CAPITALISM AND DIVERSITY IN ONTARIO’S COLLEGES:A CALL FOR RENEWAL

ByGary N. PolonskySeptember, 1999

CAPITALISM AND DIVERSITY IN ONTARIO’S COLLEGES: A CALL FOR RENEWAL

The two provinces whose higher education sectors most resemble Ontario’s are Alberta’s and B.C.’s.

Prior to the 1960’s, these three provinces had more in common than not. Apart from traditional

universities, they had a small number of institutes of technology – and not much more. Even from the

1960’s through to about 1990, the three provinces showed much in common, as they each added

universities and introduced community colleges (called colleges of applied arts and technology, in Ontario)

to cope with the post-war baby boom, market demands of the technological and globalizing economy, and

regional demands for equity of educational service. For sure, the systems were not clones of one another

(e.g. Ontario colleges were not granted University Transfer programs, in apparent deference to the

dispersed existence of over a dozen existing universities) but, to repeat, they had much in common. Only

in the 1990’s, did truly differentiating breakthroughs occur, with the advent of degree-granting colleges

and institutes of technology in Alberta and B.C. This paper will attempt to demonstrate that these recent

changes in Alberta and B.C., have served students and community/regional economies with renewed and

important vitality, and should be introduced in Ontario, as appropriate.

The purpose of this paper is to support a recommendation for greater diversity in Ontario’s post-secondary

sector, based on a comparison between it and its counterparts in Alberta and British Columbia (B.C.) – and

that, as one new model, Durham College be converted to a university college.

Given that this paper is primarily about the impact on society of enhanced diversity amongst colleges (and,

in a way, universities – which will be addressed later), two higher educational themes are being addressed:

a)Diversity, and b)Higher Education and Society. As such, the subject should be of interest to higher

education policy-makers (e.g. Government officials), higher educational leaders (e.g. college or university

governors and presidents), and higher education consumers (e.g. students, company presidents, mayors).

The source(s) of their interest may vary somewhat but would surely have in common that everyone is

rooting for their primary “constituencies”, such as their children, their company and their

community/region., Everyone wants gainful employment, good schools and municipal services, safe

streets and parks, cultural enrichment, fundamental freedoms – and many citizens see high quality,

accessible education as the key means to those ends.

This paper will attempt to achieve its purpose, i.e. demonstrating that Ontario will be better off by

enhancing the diversity of its colleges, through five principal means – analysis of pertinent literature on

commercial capitalism and educational diversity; interviews of College/Institute, Government and

2

Admissions/Transfer Council leaders in Alberta and B.C. in August, 1999; referencing A Road Map to

Prosperity, by the Ontario Jobs and Investment Board (OJIB) (1999); describing circumstances in

Durham Region, as perceived by the author; and then translating these into recommendations for Ontario

and Durham Region.

The paper has its limitations. For example, the review of the literature was less exhaustive than for a full

thesis. As well, the author was unable to conduct the face-to-face interviews personally but rather, did so

through an associate, Wendy Stanyon, who is a Nursing professor at Durham College and fellow doctoral

student. While the author developed and tested the interview questionnaire, arranged for the interviews,

compiled and summarized their findings in this paper, he was not there in person, “reading between the

whites of their eyes”. He has full confidence, however, that Ms. Stanyon noted the interviewees’ answers

with high accuracy and full integrity. Another limitation of the paper is that while we interviewed all the

first-choice Government and Accreditation Council leaders, and many of the college/institute leaders, we

were unable to interview all the college/institute leaders in Alberta and B.C. Nor, could we visit the other

university college of note in Canada, i.e. the University College of Cape Breton.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The context for this paper begins with the premise that human organizations are above all, human – and

will therefore, thrive/survive or suffer/fail based on predictive, human behaviours.

What, then, are the human conditions that would create a great higher education institution, or family of

such institutions? (The term “system” is resisted here for reasons that will become obvious). The author

argues that these are the same conditions that create great non-educational enterprises, the principal one

being respect for, and liberation of, market diversity (or ‘educational capitalism’).

The introductory section of the body of this paper summarizes the development, characteristics and

consequences of commercial capitalism. As described in a special feature in the Toronto Star by Thomas

Walkom (1999), while commerce has existed presumably forever, capitalism’s development occurred

over the past three or so centuries. Its two primary characteristics are abstract capital (i.e. money) and the

market itself. Its main consequence is an amazing array of affordable choices for most citizens (although

regrettably, not for an underclass minority).

These two basic characteristics of commercial capitalism, as well as their main consequence, are

important to keep in mind in the next section of the paper. In it, the author has cited research by

Birnbaum (1983) and others, which demonstrate that the same, inter-connected elements of commercial

capitalism above, also apply in education. That is, “Diversity (is) one of the basic reasons for higher 3

education’s high level of performance…)” (Carnegie Commission, 1973; Carnegie Foundation, 1975;

Sloan Commission, 1980). The author cites the benefits of diversity as compiled by Stadtman (1980) and

then analyzes Birnbaum’s three rationales behind his championing of diversity – institutional, societal and

systemic.

The institutional arguments for diversity including meeting students’ needs; increasing institutional

effectiveness; providing new higher educational models; and protecting institutional autonomy and

academic freedom.

Societal arguments for diversity include providing for social mobility; serving the political needs of

interest groups (e.g. religious schools); permitting both elite and mass higher education; and facilitating

reform through competition.

System arguments for diversity, for Birnbaum, emanate from looking at education as a classic ‘open

system’. The main focus here is diversity and evolution, on which Birnbaum examines the perspectives

of two models: the Resource Dependence model and the Natural Selection model (note the similarity

between these two models and the two main characteristics of commercial capitalism, i.e. capital and

competition). Birnbaum takes the reader down a pathway reminiscent of Darwin and Adam Smith.

The author then reviewed literature related to recent (1990’s) innovations in Alberta and British

Columbia. For Alberta, he relied mainly on documents published by the Government and the Alberta

Council for Admissions and Transfer. For B.C., he relied mainly on a report by Dr. Howard Petch (1998)

on the five university colleges there.

The author then described the research he and a colleague undertook to explore the efficacy of this

paper’s stated purpose. This research mostly took the form of face-to-face interviews, based on a pre-

distributed questionnaire. The interviewees were senior higher education leaders in institutions and

governments in British Columbia and Alberta. These provinces were selected because of their decisions

in the 1990’s to experiment with enhanced diversity through new higher education models.

He then attempted to apply the lessons from the above to Ontario’s higher educational circumstances. As

such, he has painted a renewed vision for higher education in Ontario, founded on the net merits of

institutional diversity. In this vision, he has recommended new choices for the Government of Ontario to

consider for a potential, new “College Charter” (or possibly, a new Act of the Legislature), as called for in

A Road Map To Prosperity: A Summary of the Economic Plan for Jobs in the 21st Century, by the Ontario

Jobs and Investment Board (OJIB) (1999).

In the final section, the author has applied his vision of enhanced diversity for Ontario to his home region,

Durham. In particular, he recommends that Durham College be converted to a university college, which 4

offers its own laddered Diplomas, Applied Degrees and Professional Degrees – but which collaborates

with at least one existing Ontario university that would offer Arts and Science degrees at the Durham

University College campus.

COMMERCIAL CAPITALISM

Walkom (1999) reminded us that “When the second millennium A.D. dawned, the world as a single unit

simply did not exist. Instead, a disparate array of empires, clans and societies ranged across the globe,

most …unaware of the existence of the other. ...Even within societies, the inhabitants of one valley were

often unaware of what went on over the next range of hills.” Referring to the writings of the late economic

historian, Karl Polanyi, Walkom pointed out that “early economies were embedded in their societies.

Trade and production were, in some sense, secondary. Economic relationships did not define society;

rather, the rules of society defined economic relationships.”

Moreover, not only did unified societies not exist, neither did rational economies within the various

societies. “Some produced; others traded. Still others got rich through plunder. But production and

exchange did not dominate. They were subordinate to the demands of politics, statecraft, religion and,

occasionally, magic.” This often worked to the advantage of the minority elite, but most citizens did not

have the rational means to improve their family’s lot.

This all changed in the second millennium A.D., particularly in Europe, due to the unique melding of two

defining elements: a)abstract capital (i.e. money); and b) the market itself (i.e. competition).

While wealth had long existed in concrete forms (e.g. land, gold, jewels), abstract wealth, in “something

ephemeral as a piece of paper, …allowed wealth to be mobilized into productive forms and used to create

even more wealth.” Since most of this elite-controlled wealth continued to be produced by others (e.g.

peasants, sailors), and since the paper medium of exchange was far more portable than say, land, the early

democratization of wealth had begun.

A concurrent transformation occurred with markets. While forms of markets also long existed, in Feudal

Europe and elsewhere, Walkom reminded us the elite made sure they were “carefully circumscribed and

regulated”. After all, fluctuating (i.e. free) markets in say, real estate, could “destroy a ruling class whose

privileges rested on hereditary title to land.” Similarly, “Markets in labour could deprive this same class of

its serfs.” Thus, with markets as with sources of money, the freer they became, the greater the opportunity

for all classes to share growingly in their benefits, at least to some extent.

5

Once ordinary citizens began to taste a better life, there was no going back. Wiser members of the

privileged class saw that and tried to protect their relative degree of privilege by making sure there was

enough to go around. The less wise were deposed, exiled or worse. Returning to Polanyi’s phrase, if

“previous economic systems had been embedded in social relationships, capitalism reversed the order.

The new system could only work if market relationships became primary”(Walkom).

In other words, market forces no longer ensued from social relationships; they caused them. Wealth-

producing wealth liberated ever more people from poverty (and its spin-offs, such as infant mortality,

disease and social denigration). Eventually, this liberation reached the majority of citizens, which is

where most developed, democratic countries find themselves today. The great middle class seems

indefinitely entrenched (albeit, regrettably, with an inevitable minority underclass, for which

compassionate and effective social policy is the apparent, best balancer).

The net positives of market-driven diversity apply not only to economic goals, but to others, as well.

Commercial capitalism – in its true, devolved, Darwinian, wealth-producing-wealth, mostly free way –

leaves an undeniable message for other fields of activity, i.e. the most effective way for governments and

institutions to serve the clear majority is to allow diverse, market-driven organizations to earn and re-

invest the available sources of capital.

DIVERSITY (or CAPITALISM) IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Birnbaum (1983) made the same argument for higher educational diversity that Walkom made for

commercial capitalism. He began, “Diversity has been identified as one of the basic reasons for higher

education’s high level of performance…” (Carnegie Commission, 1973; Carnegie Foundation, 1975; Sloan

Commission, 1980) and “an essential element in ensuring the system’s responsiveness to societal needs”

(Ben-David, 1972; Trow, 1979).

Stadtman (1980) listed six benefits of diversity:

*increases the range of choices available to learners

*makes higher education available to virtually everyone, despite differences among individuals

*matches education to the needs, goals, learning styles, speed, and ability of individual students

*enables institutions to select their own missions and confine their activities to those which are

consistent with their location, resources, levels of instruction, and clienteles

6

*responds to the pressures of a society that is itself characterized by great complexity and

diversity

*becomes a precondition of college and university freedom and autonomy because the greater the

differences are among institutions, the more difficult it is for a central authority to convert them

into instruments of indoctrination rather than of education (pp. 98-99).

Birnbaum reinforced the need for market-driven diversity based on three sets of arguments: a)institutional

– related to such educational matters as curriculum and student needs; b)societal – related to fulfilling

political, social, and economic functions in addition to their stated educational purposes; and c)systemic –

related to a higher education system’s ability as a whole to remain stable, even as it evolves in response to

environmental changes.

Institutional Arguments for Diversity

Meeting Students’ Needs. Birnbaum wrote, “Students with varying histories of academic achievement

have access to institutions whose performance expectations also vary, thus affording each student the

opportunity to compete with others of similar background” (p.3).

Students’ needs may also be met through the characteristics of an institution and the other students

attending it. Breneman and Finn (1978) pointed out: “Some students thrive … in large universities, others

in small colleges; some like competitive settings, others prefer nurturing environments; some want to live

away from home, others must commute; some desire technical and vocational preparation, others favor

liberal arts; some want a secure, in loco parentis institution that inculcates values and tells them what to

study, others want one offering a vast smorgasbord of electives; some seek schools with high academic

standards, … others prefer to test the water in an open admissions institution; and there are always those

who want schools … serving a particular race, sex, or denomination” (p. 416). In other words, the greater

the diversity, the greater the probability that students will find a school that is a good fit for them.

Increasing Institutional Effectiveness. Institutions are called upon to conduct many functions in the

carrying out of their mission, and Cameron (1978) noted that “effective achievement of certain goals in a

single college or university requires that less attention be given to others”. The Carnegie Commission

(1973) extended the same premise to institutional differentiation: “the search for excellence can be aided

by specialization which allows not only a concentration of attention and effort, but also a higher status for

some endeavors than they would have if they were subordinated to others in the same institution” (p. 72).

Writing about the U.S., Birnbaum concluded, “The fact that…our higher education system has managed

both to provide a level of access not seen (elsewhere) and to become internationally preeminent in

7

scientific research has, in large measure, been made possible by the existence of (diverse institutions)…”

(pp. 5,6).

Providing Models. Given that if “all institutions were the same, they would have little to guide decisions,

other than their own limited rationality or conformity”, Birnbaum placed confidence in diverse institutions

with diverse departments. “(They) have a rich source of data not available in those that are centrally

planned and coordinated, …and their various programs and experiences can serve as models…that can be

examined by other institutions…as good practice… (or) things to avoid”(p. 6). As an example particularly

pertinent to today, proprietary institutions, “once scorned for their occupational orientations, marketing

approach, and need to operate frugally to make a profit” as Birnbaum noted (p.7), now offer models of

flexibility (El-Khawas, 1976), organizational renewal (Jonsen, 1978), and lean operations (Trivett, 1974).

As another example, diverse institutions also provide the system with a low risk opportunity to introduce

program or policy changes. If they work, they can be duplicated, as appropriate. If they fail, damage is

limited.

Protecting Institutional Autonomy and Academic Freedom. Academic freedom is the most cherished value

in a university, for reasons that relate to the unfettered pursuit of truth, creation of innovation, and

protection of fundamental freedoms.

What does institutional autonomy have to do with institutional diversity? As Birnbaum noted, “The

relationship between academic freedom, (institutional autonomy) and institutional diversity…is quite

strong,…and not just from political interference “(p. 9), which is seen as the worst threat. Ironically,

threats can also come from institutions themselves, whether in response to a form of orthodoxy, threat to

survival, nouveau mood or to plain inattention to the consequences of a particular decision or action.

Whatever the source of the threat, diversity is an effective safety valve for other institutions and for the

system. “In a diverse system, the crosscutting pressures upon institutions are so varied that there is never a

situation in which all institutions – or even a majority – face the same threats… Diversity …provides both

a systemic capacity to identify such threats…and a countervailing force to aberrant behaviours … (p. 10).

Societal Arguments for Diversity

Obviously, the primary function of educational organizations is to provide education. Just as obviously,

they also serve economic, social and political functions, as well. As this section attempts to demonstrate,

the greater the diversity of higher education organizations, the more society benefits overall.

Providing for Social Mobility. Most citizens accept as a matter of faith that higher education provides

many of its graduates with opportunities to acquire economic and social status beyond that into which they

were born. As a first generation Canadian born to lower economic circumstances, the author can attest that

8

the consequences of his education afforded him opportunities unimagined by his parents, as is true of

many others.

Birnbaum noted that institutional diversity has served these mobility (and stability) interests. “Students

who cannot gain admission to a (university) can start on the road…by attending the local community

college…”(p. 11). Multiple routes of access, coupled with the screening functions of the institutions

themselves, have led to what Ben-David (1972) called an integrated system. “There are practically no

blind alleys in it. One can always transfer from one level to another…”(p. 7). Birnbaum and Ben-David

were writing of the U.S. in the 1970’s and 1980’s respectively, which arguably was more progressive than

Ontario was (and is?) in the areas of credit and admissions transfer. Nevertheless, Ontario has known its

individual and bilateral successes in these regards and more recently, the Port Hope Accord (1999) should

bring about system-wide, consistent progress to credit transfer. No doubt, more is on the horizon as one

reason the newly elected Government has cited for creating a post-secondary ministry is improved

college/university relations.

Birnbaum continued: “The diversity of institutions, coupled with the integration of the system, means that,

unlike in many other countries, there are no errors of student academic judgment that cannot be rectified at

some point…”. Riesman(1975) agreed: “It means that the United States is a country of second chances

and even third chances”(p. 481). He pointed out further that this ability to start and prove oneself in one

kind of institution, and then transfer to another, is actually impossible in many countries, (e.g. U.K.).

Serving the Political Needs of Interest Groups. While most citizens find political and special interest

motivations and actions bothersome, they exist and won’t go away. As examples, fundamentalist

sectarians and pro-constituency politicians regularly occupy front-page headlines. Sometimes, one of their

preoccupations is to have their own college. In the case of the religionists, sects have wished “to train

(their) own ministers, hold the loyalty of (their) young people, and convert outsiders”(Handlin and

Handlin, 1970, p. 25). Politicians have other motivation. Either way, the nuisance value to the dominant

culture would be worse without a sufficient diversity of institutions to serve the majority of citizens in

ways they want to be served.

Permitting Both Elite and M ass Higher Education. Birnbaum described “elite” institutions as having

“selective admissions policies, high tuition costs, middle and upper socioeconomic students, and high

reputation”(p. 15). By comparison, institutions of mass education are generally less selective, have lower

tuition, serve lower socioeconomic students, and have a different sort of reputation (which can still be

high). “Seen from this perspective, these two institutional forms can arise and coexist in a system

characterized by diversity. From another perspective, …the forms’ major effect is not just to supplement

each other but to interact dynamically (pp. 15-16).

9

Birnbaum summarized: “Without…these two different approaches to higher education, …the higher

educational needs of a pluralistic industrialized society could (not) be successfully met. A system of elite

higher education without the balancing force of mass higher education would not be politically or socially

viable; a system of mass higher education without the academic models and values of elite institutions

would be unsound educationally and politically. Each subsystem depends upon the existence of the other;

each subsystem, in turn, is based upon the existence of institutional diversity”(pp. 16-17).

Facilitating Reform Through Competition. In this section, in particular, the lessons of commercial

capitalism are demonstrated to apply to education. Unlike institutions in nations where (North) American-

style capitalism is frowned upon, Clark (1976) pointed out “no other major system of higher education

engages its constituent colleges and universities in so much competition…(in) responding to the

market”(pp. 34-35). The resources being competed for are not only funding but also students, community

support, reputation and faculty. Like scholars such as Birnbaum and Ben-David, this author believes such

competition provides the best hope of responding to society’s changing needs, through educational reforms

that are value added and applauded by both students and citizens-at-large. Moreover, “These reforms have

sometimes “served as models for others…so that competition not only has been a consequence of diversity

but…a cause of it”(Birnbaum, p. 18).

System Arguments for Diversity

Diversity and ‘Open Systems’. Earlier, the author commented on wanting to avoid the word “system”.

The reason relates to his belief that that word implies a structure and attitude favouring central planning

and control which defy market-driven competitiveness and thus, performance.

Birnbaum, on the other hand, used “system” in the context of a classically defined “open system” (see

Appendix A). Such a system functions effectively without a formal coordinating structure because of two

related processes. “One process involves all components of the system accepting certain values,

structures, and processes (such as) academic freedom, lay board control, the teacher-student relationship,

(supplemented by) environmental…mechanisms (such as) accrediting groups (and) professional

associations…. The second process (is) the marketplace, (forcing) individual institutions…to compete with

each other….Ironically, the competition processes…are also a mechanism by which the system as a whole

is coordinated”(p. 20) because, as in any capitalistic environment, customers provide the best benchmarks

by which performance is gauged.

Diversity and Evolution. If one accepts the capitalistic/Darwinian premise that the greater the diversity

and the more open the competition, the greater the probability that the strong will prevail, to the eventual

betterment of all (e.g. students) in the system, – then, the system must start with ample diversity. As

pertains to higher education, this is the case in the U.S., which boasts a wide variety of kinds of 10

institutions. Pace (1974) identified eight kinds of institutions, based on five variables (scholarship,

awareness, community, propriety and practicality) using the College and University Environmental Scales

(CUES). Baldridge and others (1978) also identified eight kinds, based on variables such as governance,

professional autonomy and institutional climate. Birnbaum (1983) identified nine kinds, based on six

variables (control, size, sex of students, program, degree level, and minority enrollments) which he

combined into his “diversity index”.

Organizations that handle resource management and natural selection (a.k.a. money and competition) well

will “successfully survive; those that do not may perish”(Birnbaum, p. 22). Presumably, a preferred

alternative to “perish” is adapt, options for which will be discussed later in this paper.

DOCUMENTATION OF DIVERSITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN ALBERTA AND B.C.

Ontario has traditional universities (arguably, now including Ryerson) and vocationally-oriented colleges

of applied arts and technologies. How do Alberta and B.C. stack up, by comparison?

Alberta

At the start of the 1990’s, Alberta had traditional universities, a non-traditional one committed to distance

and part-time learning, colleges with university transfer as well as vocational programs, institutes of

technology, three Alberta Vocational Centres (AVC’s) providing certificate-level programming, and

funded “Consortia” of higher learning, located in regions without “brick and mortar” institutions. It also

had the Alberta Council on Admissions and Transfer which provided a framework of principles, policies,

procedures by which students’ educational credits were portable among the province’s post-secondary

institutions, while leaving the statutory responsibility for admission and transfer decisions with the

institutions themselves.

Since then, the system has become even more diversified. This was effectively begun in 1994, with the

publication of a Government policy document, “New Directions for Adult Learning in Alberta”, which

contained 22 goals directed at four strategies – accessibility, responsiveness, affordability, and

accountability. Some of the goals were:

*Create new paths for completing degrees to provide Albertans with learning opportunities that

build on their completing of diploma programs

*Introduce the applied degree credential to respond to the knowledge and skill requirements of

Alberta’s changing economy

11

*Improve the transfer of courses and the recognition of prior learning to assist the progress of

Albertans in the adult learning system

*Expand the use of learning technology and alternate forms of program delivery to create more

opportunities to learn.

The Government and institutions then acted, together. For example, as of July, 1999, 13 applied degrees

were offered variously by 9 institutions, in such diverse fields as Internal Business and Logistics

Management, Integrated Environmental Management, Applied Small Business and Entrepreneurship,

Horticulture Technology, and Petroleum Engineering Technology.

Still not satisfied, the Government of Alberta, in the spring of 1999, released a four page discussion paper

entitled “Campus Alberta”, which seems to be recommending yet more diversity. The paper, which

invited individual and group feedback by June 18, 1999, iterated the following Vision on its cover page:

“In preparation for the 21st century, Albertans will have access to a seamless system of adult learning,

where institutions collaborate to deliver quality lifelong learning – where and when Albertans need it – to

address their social, cultural, and economic needs.”

After describing why such a vision is needed overall, and what adult learning infrastructure already exists

in Alberta, the paper went on to ask, “What else do we need?”, and, in part, recommended the following

answers:

*We need a made-in-Alberta post-secondary system to meet our social and educational needs and

values, and to prepare Albertans to compete in the global economy

*We need to ensure . . . access to quality lifelong learning, and a variety of delivery options

*We need to incorporate changing technology wisely

*Students need a fully coordinated system, so that they don’t have to repeat learning

*Institutions need to keep their distinctive character and program strengths, but they cannot be all

things to all people. They must acknowledge each other’s strengths, and work together to deliver

the best programs and services.

In next answering “What could Campus Alberta mean?”, the paper has offered 10 ideas, including:

*a streamlined registration system

*a streamlined transfer system and prior learning assessments

12

*a networked provincial library system

Nowhere does the paper hint at institutional mergers or other governance restructuring options. In fact, it

implies the opposite (“Institutions need to keep their distinctive character…”). Rather, the emphasis will

continue to be on functional innovation, which will add still more diversity to an already diverse system.

British Columbia

As it headed into the 1990’s, British Columbia had traditional universities, an institute of technology;

community colleges (with university transfer as well as vocational programs), the Open Learning Agency

and the B.C. Council for Admissions and Transfer, with a mandate and framework similar to Alberta’s.

In 1989, the Government issued a policy paper on higher education entitled ‘Access for All’ with the

primary aims of increasing the ability of B.C. citizens and communities to compete in the new economy.

This paper led to amendments in the Colleges and Institutes Act in 1994, followed in 1996 but an updated

document, ‘Charting a New Course’. Significant outcomes of these change documents included the

creation of a new university in Prince George, The University of Northern British Columbia, and the

empowerment of the British Columbia Institute of Technology and five university colleges (former

community colleges) to offer degrees.

After about a decade of service, the presidents of the university colleges wanted an informed, objective

review of how well their organizations were doing – individually and collectively. They commissioned

Dr. Howard Petch, who released his report in July, 1998. How Petch felt overall about the university

colleges is connoted by the title he gave to his Report: ‘Degree Programs at the University Colleges: A

British Columbia Success Story’. This positiveness was echoed by Dr. Sam Scully, Vice-President

Academic at the University of Victoria (UVic) from 1988 to 1966, who commented, “The university

colleges have to be considered the success story of the decade for post-secondary education (Petch

Overview, p. 1).

Petch’s methodology consisted of interviewing stakeholder individuals and groups, internal and external to

each institution, both separately and in various collective forums. His observations and questions focused

on the physical condition of the campuses, relationships with a mentoring university (except for Kwantlen,

which had none), program mix, faculty credentials, student success, the state of research, relationships

between degree and diploma/trades faculty, funding, library services, computer services, and governance –

including the roles of, and relationships between the Boards, Administration, Education Councils (the

university colleges’ variation of a Senate), and Unions.

Most of the interviewees at most of the colleges were very positive overall about their college’s

performance, and the impact on itself and their communities of the decision to convert them from 13

community colleges to university colleges. Where there were problems identified, the author was struck

that many of these were common at most institutions but not all, causing the author to wonder why they

would not have learned from each other’s best practices. To be fair, they are still new enough that growing

pains are to be expected.

RESEARCH FINDINGS FROM VISITS TO ALBERTA AND B.C.

Alberta

Five interviews were held – with senior Government officials, led by the Assistant Deputy Minister; the

Chair of the Alberta Council on Admissions and Transfer; the President of an institute of technology; the

President of a community college; and the Academic Vice-President of another community college. Of the

five, the researcher felt the most balanced was with the senior leadership of the Ministry of Learning. In

the institutions themselves, the researcher sensed an element of ‘pity’ towards Ontario’s colleges,

perceiving them as politically weak and disregarded by Ontario’s universities. They also seemed to have a

smugness towards the new degree-granting institutions in B.C. (“too many problems; both sides

compromised”), believing the new flexibility in Alberta provided the best of all worlds, both to students

and their employers.

Lessons learned from the various interviews included:

*students and employers will be the most in favour of new degree-granting powers

*universities and some colleges will be most opposed

*invest a lot of time seeking support with all parties, trying to iron out perceived problems

*degrees have worked best when built on a strong diploma base, keeping a diploma exit

*faculty credentials have not been a problem when approached sensibly

*tenure may become an issue in the future

*no problem with academic freedom or institutional autonomy

*no problem with library, computer services or overall funding in the Government’s opinion;

some institutions felt otherwise

*a problem soon will be graduate studies

*registration in professional bodies is a problem, placing some students in limbo

14

*research just beginning (e.g. at Olds College)

*universities have noticed the popularity of applied degrees and are trying to strengthen their

own links with employers

*Senates were working reasonably well

*will take some time to educate the public re applied degrees

British Columbia

Five interviews were held – with the Assistant Deputy Minister; a Professor Emeritus of Higher Education

at UBC, who also serves on the British Columbia Council on Admissions and Transfer; the Presidents of

two university colleges; and the Academic Vice-President of the British Columbia Institute of Technology

(B.C.I.T.) All parties interviewed had genuine and abundant enthusiasm for the university colleges (u.c.’s)

and the “new”, degree-granting B.C.I.T.. They were also universally gracious to the researcher, actually

seeming pleased that someone would have come from Ontario to learn from B.C. All university colleges

seem to have ‘growing pains’, but every problem area seems to have been worked out successfully at one

of them, at least; the author has therefore, concluded that starting right is critical, even more so than

learning from each other’s best practices.

Lessons learned included:

*when advocating and planning, have all parties at the table – e.g. employers, school boards,

universities, staff, student leaders, community leaders, accrediting bodies

*faculty are key!

*the degree programs are successful – the more unique and high profile, the better

*government funding (e.g. for libraries, computer services) inadequate

*membership in AUCC a problem if, for example, senior management does not have doctorates

(e.g. Malaspina was recently turned down)

*differentiated credentials between Years III/IV and other faculty can lead to morale problems

(Kwantlen has avoided this by disallowing faculty ‘ranks’ in the collective agreement)

*tenure is an issue (Malaspina has worked it out at the Educational Council)

15

*internal relationships – particularly Faculty, Educational Council, Unions, Management – are

fine in some u.c.’s, but not all

*securing research money is challenging

*no problem with academic freedom

*institutional autonomy a problem from the u.c.s’ perspective, due to government.

“micromanagement” (e.g. new program approval process)

*quality is perceived as high

*enrolment demand is strong

*opportunities include more unique programs and overall expansion (incl. International

education)

*graduate degrees will be supported by universities, as long as they are applied

*build as many degrees as possible on strong diploma programs (with a diploma exit); B.C.I.T.

and Fraser Valley had made particularly good headway in this strategy

*important to have accrediting bodies auditing courses

*accessibility for some individuals is improved by bridging courses

*the u.c.s’ communities “love them”!

*external relationships – government, media, community, employers – are good overall

*governance may become an issue: some u.c.’s want to be subsumed under the University Act

rather than the College and Institute Act where they are now (and where the Government wants

them to stay)

OPTIONS FOR ENHANCED DIVERSITY IN ONTARIO’S HIGHER EDUCATION ENVIRONMENT

If one accepts the case, as posited above, for enhanced diversity and capitalism in higher education in

Ontario, a natural follow-up is to ask, what kinds? The aforementioned OJIB report contained some

suggestions:

16

*independent quality assessment for post-secondary institutions

*world-class research institutions

*expand the number of placement in universities, colleges, and training programs…

*establish new “Charter for Colleges” for the 21st Century that allows colleges to be more market-

driven and flexible

*encourage college-university-private sector partnerships and community college-university

cooperation

*develop “Skills Passport” for Ontarians, to record the skills…acquired

*create an Ontario Distance Education network…

*Province-wide “digital library” network

The author would go a step further, believing the Government should invite colleges and universities to

come forward with new structural and/or functional ideas to help Ontario achieve the OJIB Mission

Statement:

“Ontario will achieve sustainable economic prosperity with the best performing economy and the

highest quality of life in North America over the next 10 years.”

The author believes a number of important and do-able ideas will be generated from the field. There may

be one or two self-generated recommendations for merger; some colleges will be able to demonstrate they

should become like their Alberta counterparts, i.e. adding selected, applied degrees; one or two will be able

to demonstrate they should add Years I and II of a university transfer program, - again, like many of their

Alberta and B.C. counterparts; one or two will likely make a persuasive case to form (or co-form) a

polytechnic; and at least one will demonstrate it should be converted to a university college, along the lines

of the five in B.C.

If the Government does not wish to issue such a global invitation, it should at least react constructively to

ideas that are pro-acted from the field. In any event, whether the Government chooses to pro-act or react

to proposals with new ideas, by what objective criteria would it judge their worthiness? Presumably, the

Government would want such criteria to guide the decision, rather than just the fire of local advocates.

The author puts forward the following list for the Government’s consideration:

*an immediate Population Mass of at least 250,000 people before creating an expanded model

(e.g. a university college)

17

*contribution to regional Sustained Prosperity and High Quality of Life

*demonstrated Enrolment Demand, inclusive of programming directly targeted in the proposal

*demonstrated Accountability, as measured by Key Performance Indicators and Fiscal

Responsibility

*lack of Availability of Good Alternatives

*a commitment to Partnering with colleges, universities and the private sector, as appropriate

*sensible start-up and ongoing Capital and Operating costs, including a realistic capital plan

*a clear and persuasive Institutional Vision and tight Business Plan

*demonstrated very high level of broad-based Community Support

*formal support by substantial majority of the senior, elected Municipal Councillors and Regional

MPP’s

*a superbly written Proposal, both in substance and in form.

In a narrative which focuses generally on these criteria (a point by point analysis will be deferred until the

eventual proposal for the Government), the author will now recommend a redefinition of “his own”

institution, Durham College (and University Centre).

THE CASE FOR A UNIVERSITY COLLEGE IN DURHAM REGION

The situation. Durham Region stretches from the eastern border of Toronto to just west of Port Hope, and

north to a line stretching east of Lake Simcoe. It includes communities such as Pickering, Ajax, Whitby,

Oshawa, Clarington, Uxbridge, Scugog and Brock. In all, over 500,000 citizens live there today, a number

that will double to 1,000,000 within a generation according to Government of Ontario projections.

Yet, the Region has no university. Not by coincidence, neither does it have amenities such as a daily

newspaper, local TV channel or performing arts centre. Yet, much smaller Ontario communities such as

Kitchener/Waterloo, Guelph, Thunder Bay, St. Catherines, Peterborough, Kingston, and Windsor have all

of those. In other words, Durham Region is not a community in as full a sense as those other

communities. They have a unity, shaped in large measure by those very amenities.

18

By contrast, Durham Region has General Motors. Having GM and its suppliers is good, but not enough,

not even economically. If one lists the top ten employers in the other communities, there is a nice balance

between private and public enterprise. In Durham Region, however, almost all the major employers after

GM are public - not a healthy picture as one looks to a new century.

Moreover, the private sector jobs that are there are becoming increasingly low end. The good, Canadian

Auto Worker and United Steel Worker jobs are only about 60% of what they were ten years ago – and are

being replaced by Call Centre and Movieplex jobs that pay a bare fraction of CAW or USW wages (or

OPSEU or CUPE ones).

Yet, young families flock to the Region in huge numbers because of one, primary factor – affordable

housing. As the North and West areas of Toronto become filled up within convenient commuting range,

the East is all that is left. So, they are coming – but not for the work or the education, but for the $150,000

home.

As a result, Highway 401 is an even worse nightmare than it was five years ago, with rush hour back-ups

now stretching to Oshawa. Not surprisingly, Highway 407 began west of Toronto and still has not reached

east. What this means to the quality of the air and the quality of family life, one can only guess. A

backwater region is in the potential making, right on the shoulder of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) and

no one seems to be taking note of, or doing anything about, it.

The problem is compounded by the tensions of a two-tier municipal government structure, with the

predictable fragmentation amongst some of the eight mayors and councils within the lower tier.

The Start of a Solution. One has to start somewhere. That start could come in some form of municipal

amalgamation to forge the kind of unity and synergy found elsewhere – but that likely will not be forced

by the Ontario Government and even if it happens voluntarily, the aftermath will take years to heal and to

settle who does what.

Or, the start could come from a daily newspaper, focusing on and trumpeting the happenings and

possibilities of a grand, new unicity-in-waiting. However, this also may not happen for a long while and

besides, will not directly generate much new employment.

There is only one, new occurrence that will lead to the sustainable renewal and repositioning of Durham

Region, i.e. a university. The literature on community development repeats over and again how critical

knowledge creation and dissemination is to a viable, modern society. This was true even in the pre-

microchip, pre-global world; how much truer must it be heading into the 21st Century?

19

The Contributions of a University to Society

Leading thinkers have written about this for centuries, from Old Testament authors (Torah means

‘learning’; Rabbi means ‘teacher’) to Aristotle and his student, Plato, whose Academy dedicated itself to

the search for truth, to the Sopohists’ teaching rhetoric and other useful skills to enhance success in life, to

the Pythagoreans’ focus on math and astronomy.

This reflection on universities has carried into more modern times. Cardinal Newman (1873) orated

(literally) that a university was about promoting Thought and Reason, about the pursuit of Truth. He

revered education: “Education is a high word…an acquired faculty of judgment, of clearsightedness, of

sagacity, of wisdom, of philosophical reach of mind, and of intellectual self-possession and repose”.

Newman also saw a high utility in liberal education: “intellectual culture (has) its own end;…the (person)

who has learned to think…reason…compare…discriminate…analyze…has refined his taste…formed his

judgment…sharpened his mental vision, will…take up any one of the sciences or callings…with an ease, a

grace, a versatility, and a success, to which another is a stranger. In this sense…mental culture is

emphatically useful.”

Writing almost a century after Newman, Flexner (1930) believed that “human institutions…(should be) an

expression of the age…(albeit) not a weather vane…” He cited four main purposes of a modern university:

a)the conservation of knowledge and ideas; b)the interpretation of knowledge and ideas; c)the search for

truth; and d)the training of students who will practice and “carry on”(p. 6).

Kerr (1982), while acknowledging the unwieldiness of the huge, modern ‘multiversity’, justified them in a

single word – ‘history’. In other words, they fill so many of the needs of an advancing civilization that

society supports them and indeed, regards them as one of its most cherished possessions.

The debate over post-secondary institutions’ contribution to society became more complicated in the last

half century with the advent of community colleges, particularly in jurisdictions (e.g. U.S., Alberta, B.C.,

Quebec) whose colleges had a mandate partially linked to universities.

In Ontario, on the other hand, that link was purposefully eschewed, literally from Day One. Speaking in

the Legislature on May 21, 1965, when he announced the creation of Ontario’s colleges, then Education

Minister William Davis spoke, “Many …have assumed, but quite erroneously…I am planning… to

import…the system of junior colleges…in the United States …(with) university-parallel courses….What

we have in mind…(for the Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology will have)…real differences in

programs and in emphasis…(Davis, 1965, pp. 11-12). After then citing a list of potential programs, Mr.

Davis made it clear “these are not thought of as university level courses” (p. 13). It is possibly of no

20

surprise that Ontario’s university presidents, who were consulted prior to the speech, voiced their clear

approval after it was over.

The author, who worked in an Ontario college at the time of its inception, agreed with the Davis vision.

He still does. On the other hand, there is no denying that the advent of Information Technology and

Global Trade has forced colleges to drive up the sophistication of their programs in order to stay relevant,

to the point that many college subjects are now the same as university undergraduate ones. This is timely,

as the knowledge-driven, international economy has made the Degree the unequivocal credential of choice.

Thus, there is heightened interest amongst colleges to establish speedy, seamless diploma-degree

pathways, in an academically rigorous way. Mr. Davis, with his characteristic prescience, seemed to

anticipate this, for he allowed in the aforementioned speech that, “If circumstances so require, we will

naturally change or make adaptations to our present plans”. (p.14)

The author will now address two questions: SHOULD A UNIVERSITY BE ESTABLISHED IN DURHAM

REGION? IF ‘YES’, WHAT KIND SHOULD IT BE?

OPTIONS FOR A UNIVERSITY PRESENCE IN DURHAM REGION

The author argues that, based on any fair assessment of the aforementioned discussion and eleven criteria,

the answer to the first question is an unequivocal ‘yes’. Moving then to the second question, there appear

to be four broad options.

Option #1 – locate a ‘branch plant’ of an existing university in Durham Region. There are three potential

advantages to this model: a) it can happen quickly, by a joint decision by the Government and the

university’s Board of Governors; b) its degree programs would happen fairly smoothly as they already are

the partnering university’s core business; and c)graduates would benefit from the prestige of an existing

university (provided, of course, that it was deemed prestigious by the marketplace). A fourth potential

advantage, smoother diploma-degree articulation, has been omitted by the author because, based on

lengthy and unsuccessful experience, he does not believe it will happen; besides, the recently signed ‘Port

Hope Accord’ provides as progressive a platform by which to achieve such articulation under any

governance arrangement.

The author would argue there is a profound disadvantage of the ‘branch plant’ model, which is that branch

plants inevitably are ‘second class citizens’ to the ‘mothership campus’. The author has elaborated on the

reasons why, and their sad consequences, in another paper, ‘Rationalization: Shrinking From Greatness’

(Polonsky, 1999).

21

There is another reason, peculiar to Durham Region, why the ‘branch plant’ vision would be unacceptable

there. For some of the reasons expressed above, the region has developed an inferiority complex. Many

citizens simply do not feel their region is “as good” as Halton/Peel or North York, as examples, nor that it

could ever become so. It is important that the Region begin to feel a sense of empowerment and

confidence - and one way for that not to happen is to once again, “kick it in the teeth” by placing the

control of its post-secondary/economic future in the hands of some distant institution and place. In short,

any out-of-region “solution” is bound to drive most citizens – and their five (Tory) MPP’s – “off their

stick”.

Option #2 – merge Durham College with an existing university. The advantages of this are the same as

stated under Option #1. There are profound disadvantages, however, for Durham College and more

importantly, for Durham Region. These stem from one undeniable, irresolvable and indeed, healthy fact,

i.e. their cultures are, and should be, so different as to result in a perpetual, destructive clash, if merged.

After all, the roles of the university as coveted by their members, and as were described above, require

deliberate, slow, collegial review. Colleges, on the other hand, revere speed, agility, entrepreneurship, and

risk.

To merge such disparate cultures will produce more losers than winners. Durham College faculty, hired

for their applied leadership, will become under-valued by too many of the university professors, hired for

their academic scholarship. Durham Region businesses, who have counted on the college (which will

achieve around $20,000,000 of corporate activity in 1999/2000) for instant, in-and-out decisions and ISO

accountability, will become frustrated by any dilution of any dynamism by say, a traditional Senate. As

such, they will take their business elsewhere – and everyone will lose.

In fact, in the diversity-based context of this paper, what would happen from a university/college merger

would be a diminution of diversity, exactly the opposite of what this paper has argued Ontario needs. The

author wishes to state with absolute sincerity that he has the highest regard for Ontario’s universities. That

is the reason he has recently chosen to enroll in one of their doctoral programs. His observations have

nothing to do with fundamental values such as integrity, excellence or respect. Rather, they have

everything to do with mission and corporate culture. Konrad and McNeal (1984) made the point when

they asked university presidents and board chairs to prioritize 20 goals according to what is and what

should be. In the is ranking, Advanced Training and Vocational Preparation rated 12th and 13th,

respectively; in the should be ranking, they rated 12th and 15th, respectively. Yet, if this same list were

offered to anyone in an Ontario college, they would assuredly rate those two attributes as 1,2. So, to

repeat, the issue is not that university colleagues are not good people; they are great people – who just

happen to have a different mission and mindset than their counterparts in Ontario’s colleges of applied arts

and technology.22

Option #3 – grant Durham Region “its own” university to offer all degrees – Applied, Professional and

Arts/Science. The justification includes:

*to facilitate the survival and potential growth in Ontario, of General Motors and its suppliers

(especially if/as the Canadian dollar inches towards 75¢ U.S.)

*to attract new industry as a result of the knowledge creation capabilities of a local university

*to provide fairness and equity to Durham Region families in meeting their higher education

needs

*to stem the ‘brain drain’ of Durham Region residents

*to transform the cultural/social definition and confidence levels of the region.

Option #4 – grant Durham Region “its own” university, to offer Applied and Professional Degrees, and

direct the new institution to partner with at least one existing Ontario university to offer Arts and Science

degrees on the “University College at Durham” campus.

The author believes Option #4 above, is the best choice. The vision for the new institution would be

applied, building on Durham College’s roots and strengths. The curriculum would be designed so that

the graduates would be integrated thinkers/doers/leaders/learners. For example, one could envision an

Engineering program in which many or all of the Year III students were Certified Engineering

Technologists, whose hands-on skills would become honed by higher ordered knowledge and thinking.

Possibly, they would even take a module of a related trade so as to obtain a feel and respect for the

contributions of the journeyperson team members whom they will eventually supervise. In this way, the

‘white hats’ and ‘blue collars’ will have understanding and respect for one another instead of the opposite,

which is often the case today (with negative consequences to productivity).

A university college, as envisioned above, would have elements in common with both Ontario’s colleges

and universities. With the colleges, it would retain its applied roots and diplomas. With the universities,

it would comply with the four norms cited by Jones (1998), i.e. public, autonomous, secular and degree

granting. It would also stress research along with teaching and service; the eminent Canadian, Northrup

Frye (1971), made the case for research as well as anyone: “The university has to be a mixture of teaching

and research functions, and the two functions have constantly to update each other. A teacher who is not

a scholar is soon going to be out of touch with his own subject, and a scholar who is not a teacher is soon

going to be out of touch with the world.”

Moreover, the author envisions that the new institution could/should/would learn the lessons from its B.C.

antecedents. For example, given that there would have to be a form of Senate, it would be designed from 23

Day One to facilitate, not impede corporate training and partnering in market-driven ways. As another

example, staffing decisions would ensure everyone was, and felt like, a ‘first class citizen’. Similarly, the

library and computer services would receive the necessary investment, up front and ongoing.

Other questions remain. For example, should the university college offer its own degrees from Day One,

or be “mentored” by a partnering university, as happened in four of the five B.C. institutions? The author

believes the new institution could offer its Applied and Professional degrees as soon as they are approved,

as it learns how to do this properly from its partnering university offering the Arts and Science degrees.

The author assumes this would be Trent University, based on the multi-decade, innovative and successful

track record of Trent at Durham, most recently as part of the University Centre at Durham. However, he

does not wish to presume on Trent’s decisions in this regard, which will be learned in due course and in

good faith.

Two other, inevitable questions are: a) how much extra will this cost? And b) from where will the money

come? The answer to the former will be in the formal proposal to the Government. Certainly, the cost

will be less than a stand-alone alternative, given the singular administration, ‘one stop shopping’ for

student services, conjoint programming, and shared campus.

As to where the money will come from, the timing is arguably fortuitous. The ‘SuperBuild’ fund

announced in the 1999 Provincial Budget Speech, could discharge the capital needs. Any extra operating

funds could come from a strategic envelope to enhance the quality and quantity of higher educational

services, linked to the double cohort issue and, in Durham’s case, the substantial, subsequent growth of

both diploma and degree programming.

CONCLUSION

This paper has tried to demonstrate that the lifeblood of North America’s comparative economic well-

being, i.e. competition-inspired diversity, produces similar benefits in higher education. After examining

1990’s experiments in Canada, principally in Alberta and B.C., he has concluded that some such

innovations would also serve Ontario well, particularly as relates to many of the objectives in the OJIB

report on prosperity and quality of life.

Finally, as a manifestation of the above call for enhanced diversity, he has recommended that Durham

College be transformed into the “University College of Durham”, which would also solve the higher

educational inequities and challenges of the 1,000,000 people soon to be living in that part of the GTA.

Furthermore, he envisions this new institution should partner with at least one existing university, as

24

described above, so that each can do what it does best – in the most efficient and effective manner for all

of Ontario, including Durham Region, in particular.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities (MTCU) should partner with Ontario’s colleges,

universities and their various client groups in deriving a renewed vision for post-secondary education

in the province.

2. MTCU should then publish a framework for renewal, to which each institution – alone or in

partnership, at its discretion – may submit its own, renewed vision for the future.

3. As part of the province-wide renewal process – or before, if appropriate - MTCU should approve

Durham College’s vision to be converted to a university college.

4. Durham College (DC) should develop and submit a comprehensive proposal in support of its

conversion to an applied university college, learning from the best practices and mistakes of other

university colleges; specifically:

a) DC should involve all pertinent stakeholders, internal and external – including AUCC and

accrediting bodies - from the early conceptualization stage through to Day One of classes, and

thereafter

b) Focus on high quality from Day One

c) Structure timetables and collective agreements so that all colleagues feel like ‘first class citizens’

d) Hire people who are inspired and committed to the university college vision

e) Build most or all of the applied degrees onto diploma programs, ideally for every diploma program

f) Ensure adequate start-up and ongoing funding, paying due attention to the library and I.T. services

g) Plan for some unique programs

h) Consult AUCC for insights, support and eventual membership

i) Structure the ‘Senate’ so that it reinforces academic rigour, freedom and collegiality – and

facilitates the applied programs’ and corporate training units’ need to be agile and market-driven

j) Develop a plan to secure and grow research funds

5. The new “University College of Durham” (“UCD”) should partner with at least one existing

university for the purpose of the latter providing Arts and Science on the “UCD” campus.

25

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Alberta Advanced Education and Career Development. New Directions for Adult Learning in Alberta. Edmonton, Alberta: The Crown in Right of the Province of Alberta, 1994.

2. Alberta Learning. Campus Alberta. Edmonton, Alberta: The Crown in Right of the Province of Alberta, 1999.

3. Baldridge, J.V., and others. Policy Making and Effective Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1978.

4. Ben-David, J. American Higher Education: Directions Old and New. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1972.

5. Birnbaum, R. Maintaining Diversity in Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1983.

6. Breneman, D. W., and Finn, C. E., Jr. Public Policy and Private Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institute, 1978.

7. Cameron, K. "Measuring Organizational Effectiveness in Institutions of Higher Education." Administrative Science Quarterly, 1978, 23, 604-632.

8. Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. The Purpose and the Performance of Higher Education in the United States. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1973.

9. Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education. A Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. Berkeley, California: Carnegie Council for the Advancement of Teaching, 1975.

10. Clark, B.R. "The Benefits of Disorder." Change, October, 1976, 31-37.

11. El-Khawas, E.H. Public and Private Higher Education Differences in Role, Character and Clientele. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1976.

12. Flexner, A., with a new introduction by Clark Kerr. Universities: American, English, German. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1968 (originally published 1930).

13. Frye, N. "The Definition of a University.", in Bruce Rusk (ed.). Alternatives in Education. OISE Fifth Anniversary Lectures. Toronto, Ont.: General Publishing Coimpany, 1971, 71-90.

14. Handlin, O. and Handlin, M.F. The American College and American Culture: Socialization as a Function of Higher Education. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1970.

15. Jones, G.A. "The Idea of the Canadian University". Interchange, 1998, 29, 1, 69-80.

16. Jonsen, R.W. Small Liberal Arts Colleges: Diversity at the Crossroads? Washington, D.C.: American Association for Higher Education, 1978.

17. Kerr, C. The Uses of the University. Cambridge: Harvard University Press (3rd edition), 1982, 1-45.

26

18. Konrad, A. and McNeal, J. "Goals in Canadian Universities." Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 1984, IV, 1, 31-40.

19. Ministry of Education. Access for All. Victoria, B.C.: Crown Publishing, B.C., 1989.

20. Ministry of Education. Charting a New Course. Victoria, B.C.: Crown Publishing, B.C., 1996.

21. Newman, J.H. The Idea of a University. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1976 (originally published 1873), 124-155.

22. Ontario Department of Education. Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology Basic Documents. Toronto, Ont.: Government of Ontario Publications.

23. Ontario Jobs and Investment Board. A Road Map to Prosperity: A Summary of the Economic Plan for Jobs in the 21st Century. Toronto, Ont.: Government of Ontario Publications, 1999.

24. Pace, C.R. The Demise of Diversity? A Comparative Profile of Eight Types of Institutions. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1974.

25. Petch, H. "Degree Programs at the University Colleges: A British Columbia Success Story." A Report Prepared at the Request of the Presidents of the University Colleges of British Columbia. Victoria, B.C.: University of Victoria, 1998.

26. Polanyi, K. The Great Transformation: The Politics and Economic Origins of Our Time. Boston, Mass.: Beacon, 1957.

27. Riesman, D. "The Future of Diversity in a Time of Retrenchment. Higher Education, 1975, 4, 461-482.

28. Stadtman, V.A. Academic Adaptations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1980.

29. Sloan Commission on Government and Higher Education. A Program for Renewed Partnership. Cambridge, Mass: Ballinger, 1980.

30. Trivett, D.A. Proprietary Schools and Postsecondary Education. Washington, D.C.: American Association for Higher Education, 1974.

31. Trow, M. "Aspects of Diversity in American Higher Education" in H.J. Gans and others (eds.), On the Making of Americans: Essays in Honor of David Riesman. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1979.

32. Walkom, T. "To Market, To Market" an article in The Toronto Star, 1999, Aug. 8, Section B, 1-4.

27