely two generations after its creation, it might be prudent to give it the time (and money) required to do its work. This contractual extension should, however, serve as a reminder to its community, to those who finance it and to critics of English-speaking universities: a university without students does not educate anyone. As a culprit, we must look at the labor market.