The question of university funding has resurfaced in recent months. We even hear a few voices denouncing the chronic and historical underfunding of certain components of the Quebec university network. What exactly is it?
First of all, we should not be surprised to see the rectors making themselves heard in the public square. The Ministry of Higher Education launched a few months ago a project on the university financing formula, which aims to adjust certain elements of the current framework. It is a good idea for school leaders to take advantage of this opportunity to promote the particular interests of their home university.
Then, the truth is that all Quebec universities are underfunded, if we compare them to establishments of the same stature in Canada. The current gap amounts to more than a billion dollars annually, according to some of the most credible and respected economists. The Quebec government has been tackling this problem for several years, and we must hope that the effort to make up for the shortfall will be maintained until it disappears.
Finally, we must admit that the current financing formula, although perfectible, is not inequitable, whatever people say. It is false to claim that it generates arbitrary discrimination between universities. The largest share of university funding is linked to student numbers. The budgetary rules are the same for all establishments.
Each student generates funding linked to the average cost of training in their discipline. To train a veterinarian, you need, among other things, an animal hospital. It’s expensive. To train a dentist, you need equipment that is not required in history or law. To train a doctoral student, more support is required than for the baccalaureate.
Funding is therefore weighted from this perspective, with the result that universities that offer several expensive programs receive on average more money than others. Universities that do not train doctors, veterinarians, or pharmacists are not victims of chronic underfunding. They receive funding dictated by the disciplinary configuration of their student population, quite simply. Regional establishments and smaller establishments also benefit from additional funding linked to their particular mission.
Certainly, the financing formula can be improved. She is interested in registrations, and perhaps not enough in graduation. Because it bases the calculation of grants on full-time studies, some universities — but not all — assert that the formula does not sufficiently take into account the cost of supervising part-time students. Because it is based on the historical training cost per head of pipe, it does not adequately support educational innovation, nor digital transformation, nor even the implementation of measures promoting accessibility to university studies, of which it It must be remembered that it is part of the fundamental mission of all universities in Quebec.
And the relative freedom it has granted in charging deregulated tuition fees for most international students perhaps generates funding gaps worth examining. The work on the university funding formula aims to respond to some of these concerns. But we cannot honestly draw the conclusion that the formula itself is fundamentally unfair.
Health needs
We will not enhance the finances or the stature of the universities that demand it by opening programs that are expensive or that are wrongly considered more prestigious. Thus, Rector Stéphane Pallage’s plan to offer training in medicine, pharmacy or nursing at UQAM is a false good idea.
It is true that Quebec urgently needs staff in the health network. But the four universities that already have a faculty of medicine (Laval, UdeM, McGill and Sherbrooke) have very significantly increased the size of student cohorts since 2019, and they will continue to do so in response to the minister’s requests. , faster, more efficiently and at lower cost than a new school would.
It is true that the needs are dire in the region. The same universities already cover the entire territory and train doctors in Trois-Rivières, Rimouski, Chicoutimi and Gatineau, in addition to their main campuses. Furthermore, 9 universities and 34 CEGEPs in Quebec already offer training in nursing sciences.
It is true that Quebec needs health professionals who think in terms of prevention, overall health, and working in interdisciplinary teams. These values are already deeply anchored in existing training programs, and Quebec can today count on two schools of public health (at McGill and UdeM) whose exceptional contribution was highlighted during the pandemic.
To meet the needs of the population of Quebec in health and social services, it will be enough to continue to invest in current, solid and seasoned structures, whose players continue to innovate. UQAM has an important role to play in this framework, given its expertise and its values. To achieve this, it does not need to duplicate the efforts successfully undertaken by other universities, in medicine, public health, pharmacy or nursing.