14 10 30 market modifiers news release

7/27/2019 14 10 30 Market Modifiers News Release

1/15

Council of Alberta University Students

#2, 9908 109 Street NW

Edmonton, Alberta T5K 1H5

780-297-4531

www.caus.net

For immediate release October 30, 2014

Students urge Minister Scott to reject

market modifier proposals

Edmonton, Alberta The Council of Alberta University Students (CAUS) is concerned by

the lack of transparency and the inadequate consultations conducted by post-secondary

institution administrations with Students Associations regarding the development of recent

proposals for massive differential tuition increases, otherwise known as market modifiers.

CAUS is now calling on Innovation and Advanced Education Minister Don Scott to forgo

approving all market modifier proposals submitted by the institutions attended by the over

100,000 university students that CAUS represents.

No matter what we call it, this is a tuition increase that would break government promises,

said CAUS chair, Navneet Khinda. It is time for the government to keep its promise of

limiting tuition increases to inflation and close off loopholes.

Students release letters against market modifier proposals

Our member student associations affected by the market modifier proposals have written

letters of concern to Minister Scott. Letters from the Students Association of Mount Royal

University (SAMRU), the University of Alberta Students Union (UASU), the University of

Calgary Students Union (UCSU), and the University of Lethbridge Students Union (ULSU)

can be found in the document accompanying this release. While the Students Association

of MacEwan University (SAMU) is a member of CAUS, the students at MacEwan are not

facing market modifiers.

Background on the market modifier issue

Since the 1990s tuition in Alberta has nearly tripled in real dollars, controlling for inflation.

In recognition of the impact of these significant increases, the province tied tuition to

inflation in 2006, a policy commonly referred to as the tuition cap. In 2010 then minister for

Advanced Education, Doug Horner, allowed for a one-time only round of market modifiers

to satisfy institutions that were concerned with tuition levels before the tuition cap. This past

July, the province surprised students, calling for additional market modifier proposals.

According to information from the Ministry of IAE the decision on which proposals are

approved will be made by November 17, 2014.

- 30 -

The Council of Alberta University Students (CAUS) represents the interests of students at MacEwan

University, Mount Royal University, the University of Alberta, the University of Calgary, and the

University of Lethbridge

For more information contact:

Beverly Eastham, Executive Director Navneet Khinda, Chair

cell: 780-297-4531 office: 780-492-4241

e-mail: [email protected] e-mail: [email protected]


2/15

!"#$%& $( )&*+"(& ,$(-*.&/&0$( /& 1$*(& !$2/. 3(04"%-0&2 5$% 1/%6"& 1$+050"%-

"#$%&'( )*+ ),-.

/012 ('3%($ 042 &''5 3('34('6 &7 $0' 8$96'5$2: ;22%#14$1%5 %< =%95$ >%74? @51A'(21$7 B8;=>@C

DE'#9$1A'2 $% 2933?'F'5$ $0' 3(%3%24?2 $04$ 04A' &''5 2'5$ 15 %74? @51A'(21$7 B=>@CH /012 ('3%($ I1?? %@C $% $0' L"; '$('4$H /012 %##9(('6 Q92$ 956'( * I''G2 &'&;

@

DE'#9$1A'2 3(%F%$'6 $0' @+ ?%%2'?7 'E3?41515O F4(G'$ F%61


3/15

! ?@&$8"% =%+

@ DE'#9$1A'2 456 =>@ 2$96'5$2 $04$ 5% ('4? #%529?$4$1%5

'A'( %##9(('6H /0' $I% /STT F''$15O2 456 $0' %3'5 @ DE'#9$1A'2('#%FF'56 $04$ $0' 3(%3%24?2 @ &' ('Q'#$'6H

>'O4(62+

D(1G Z9''545+ R('216'5$ 8'1Q4 >%OO'A''5+ W1#'JR('216'5$ DE$'(54?

^%' 8?924(+ W1#'JR('216'5$ 8$96'5$ _1


4/15

"#$%&'( )* +,-.

/0102$'( 3%1 4#%$$*

5' 6(' 7(0$018 $% 9%: %1 &';6 70$; $;' ('#'1$ 1'72 $;6$ B(%B%26'6> %:( 012$0$:$0%1 $% B:$ $%8'$;'( B(%B%269018 6$ /%:1$ ?%96 ;'('G @1=%($:16$' 6$ /%:1$ ?%96C0102$(6$0%1* $;' '1$2 70 70$; 61 6>>0$0%16< C6(D'$ C%>0=0'( %1 $%B %= $;'0( $:0$0%1 2;%: 6G

R(%C %:( B'(2B'#$0A'* 0$ 2''C2 62 $;%:8; $;' C601 %&2$6# &9 $;' B(%A01#' 01

#%CB6(02%1 $% 20C0


5/15

Hon. Donald Scott, Q.C.Minister of Innovation and Advanced EducationRoom 402, Legislature Building,10800 97 AvenueEdmonton, AB

T5K 2B6

October 23, 2014

Minister Scott,

Thank you for reading this letter and allowing the University of Alberta Students Unionto comment on the University of Albertas proposals for market modifiers. Changes totuition should be considered one of the most significant decisions that a University orgovernment makes. Whether it is from sticker shock, increased debt, or young Albertans

simply being priced out of programs that they are otherwise qualified for, increasingtuition in this manner will have serious implications for accessibility to education.

With the above in mind, the University of Alberta Students Union maintains its concernswith market modifiers broadly, and specifically remains opposed to the current proposalsfor tuition increases at the University of Alberta. This letter explains our concerns withthe process surrounding this current round of market modifier discussions, our specificconcerns around consultation at the University of Alberta, and the concerns that we havewith each of the market modifiers proposed by the University of Alberta.

Tuition across programs and institutions throughout Campus Alberta is important in

relation to overall funding, access to education, and affordability for students. Thisimportance should be reflected in every process that could potentially lead to changes totuition. Sadly, this has not been reflected in the rushed nature of the market modifierproposals and the lack of transparency regarding the proposals from the institutionsinvolved.

It takes time to determine the appropriate costs to run a program, to determine what costsstudents should cover, and to ensure that affordability and accessibility are not sacrificed.This is why students welcomed the working groups set up by the Provincial Government,which created opportunity to have a system wide conversation about fees, program costsand recovery, and the importance of accessibility. Unfortunately, despite the encouragingprecedent set with the working groups, institutions have admittedly rushed their marketmodifier discussions and ignored bringing a productive system-wide approach to theconversation.

Discussions around tuition should be transparent both on campus and with the broadercommunity. Unfortunately, Student Associations across Alberta and media outlets haveall had a difficult time obtaining the proposals being submitted by institutions. This hasmade it almost impossible to have a real conversation about the implications of these


6/15

proposals for Campus Alberta and the broader community. Even providing this feedbackto the ministry is difficult, as we have not seen the final proposals that were sent to thegovernment for consideration.

In addition to our broad concerns about this round of market modifiers, we have concerns

about the way the University of Alberta has handled this process. The process at theUniversity of Alberta has had shifting deadlines, avoided consultation with the StudentsUnion, and often been insufficient in consulting the affected students, which at theUniversity of Alberta are represented by Faculty Associations.

We are concerned that our Faculty Associations were subject to pressure from theinstitution under the short deadlines, which prevented adequate engagement with thebroader student body. It was also unclear if timelines included adequate time to includemeaningful feedback from students, or if student consultation was handled more as anafterthought. It seems fair to assume that a consultative process allows the stakeholders toprovide input and see their input being incorporated or if not, that the stakeholders be

given reasons as to why their input will not affect the proposal.

The need to consult both the student association and the affected students, as outlined inthe Ministrys guidelines document, was of significant importance to the University ofAlberta Students Union. This was an item we clarified with the ministry to mean thatboth the Students Union on behalf of the broader student body as well as the studentsin the impacted faculty / program would have an opportunity to review the proposals andto provide feedback. Unfortunately, despite numerous attempts by the Students Union toassist the institution in meeting this requirement, this consultation did not occur. No Deanactively reached out to the SU to get our feedback on any proposal, though we reachedout to them multiple times in an attempt to share our perspective and provide feedback.

While the Dean of Law met with the Students Union and presented to Students Councilas part of a presentation by the Law Students Association, no faculties approached theStudents Union or requested feedback on their proposals. While the ability to commenton proposals would likely not have changed the Students Unions opposition, if theinstitution had actually followed the Ministrys guidelines and engaged in meaningfulconsultation with the Students Union we are confident that there would be betterproposals with an improved final product for the broader student body. If given theopportunity to provide feedback on the proposal, the Students Union would have been ina better position to constructively engage students on this very important issue.

Beyond not seeking feedback from the Students Union, the consultation that occurredwith impacted students was also incomplete:


7/15

The University of Alberta Students Unions Concerns With The Specific Market

Modifier Proposals

Law Market Modifier Proposal

We have a number of specific concerns regarding the Market Modifier proposal in theFaculty of Law. As weve previously mentioned, the institution declined to consult theStudents Union directly, but instead approached the Faculty Association in Law. Thesestudents were pressured by the institution and told that the deadline was before the end ofAugust, making it difficult for them to consult with students in their faculty. Thiscornered the Law Students Association into writing a letter of support that contradictsStudents Union bylaw. Many students in law were concerned by this move, and wrote apetition asking for further consultation on the proposal. The fact that students werespecifically told to get their letter of support completed before the start of the fallsemester is quite concerning.

As the institution submitted this proposal early, after it was sent back from the ministryamid ample media coverage and an Edmonton Journal editorial opposing the marketmodifier, the Law Students Association was able to discuss the proposal with lawstudents further. While investigated by the Students Union for breaking bylaw, StudentsCouncil debated what students were told about the proposal and agreed to disagree,deciding to allow the Law Students Association to support the proposal as a FacultyAssociation while Council decided to continue to oppose the market modifier on behalfof all students.

With the information we have been given, an increase to law tuition is not warranted.

Comparators between institutions are more complicated than they are often discussed,because of differences in per student funding and the need to understand a schools realcompetitors. First, Alberta has above average funding from the Provincial government.This should be something we celebrate, as Alberta institutions should be able to providebetter quality to students at a lower sticker price. Rather than attempting to increase ourtuition rates to be comparable to Ontario institutions, we should be demonstrating thatstudents should get more from Albertas institutions than their peers. In addition to thisand with specific implications for the law tuition proposal, it is important to consider towhich schools we are compared. The cost of a legal education is significantly higher inOntario; however, the University of Alberta is largely competing against schools inWestern Canada, which have tuition more in line with our current tuition levels. Forinstance, the University of British Columbia and the University of Victoria are currentlythe highest ranked law schools in Western Canada and the University of Albertas tuitionis between these two schools. The market modifier proposal, then, would seem to price usabove the actual market in which we compete.

It isnt clear why the increasing costs of legal education which mirror the sharedincreasing structural costs throughout the entire institution should be treated as an


8/15

exception to the CPI cap. It is clear that a one-time increase in one faculty will not doanything to solve these structural problems. Furthermore, there is the social cost toconsider. This market modifier will restrict access to legal education to those from rural,Aboriginal, and lower socio-economic backgrounds -- three groups who are alreadyunderrepresented in the higher education system in Alberta. Students who dont have the

up-front cash or willingness to carry lots of debt will be kept out, in a province whereaccess to justice and legal aid is already diminished. Forcing students to graduate withhigher debt rates as a trade off for seeking legal education restricts their choice in jobplacement, and hurts our society few students graduating with over $80,000 in debt willwant to work in under-served and low paying legal areas which may need more attention.

In Ontario, they are currently debating the implication of high tuition costs on theaccessibility and affordability of legal education. This debate is being fueled by surveysof students demonstrating that legal education has serious access barrier to address andthe realization that high debt limits the fields students pursue. Due to the U of As desireto evade public discussion of the proposal, we were unable to have this important social

debate here. If this proposal is accepted, Alberta must have this discussion take place.Alberta needs to create an environment where students obtain a quality education, but wealso need to talk about who will have access to that education, and this concern needs tobe factored into the proposal.

Pharmacy Market Modifier Proposal

As we have previously discussed, the Students Union was never provided with the finalsubmissions. This prevents us from being able to have meaningful consultation on howthe proposals will impact students. That said, from what we are able to discuss regarding

the pharmacy proposal, our primary concern is that the proposal seems to be an attempt touse the market modifier regulation in order to create a new program. This raises a numberof questions, including how a new program corrects for any anomalies in themarketplace. This entire proposal seems to be outside the intent of allowing marketmodifiers.

The institutions consultation regarding this proposal is especially troubling. While theFaculty Association involved wrote a conditional letter of support, students in generalwere only asked for feedback on October 15, one day before the submission deadline. Itis unclear to the Students Union if any feedback received on October 14 made it into thefinal draft the following day, as we were not given an opportunity to view the finalproposal.


9/15

Economics Market Modifier Proposal

The Students Union is concerned about the proposal in Economics beyond justconsultation concerns, seeing as the Economics department at least had a broaderconsultative process with their students. As the proposal would be applied to students

outside of the department of economics (on a per course basis), we are concerned thatstudents outside of the department were treated as an afterthought, even though theywould still be charged the market modifier under this proposal. Principally, the proposalseems to seek justification under the increasing costs of running the department,mirroring structural issues among the rest of the academy, yet the proposal fails to solvethese structural issues. While the proposal seems to be concerned regarding the expenseof hiring economics professors, it is hardly reasonable for programs across the academyto seek major cost increases beyond CPI simply because of fluctuations in professorssalaries. Allowing such wild fluctuations to regularly occur simply contributes toundermining the entire rational behind creating the CPI cap.

The University of Alberta Students Union recommends the rejection of all three

Market Modifier proposals.

Therefore, with the aforementioned feedback in mind, the University of Alberta StudentsUnion encourages you to scrutinize these proposals with particular attention toaffordability, accessibility, and predictability for Albertans. It is true that Albertaspostsecondary institutions, and the system as a whole, are in a period of transition andtransformation. However, we firmly believe that the burden of financing cutbacks in post-secondary should not continue to fall on the backs of Alberta families and students.

Sincerely,

Navneet KhindaUniversity of Alberta Students Union Vice President External


10/15


11/15


12/15


13/15


14/15

Office of thePR SI NT

SU180G - 4401 UNIVERSITY DRIVE

LETHBRIDGE, ALBERTA

T1K 3M4

PHONE: (403) 329-2221

FAX: (403) 329-2224

[email protected]

www.ulsu.ca

... / 1

"#$#%&'( )*+&&,

-.' /$#0'(%#&1 +2 3'&.4(#56' )&75'$&%8 /$#+$ #% %749#&$6 &.#% :'&&'( #$ ('6;(5% &+ &.' -.#% #% +4L'*+$;4:' 6#0'$ &.;&, #2 ;@@(+0'5, &.#% @(+@+%;: @('%#5'$&P7:'&.>*;

QRSTSUJTUUUH


15/15

Kingsley Eze

President 2014-2015Cell: (403) 483-8835

M2037 4401 University Drive West, Lethbridge, Alberta T1K 3M4

www.ulethmss.ca

Minister Scott,

The Management Students Society (MSS) is submitting this letter in regards to the

proposed University of Lethbridges Management Market Modifier. MSS is writing toexpress our objection with the fee consultation process and rationale behind the fee increase.

The proposed market modifier was presented to the Management Students Society andthe University of Lethbridge Student Union (ULSU) on the 8th of October, the Thursday

before the long weekend. This allowed the student body only a limited time of four businessdays to process and consult with our stakeholders before making a decision in regards to the

presented proposal.

Secondly, the proposed market modifier document did not clearly outline where therevenues from the tuition increase would be allocated. The assigned areas where some of the

funds would be going are quantitatively immeasurable. There was no quantitativemeasurement or performance index to prove that adding of supplementary fund would

improve the over 93% satisfaction rate of management graduates or provide a betterstandard of education for management students. As management students, we understand

the rising cost of running a world-class program, but we are fully against unrealisticincreases in fees. We strongly believe that the program would be able to continue to

maintain its distinctive competence by increasing the tuition fee by 1/10th of the proposedmarket modifier. If this fee increase were to be passed, it would cost management students

thousands of dollars in extra cost without a guaranteed assurance of increased value tomatch this added cost.

In conclusion, the time constraint behind this proposal does not allow for a properconsultation with the major stakeholders, which includes Faculty of Management staff, andstudents who will be directly affected by these fees. I am available for further questioning or

an interview if required.

Sincerely,Kingsley Eze,

[email protected]

14 10 30 market modifiers news release

Documents