University of Toronto

2. Enrolment Growth

The student population at the University of Toronto has grown steadily since we opened our doors as King’s College in 1827. Beginning in the mid 1960s the Baby Boomers arrived on campus and sustained enrolment growth for approximately 20 years. Following the lexicon of U of T economist David Foot, the next demographic wave was the ‘Bust Generation’. By the late 1980s and early 1990s postsecondary enrolment growth slowed as a relatively smaller cohort of young people born in the late 1960s and 1970s made their way to and through university. The growth curve, however, sharpened significantly beginning in the early 2000s with the arrival of the ‘Echo Generation’, children of the Boomers.

In fact, the University has experienced enrolment growth of 35%6 over the past ten years, and 50% growth over the past twenty years. The University has accommodated the increased number of students across all three campuses. In the past 10 years, UTM expanded by 4,185 students (70% increase), UTSC expanded by 4,934 students (96% increase), and the St. George campus expanded by 9,377 students (23% increase). For 2006-07, the total student enrolment (headcount) at the University of Toronto stood at 72,494. The demand for university places has been driven by population growth in the 18 to 24 year age group and increasing participation rates.

Since 1997-98, enrolment in graduate professional masters programs has almost doubled, and doctoral enrolment has grown by 30%. Doctoral-stream Masters programs remained steady, increasing only by about 3%. The rapid growth in Professional Masters enrolment reflects the growing societal demand for these degrees, the increased number of offerings at the University, and shifts from second-entry baccalaureate programs. The increase in doctoral students is indicative of the growing intensity of research and scholarship at the University.

Projected enrolment growth demands

Across Ontario, the growth in the population of 18 to 24 year olds is projected to peak in 2014, rising 118,000 above 2005 levels7. The population will then decline somewhat but remain about 80,000 above 2005 levels beyond 2030. Professor David Foot suggests that “Over the next decade Canadian postsecondary institutions can be expected to experience enrolment growth. After that, the boom becomes a bust as the declining births of the 1990s gradually impact enrolments.”8 However, these general projections may not take full account of changing participation rates. A baccalaureate in today’s ‘knowledge economy’ can be seen as an entry-level credential, similar to a high school diploma in the 1970s. That reality may lead in turn to growing demand for of second-entry undergraduate and graduate programs.

As well, most of Ontario’s population growth in this 18 to 24 year old age group in the next two decades will be in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) region, with a 24% increase projected for 2005 to 2031 (an additional 126,000 potential students). For the same period, growth in this age group for regions outside the GTA is projected at more modest levels to 2013-2014 and then falling to 2005 levels or below. Indeed, for the area of Ontario outside the GTA, the population of the 18 to 24 year olds in 2031 is projected to be 7% below 2005 levels. As noted, these declines are likely to be offset by increasing university participation rates9. Participation rates for Ontario universities have climbed from 18.1 % (1989-90) to 27.9% (2004-05). Although some of the recent increases are an artefact of the double cohort (caused by elimination of grade 13), labour market dynamics and immigration are likely to drive up the demand for university education even if the population of 18 to 24 year olds drops slightly.

University of Toronto is a key provider of higher education to the GTA community

• In 2005, 71% of all new students entering first year at U of T originated from GTA communities.
• Of all GTA students registered at university (2004), 24.4% came to University of Toronto.

These differential enrolment pressures across Ontario present a significant challenge for all universities, and especially those located in the GTA (University of Toronto, York University, Ryerson University, the Ontario College of Art and Design and the University of Ontario Institute of Technology). The University of Toronto provides an education to approximately 24% of all GTA residents who register for university. If we do not expand, and especially if our sister institutions expand slowly or not at all, tens of thousands of students will need to leave the GTA for higher education. The situation is particularly fluid because colleges and universities outside the GTA, particularly in northern Ontario, could well see declining enrolments in the same period. Furthermore, the province has struggled to finance current students at levels that will sustain educational quality, and undergraduate enrolment expansion will create new financial pressures.

Graduate enrolment is also expected to increase, but the first period of increase will follow a province-wide plan. In the 2005 Spring Budget, the Ontario Government announced that by 2009-10, an additional $220M per annum will be made available to expand graduate enrolment in Ontario universities. This funding is intended to support a system-wide growth of 14,000 graduate spaces over 2002-03 levels. The University’s long-term expansion target is to add 4,470 FTEs, which represents an expansion of 42% over the 2004-05 level. Implementation of this plan is conditional on availability of appropriate resources, including funding for capital, student support and research support.

Accommodating growth without compromising quality

U of T High Student-Faculty Ratio

In the last 10 years, the University of Toronto student -faculty ratios have increased from 14 to 24, an increase of close to 70%. Our student -faculty ratio is almost twice as high as that of the University of Calgary.

U of T student-faculty ratios run 60% higher than American peer average and 20% higher than the Canadian peer mean.

Management consultants sometimes speak of ‘the impossible triad’ – ‘better, faster, and cheaper’, and ask clients to ‘pick any two’. The analogous attributes of education are quality, accessibility, and affordability. As one indicator of the trade-offs in the system, in 2005-06 Canadian universities on average received $2,500 per student less operating support from the government than was provided at the beginning of the 1990s.** At Toronto, the impact of chronic funding shortfalls has been felt in rising student-to-faculty ratios, bigger class sizes and depleted administrative infrastructure. An increasing number of first year undergraduate students are experiencing large class sizes (greater than 100 students per class), particularly at the Mississauga and Scarborough campuses.10 This challenge is also felt acutely in higher-level courses with fewer small lectures and seminars now available to students.

The St. George campus currently serves 51,000 students, a number that is larger than any university campus in Canada and, among US university campuses, ranks second in size following Ohio State University (at 51,800 students).

Similarly, while the University of Toronto and sister institutions have done well to meet the growing demand for university degrees, students across Canada, and especially in Ontario, are receiving a very different education than is available to US students at top public universities. One of our sources of performance metrics on student experience, the National Survey of Student Engagement, indicates unsettling differences when we compare Ontario universities to their peers in the United States. The intensity of student-faculty interactions at Ontario universities is at least 25% below that seen at US peer universities. Further, the degree of active and collaborative learning at Ontario institutions is lagging at least 15% below that of the US peer group. Notwithstanding concerns over rising tuition levels, evidence from multiple indicators suggests that our ability to maintain – let alone enhance – quality is being severely constrained.

Physical capacity is a related concern. Facilities on all three campuses are very heavily booked during the fall and spring semesters. Summer enrolments are growing. Additional growth is clearly possible, but there are differing views on ‘trimesterization’ and the cost-efficiency of greatly-increased summer enrolments. By the space standards of the Council of Ontario Universities [COU], all three campuses – but particularly UTM and UTSC – already fall significantly short of the square footage recommended for our configuration of faculty, staff, and students. Facility expansion is needed given current enrolments and staffing, not least the ongoing growth in the numbers of graduate students. However, with both the UTM and UTSC campuses situated near ravines or conservation areas, with the St. George campus located in an area of costly real estate in downtown Toronto and with GTA construction costs rising steadily, physical expansion is not without obstacles. Even in the health sphere, where several of the fully-affiliated research hospitals are expanding their physical plants, the availability of real estate constrains growth near the St. George Campus.‡ Meanwhile, the peak in GTA population growth among 18 to 24 year olds will be reached in only seven years, raising acute questions about whether and how we might accommodate a new wave of undergraduates.

Our Future Enrolment Patterns

The University of Toronto is at a critical juncture in decision-making about enrolment. Reflecting on the increases in student-faculty ratios, large class sizes and our performance on several measures of undergraduate student satisfaction, it appears unlikely – absent radical changes in funding – that bigger will be better. We have limited physical and human capacity to absorb more students on our three campuses. Yet, we also are expected to be responsive to the educational aspirations of residents of Ontario and particularly our citizens who live in the GTA. Those aspirations and associated population dynamics all point towards undergraduate growth at exactly a point in time when the majority of our colleagues and staff seem to be leaning in the precisely the opposite direction. The University is currently working with York and Ryerson as well as the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities to explore regional options. The immediate challenge, however, is to clarify our own long-term goals so that short-term decisions can be made within a sound strategic framework.

3. U of T’s Financial Model

Two decades ago, the then President George Connell noted in Renewal 1987 that “for the past 10 to 15 years, the University of Toronto has endured serious constraints upon its financial resources and in turn on its academic work”. Today, the University is still in an era of serious funding challenges.

In 2004-05, U of T’s operating budget was about $1.2 billion. The core provincial grant currently represents about 48% of that total, down from 76% in 1991-92. Tuition has risen from 20 to 37% of revenue. The remainder comes from other sources, such as endowment payouts, federal government support and divisionally generated income.

Figure 6 illustrates a declining share of government grants in the funding of university education. In fact, the proportion of provincial GDP devoted to post-secondary education in Ontario is lower than in all other provinces. Whereas per-capita funding of health care and K-12 schooling in Ontario is at the national average, funding of colleges and universities is 30% below the national average. Moreover, from the early 1990s to 2004-05, per-student inflation-adjusted funding from the provincial government (not including direct grants and research awards) fell by about 30%.

Ontario has been dead last among the provinces in per-student funding of higher education for about 15 years.

Ontario government funding per student is 50 to 66% of per student funding to public universities in American peer states.

The provincial government recently responded to the level of per-student funding in Ontario with its very welcome Reaching Higher Plan. The plan promised $6.2 billion in expenditure over five years and is particularly generous in its support of graduate students. However, much of the funding is directed to student aid, to the college sector and to enrolment growth. Thus, the Reaching Higher Plan has led to only modest increases in per student grants, particularly after ordinary inflation is taken into account. The Council of Ontario Universities has estimated that, even by 2009-10, the additional resources committed per-student are unlikely to move Ontario out of last place among the provinces.

Just as Ontario sits in last place among the provinces in per-student funding, Figure 7 below shows that, by the same measure, the University of Toronto lags behind all of our public AAU peers in total per-student revenues.

The core mechanism for government funding of Ontario universities is through basic operating grants. Since the 1960s, funding has been based on a weighted average of the number of students in various programs. The weights, known as ‘Basic Income Units’ or BIUs, were derived in the first instance from estimates of the relative cost of educating students in differing programs. However, the precision and accuracy of BIU weights today is questionable and the per-unit valuation remains too low to secure desirable features of undergraduate education, such as small class sizes and increased personal contact between professors and students. Another limitation is the fact that BIU weights and values are applied without reference to quality of academic programs or consideration of differing institutional roles in research.

The BIU weights and funding levels have created a set of incentives that are not necessarily aligned with our institutional strengths or past track record of research-intensive differentiation. High-volume undergraduate programs, characterized by large classes and limited professorial contact, are often cited as a cause of dissatisfaction among students; but in many ways they are the logical response to an environment of net revenue generation based on constrained BIUs. At one time, doctoral-stream programs were more financially sustainable, but the implementation of the ‘full funding guarantee’ (living stipend + tuition rebate), while an important advance in graduate education, has radically altered the net revenues associated with delivery of graduate research degrees. Without external financial awards or grants to cover minimum stipends associated with the graduate funding guarantee, doctoral programs in effect end up sending much of the BIU-associated grant directly to students themselves to cover the funding guarantee. Professional master’s programs, in turn, are more sustainable because students are provided with some measure of bursary support, but not a guaranteed stipend and tuition rebate.

Tuition

The tuition levels at Canadian universities roughly track inversely to the per-student funding provided by their home province. Higher tuitions in Nova Scotia and Ontario, for example, serve in part to offset lower per-student funding in those two provinces. Tuition fees for bachelor of arts programs at Ontario universities have increased 49% over the past decade, from $2,925 in 1996-97 to an average of $4,343 in 2006-07.¹¹ While recent increases are above the Consumer Price Index, analysis of the trend over three or four decades shows that tuitions have basically tracked the provincial average of wages and salaries. Accounting for exchange rates and the cost of living, Ontario fees are comparable to Australian fees and significantly lower than those of many public universities in the United States.¹²

The University has a tuition framework that weighs factors ranging from program costs to anticipated earnings, and also commits the institution to ensuring that no student should ever be forced to leave without completing his or her degree on the basis of financial need. The application of this framework occurs, however, within a Procrustean bed of varying government regulations regarding domestic students. In the 1990s, the Government of Ontario capped growth in undergraduate fees at 2% per annum, but allowed institutions to set their own tuition fees for most professional programs. The Government froze tuition fees for 2 years in 2004 and 2005, and then in 2006, announced a new multi-year tuition framework which provided for some degree of tuition fee differentiation, subject to the condition (among others) that the overall average tuition increase across the institution could not exceed 5%. Our new tuition levels reflect the competing influences within each program of chronic revenue shortfalls, variable baseline tuitions in the light of previous regulatory frameworks, and our firm institutional commitment to accessibility.

On the latter point, student groups point to rising tuition levels as barriers to accessing a university education, and have called repeatedly for tuition freezes or reductions. Within the present fiscal framework, however, and looking forward to 2030, a tuition freeze would have a profoundly detrimental impact on the quality of education and student experience available at the University of Toronto. While the impact of tuitions on university finance – and hence quality of education – is not mysterious, the impact of tuitions on accessibility, by contrast, is complex and counter-intuitive.

Available data demonstrate a positive correlation in many jurisdictions (Canada and internationally) between tuition levels and university participation rates. That is, increasing tuition is often associated with increasing, not decreasing, participation rates. But these ecological correlations at the broad group level do not hold consistently for individuals or subgroups. The supply-demand dynamic is affected, inter alia, by the jurisdictional availability of student aid, by variability in the willingness of individuals and families to seek bursaries or assume debt to finance higher education, by internal financial aid offered by the programs themselves, and by the perceived long-term economic value of credentials from different degree programs.

Our status as a publicly-assisted university and our institutional commitment to access are both clear cut. Thus, for the University of Toronto, rising tuitions are accompanied by the assumption of an obligation to implement programs of financial aid that will help provide equitable access to our degree programs. A substantial percentage of new tuition revenue is drawn away to generate pools of bursary funds to offset tuition charges for lower-income students who require financial assistance above the loans and bursaries available through combined provincial and federal sources. In fundraising campaigns, we place special emphasis on bursaries and scholarships to support access and offset tuition costs. The multi-year campaign that ended in December 2003 raised more than $500 million for student aid through direct gifts and leverage from government matching programs.

In short, at the University of Toronto, we have used tuition flexibility in meaningful measure not just to sustain the quality of our educational programs in a setting of constrained per-student grants from government, but also to ensure that we remain open to the best and brightest students regardless of their economic circumstances. Our approach to financial aid is manifestly effective. In recent years, about 40% of our undergraduates report a total family income of less than $50,000 per annum. Division-specific analyses, most notably in our Faculty of Law, highlight the effectiveness of bursary programs based on tuition redistribution – access has improved even as tuitions have risen.

Today, the University of Toronto contributes about twice the Ontario average into student financial aid -- a commitment that necessarily limits the resources available for our educational mission. The sustainability of our model depends in part on the level of student aid provided by governments and on philanthropic support for scholarships and bursaries. It also depends, meaningfully, on enhanced tuition resources that can be drawn into bursary funds. This model has much to commend it, but its practicality has been constrained by tuition limits and freezes, as well as slower-than-expected growth in external scholarship funds. It is arguably time for reasoned debate about alternative models that will carry the institution into its third century.

A Structural Subsidy for Research Activity

We have already addressed the perverse effect of research grants on university finances in Canada. Although the Province of Ontario provides 40% coverage of the indirect costs of research, research-intensive universities are disadvantaged by the low level of coverage of ICR associated with federal grants. For any large research-intensive institution, the actual indirect costs of research average at least 50 cents on the direct research dollar. In the USA, where these costs are assigned to individual projects and submitted to audit, ICR for physical and life sciences can run in excess of 80 cents on the dollar. Federal grants are carrying ICR coverage that, for the University of Toronto, is under 20 cents on the dollar. This situation severely compromises our ability to compete with British (ICR coverage at 48 cents on the dollar) or American universities (ICR averaging about 60 cents on the dollar for science grants from federal agencies).

Sustainability with current funding approaches

In the USA, as already noted, the financial gap is growing between various private institutions – such as Harvard, Stanford, Princeton, and Yale – and a much larger group of publicly-financed universities. Berkeley and San Francisco in the University of California system, among others, are effective public competitors with these private powerhouses. Given our radically lower per-student funding from all sources, it is a small miracle that the University of Toronto continues to compete with so many of these American institutions. But while the research outputs of many public universities in Canada and the USA remain impressive, the private institutions have pulled ahead in other ways – delivering smaller class sizes to undergraduates, offering higher-quality services and amenities, and subsidizing an impressive range of co- and extra-curricular opportunities. Figure 7 above illustrated
U of T’s per-student funding relative to our public AAU peers. Figure 8 below depicts a more daunting relationship: U of T’s per-student funding relative to that of several private US universities. Our challenge may be expressed in financial terms, but it is grounded in our concern for the experience of our students, now and in the years ahead.

The growing financial gap between private and public institutions has fuelled debate and divergent policies in the USA. On the one hand, there is continuing anxiety about the financial inaccessibility of private institutions where tuitions for baccalaureate programs often exceed C$25,000 per annum. On the other hand, state legislators have allowed publicly-assisted universities – including the University of Virginia, University of Texas, and the University of Colorado – to raise tuitions with limited interference provided accessibility commitments are maintained.

The same debate has played out in Canada, albeit in a muted fashion given the absence of private institutions in the higher education sector. Several provinces offer a degree of tuition flexibility and universities within those provinces can set market prices for new programs. In Ontario, the government allows some programs that do not seek public funding to operate on a self-funded basis. Meanwhile, colleagues and students at many Ontario universities are expressing serious concerns about the quality of university education in our province and how best to finance its enhancement. Faced with rising expectations, ongoing budgetary pressure and our continuing concern to enrich our students’ experiences and compete effectively with our wealthier peers, the University’s present funding approach may not be sustainable.

Alternative government funding options

A number of policy initiatives would reshape the financial future of the University of Toronto.

At the federal level:

• Improved federal research grant coverage of indirect costs would go a long way to minimize the strain of research costs on the university’s educational mission. Until the federal government increases its indirect cost coverage to 40 cents on the dollar for all federal grants, all of Canada’s research-intensive universities are compromised financially.
• The general enhancement of research funding for operating grants is required to support graduate students with stimulating projects and part-time work as research assistants.
• Ongoing expansion of graduate scholarships and fellowships would help the next generation of young Canadians pursue advanced degrees. With the future of the Millennium Scholarship Foundation in question, there is also an urgent need to buttress the national framework for undergraduate loans and bursaries.
• Above all, institutions could benefit from full and fair flow-through of the new post-secondary education (PSE) transfer to provinces. The PSE transfer amounts to $800M per annum with ongoing inflation-related increases – and, in fact, the initial amount itself could be escalated as a result of federal-provincial negotiations. At the University of Toronto, the relevant base increase from this source alone could be at least $35M starting in 2008-09. This allocation, however, could be significantly delayed by federal-provincial disagreements over jurisdiction and conditionality. Although the federal intent is that these funds be incremental to current and projected funding of colleges and universities, their impact will be greatly attenuated if they are used instead to offset existing or planned commitments.

At the provincial level:

• Current per-capita funding for PSE remains surprisingly low, notwithstanding the positive investments made recently through the Government’s Reaching Higher Plan. Ontario has the second-highest per-capita GDP of the ten Canadian provinces, and an economy with limited dependence on natural resources. In theory, to secure the future of our jurisdiction, spending on post-secondary education in Ontario should be at worst second-highest in Canada on a per-student basis, rather than tenth of ten provinces. The University of Toronto would be transformed if the per-student grants were raised to the national average level for the other nine provinces in the Canadian federation.
• As noted earlier, educational programs in Ontario are uniformly funded on a per-student basis. While identical funding of clearly identical programs is defensible, there seems to be limited capacity or willingness to assess programs in more detail and provide differential funding on the basis of those assessments. In addition, the province could create distinct mandates for sets of institutions as occurs with the California State and University of California systems.
• Another option is what might be called ‘earned tuition autonomy’. This option would give selected institutions greater flexibility in setting tuitions, provided they maintained full accessibility by offering generous financial assistance, particularly internally-derived bursaries, to their students. Some institutions would then increase fees modestly in hopes of enhancing quality while attracting the best and brightest students, and other institutions could flat-line tuitions and seek top-flight students through offering competitive quality at a lower price.

Alternative Funding Sources

a) Philanthropy

The University has benefited enormously from generous philanthropic support over the last 15 years. From 1993 to 2001, the University’s Campaign raised over $1B, and the endowment currently has a market value equal to about $1.7B. In the last two years, alumni and friends have made remarkable gifts to the University with values totalling above $100M in 2006 and $160M in 2007. Philanthropic support for the University of Toronto remains higher than for other Canadian universities and hospitals, and shows no signs of flagging. However, the extent to which current support can be augmented is unclear.

Currently the University anticipates real pay-out rates on endowed funds at around 3.5% to 4%, or, accounting for current inflation, roughly 6% to 7% per annum. One option, therefore, is that future fund-raising might focus less on endowments and more on immediate expendable supports, including capital gifts. While this strategy is appealing, the short-term gains from this option must be weighed against the duty of all fund-raisers to secure indefinite support for an institution with a life-span measured in centuries.

b) Commercialization and Sponsored Contract Research

The translation of research output into applications with wide uptake is particularly appealing because it enables the work of the University to make a positive difference in the world. It deepens and broadens the connections between the University and the public and private sectors and it creates employment and educational opportunities for our students. In this context, another potential source of increased revenue is commercialization of intellectual property generated through university research. Starting in 1981, the University took steps to help academic researchers transfer their innovations to the private sector through the formation of the Innovations Foundation. In the last two years, the University has restructured its research commercialization operation, working in concert with the MaRS Centre, a massive new $450 million capital development at the edge of the St. George campus. MaRS aims to promote collaboration among scientists, knowledge-based industries, and investors in those same industries. As we prepare for 2030, there will be a new level of expertise and support for U of T researchers bringing their research through the complex processes of commercialization.

In terms of licensing inventions, the University of Toronto continues to lead Canadian universities in the cumulative number of new licences in recent years. Over 2001-02 to 2004-05, the University of Toronto created 189 new licences, ranking fifth among US peer institutions, and first among Canadian universities.13 While this leading position is reassuring, critics have suggested that the University could do better and take more of its research output to the marketplace. If one uses older data, the first impression is that, given its huge research output, the University of Toronto is indeed an under-performer in commercialization. The good news – and bad news – is that the data are flawed. Toronto for years has reported net revenues while others reported gross revenues; and the data are reported only for on-campus research while other institutions roll in affiliated hospital revenues. For example, widely-cited data (e.g. from the Milken Institute) suggest the University of Toronto lags dramatically in biotechnology patents issued, licensing activity, spin-offs developed, and total revenues. This is hardly surprising when 70% of the relevant research and associated commercialization activity is hospital-based and not included in the tally. Thus, while the ‘head room’ for revenue growth is meaningful, it is smaller than historical data would suggest.

Debate continues about the optimum intellectual property (IP) strategy that might increase our commercialization performance. One model for intellectual property ownership starts at 100% with the faculty member. With this approach, disclosures since 2001 are lower at the University of Waterloo than at a number of Canadian research universities. Although the number of spin-off companies generated is second only to Toronto, Waterloo’s gross commercialization revenues are near the bottom of the Canadian list for the same period. In contrast, the top performer in revenue generation is British Columbia, an institution that starts with 100% university ownership but assigns a percentage of proceeds to the faculty inventor, leading to a revenue-sharing result very similar to the Toronto model. Much more impressive comparators are institutions such as the University of Minnesota or University of Washington, where gross commercialization revenues are several times higher than at Toronto. Both institutions work within the Baye-Dohl Act that assigns IP to the institution for federally-funded research and both provide incentives to faculty members. In short, IP policy per se does not drive this dimension of performance.

Examining the overall structure of technology transfer for the University and its hospital partners, a number of observers have suggested that a combined ‘front office’ with top-notch leadership would do much to catalyze success in commercialization. This model presumes that the ‘back office’ functions are maintained or strengthened at each institution, reinforcing a culture of innovation and augmenting the numbers of disclosures. Whatever the optimum model may be, it seems clear that better results are possible. With a major reorganization and strategic investment in technology transfer and commercialization, our faculty inventors should be able to share in new net income from commercialization amounting to several million dollars per annum. An increase in the overall level of commercialization and technology transfer could also promote enhanced levels of industry-sponsored research.

Unpredictable Costs

Among the unpredictable costs that lie ahead, two bear brief attention here. The first is the cost of utilities. The University has carefully studied its options in this regard, and cost savings through contracting out or rapid adoption of alternative energy sources thus far appear modest at best. We are instead taking steps to amortize the maintenance costs for our heating infrastructure, to promote energy conservation, and to ensure that new buildings are designed with a view to energy cost-effectiveness. The second is our defined benefit pension liability. Our retirees are living longer, requiring actuarial adjustments to our anticipated obligations. Arguments have also been made that the University is too optimistic in using a 4% discount rate to calculate pension liabilities. After considering discount rates as low as 2.5%, the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan shifted to a 3.725% discount rate for liabilities in their most recent pension plan valuation. This shift occurred after the much lower rates were mooted in the context of efforts to raise employee contribution levels. Some private companies, moreover, have capped defined benefit plan enrolments and are now promoting defined contribution plans for new employees.

Our Financial Future

Our financial challenges are real. Our expenses are increasing at an average of 6% annually, a rate consistently above general inflation. Our revenues are not keeping pace, and the pressure is being felt at multiple points in the organization, not least in heavier workloads for our faculty and staff, and a more impersonal learning environment for our undergraduate students. Recognizing that we cannot sustain our current level of activity with the current business model, what are the options?

4. Our Campuses, Colleges and Affiliates

Three Campuses

The history of the Mississauga and Scarborough campuses reaches back to the early 1960s14. Following the creation of York University and two new colleges on the St. George campus, New College and Innis College, it was evident that demand for student places would still not be satisfied. In 1962, the Committee of Ontario University Presidents recommended that two new colleges on the outskirts of Toronto be established by the University of Toronto. The two colleges were to be like other colleges in the Toronto system, though it was envisioned that they would gradually achieve greater autonomy. Scarborough College15 opened its doors in 1965 and Erindale College in 1967.
There have been several occasions in the history of the campuses where questions of autonomy and differentiation have been raised, and the views of the two campuses have frequently differed. Scarborough College, in its early years, expressed some opposition to the decision making and control exercised by the downtown (St. George campus) departments, and then-principal, Wynne Plumptre, requested ‘a fundamental review of the position and prospects of Scarborough College’. He proposed that the College should, over a short period of years, become an independent university with a primary mission in undergraduate education. A subsequent task force (chaired by Kenneth Hare) recommended greater autonomy for the College which came in the form of more independence in the decisions about faculty recruitment and appointments for the College. Erindale College did not share these ambitions for autonomy, and colleagues there perceived the advantages of close association to outweigh the disadvantages.

In Renewal 1987, President George Connell proposed ‘campus-by-campus planning’, i.e., planning for the academic and physical development of each campus independent of the others. Responses to the Renewal 1987 Discussion Paper16 pointed to the challenges of campus-by-campus planning when most programs are department-based, and most appointments, not least graduate appointments, are to University-wide departments. It was further suggested that any differentiation that adversely affected student quality or program quality would not be desirable. Overall, the majority of responses identified the need for a balance of campus-by-campus planning and three-campus planning to both preserve the ‘University of Toronto’ value and create new opportunities that capitalized on the strengths and imaginations of the individual campuses.

UTM and UTSC Today

Today the University of Toronto at Mississauga (UTM) and University of Toronto - Scarborough (UTSC) are predominantly undergraduate campuses which, over the years, have accommodated significant enrolment expansion. Each campus now enrols approximately 10,000 students.
Regarding functional integration, the east and west campuses are divisions in the University structure, with a Principal and Vice President position as the highest executive officer and relationships at the departmental level cross the three campuses. Graduate education on the Mississauga and Scarborough campuses is integrated within the University’s School of Graduate Studies and includes a range of programs in the Arts, Sciences and Management.
The unique role of both campuses, and their growing autonomy, is also evident. Both UTM and UTSC have developed relationships with faculties other than Arts and Science. They have distinctive departmental structures and many unique programs.

The Mississauga campus has been transformed by about $200M in capital redevelopment in the last five years alone. It hosts professional master’s programs in Management and Professional Accounting, Management of Innovation, Biotechnology and Biomedical Communications. A diploma program in Investigative and Forensic Accounting is offered primarily on a distance education basis. UTM’s unique undergraduate programs include Forensic Sciences (offered as a combination of Forensics and Biology, Chemistry or Anthropology), Geographical Information Systems, Biotechnology, Professional Writing, and Science Education. In partnership with Sheridan College, UTM has recently developed several programs at the interface of communications, culture and new technology. UTM has established strong ties with the City of Mississauga, and has a conspicuous commitment to environmental issues in its growth and development.

From its early days, the Scarborough campus has developed a distinct niche in offering co-operative undergraduate programs, with about 15% of Scarborough students currently engaged in co-op options. Co-op programs include Management with streams in accounting, finance, marketing, human resources, and economics; Computer Science with streams in software engineering, information systems and statistics; Arts Management; Environmental Science; and International Development. UTSC hosts a graduate level program in environmental science. UTSC and Centennial College jointly offer innovative four-year undergraduate programs in Journalism, New Media Studies, Paramedicine, Environmental Science and Technology, and Industrial Microbiology. Capital investment is accelerating. Recently-opened buildings include a new Student Residence, the Academic Resource Centre, the Management Building, a Student Centre and an Arts and Administration Building. A Science Building is underway.

Both campuses host graduate level education with an emphasis on professional master’s programs and faculty from both campuses are engaged in research-stream graduate programs extending across multiple campuses. Growing numbers of research-stream graduate students work and study on the two campuses, particularly in fields where research is contingent on laboratory or other physical resources. This is in part linked to growth in research funding at UTM and UTSC over the past five years. UTM reported $9.5 million in research revenue in 2004-05, and UTSC reported $6.4 million. Oversight of research-stream graduate education is currently vested primarily within the graduate departments of the Faculty of Arts and Science, as will be discussed below.

Key challenges of the three campus model

The three campus configuration currently presents two major challenges – one relates to the balance of resources across the three campuses, and the second relates to mandate, including the evolution of graduate education across the three campuses.

First, resources: In assessing the distribution of resources across the three campuses, it appears that the Mississauga and Scarborough campuses are funded at levels lower than would be expected based on a roll-up of equivalent departments at the St. George campus. This is reflected in higher student-faculty ratios, fewer small classes, in some cases fewer teaching assistant hours, and less funding on a per-student basis. Some services funded by the University centrally are headquartered at the St. George campus, and while ostensibly tri-campus in mandate, do not have an equivalent presence at the Mississauga and Scarborough campuses. Conversely, UTM and UTSC have responsibility for a variety of local services that are funded by the central administration for the St. George campus. Part of the remedy for this imbalance is underway with the new budget model, discussed in the next section. The new model openly dissects revenues and costs, and assigns a net revenue budget to the operating divisions. Hidden inequities will inevitably be exposed, debated, maintained if they serve important academic priorities, or gradually rolled back if they are unsustainable or otherwise indefensible.

The second challenge is more complex. The three campuses are primarily collaborative in their interactions, but there are points where ‘sibling rivalry’ is apparent. The academic evolution of all three campuses has been guided through five-year planning cycles, with implicit assumptions about the linkage of UTM and UTSC to Arts and Science on the St. George campus, even as both the east and west campuses have forged other partnerships and relationships. Earlier in this document, we framed a series of questions around the long-term mix of students and programs for the University, as well as enrolment numbers for the institution. Those questions merit careful attention on each campus, and for the three-campus system as a whole.

Graduate education exemplifies the type of issue that must be joined. Distinct professional graduate programs are hosted successfully at both UTM and UTSC. These programs are presently administered through graduate chairs based on the St. George campus but recent initiatives are paving the way for campus-based structures. For research-stream graduate education, however, the prospects of the east and west campuses are dependent on factors such as a critical mass of faculty, research space and laboratory facilities, libraries, and the vibrancy of the relevant intellectual community. UTM and UTSC have both signalled an interest in selective expansion of research-stream graduate enrolment. The benefits to undergraduate education from the presence of graduate students on campus are well established. Beyond their obvious role as teaching assistants, graduate students enrich the intellectual life of any campus. If graduate student presence on the Mississauga and Scarborough campuses is important, then how big should that presence be, and how should the mix of graduate students relate to the undergraduate programs on offer? Few colleagues on the east and west campuses dispute the overall advantages of the tri-campus framework for graduate studies, but some chafe quietly about the structural conflict of interest and hierarchy implicit in the vesting of graduate chair status with the St. George department. It is possible that more pluralistic arrangements will evolve in some disciplines. What are the potential configurations that will promote collegiality, fairness, flexibility and quality?

Overall, the three-campus model has assisted the University in offering a first-class university education to a rapidly growing number of students from within the GTA and across the Province of Ontario. Entering averages of students admitted to the east and west campuses are lower than those for the St. George campus (by about 5%). However, there are also inter-college differences in entering averages on the St. George campus and there is no shortage of outstanding undergraduate students on all three campuses. World-class faculty are being recruited to the east and west campuses, and there is synergistic movement of excellent administrative staff from the older campus to the east and west, and back again. Graduate departments have been strengthened by the breadth and depth of intellectual capacity on three sites.

In addition, UTM and UTSC represent a unique opportunity for the University that transcends simple geography: Owing to their relative youth and smaller size, UTM and UTSC should in principle be more ‘nimble’ and in a strong position to implement bold new programs in a timely manner. Innovation and differentiation across all three campuses have fostered new programs and fields of scholarship, increased the diversity of the academic enterprise, and enabled us to respond more fully to the interests of our students. Last and not least, the east and west campuses have been characterized by strong engagement with local communities and cultural groups, and they have won countless new friends for the University.

Our tri-campus challenge, then, is very much as President Emeritus Connell framed it two decades ago. How do we balance independence and integration in academic and general administration of the three campuses? Can we better balance ‘all-campus planning’ and ‘campus-by-campus planning’ to foster differentiation and innovation? Is our long-term intent to create a regional ‘University of Toronto system’ with three campuses and a stronger identity and greater autonomy for each of them? Or do we allow evolution to occur on a more ad hoc basis? Both the east and west campuses could intensify or expand their physical facilities and accommodate substantial enrolment growth. Is that the best direction for UTM and UTSC to follow? We shall return to these and other questions below.

Our federated universities and colleges

The University of Toronto enterprise includes three federated universities – St. Michael’s, Trinity and Victoria, along with four constituent colleges – University, Innis, New, and Woodsworth. The federated universities and University College had, at one time, a distinct role in providing academic programs, predominantly in the humanities. That role has evolved, and the Faculty of Arts and Science now has responsibility for the academic programs in the humanities, social sciences and sciences.

With the assimilation of their academic departments within the Faculty of Arts and Science starting in 1974, the federated universities and colleges initially took on roles that revolved around provision of a home base for undergraduate students enrolled in the Faculty of Arts and Science. Some college loyalists have lamented the transformation of these divisions from academic units to centres focusing primarily on student engagement. However, their importance, if anything, has grown. Today, more than ever, the colleges and federated universities serve the invaluable function of disaggregating a very large and potentially overwhelming campus into navigable neighbourhoods for new students. All colleges have a mix of arts, science and commerce students and provide student services and activities, including counselling, writing workshops, math support services, libraries (at most colleges), computer facilities, residence accommodation, student government, social gatherings, student-run newspapers, and competitive and recreational sports. At their best, they offer students the sense of community and personal connections that inhere in attending a small college, in the context of a vibrant and extremely diverse university campus.

Moreover, in recent years, the colleges and federated universities have strengthened their roles as focal points for interdisciplinary programs or centres. To name a few from among a great many examples, one might cite: Cinema Studies at Innis College; Canadian Studies at University College; Christianity and Culture at St. Michael’s; International Relations at Trinity, Caribbean Studies at New College, and Employment Relations at Woodsworth. These programmatic functions create great synergy but also some tension with traditional departmental mandates.

As well, whether explicitly or not, the constituent and federated colleges have engaged in some degree of ‘market segmentation’ in student recruitment. There are differences across these divisions in disciplinary mix, ethno-cultural and religious backgrounds, and proportions of part-time students. Both Trinity and Victoria have strategically capitalized on distinctive identities and highly selective first-year programs to recruit a disproportionate number of top academic performers.

Finally, the colleges are introducing year-one programs to facilitate transition of new students to university life. These vary in configuration. Some target all first-year students. Others, most notably Vic One and Trinity One, offer additional seminar courses and some academic enrichment to a subgroup of first-year students who meet stringent academic and extracurricular criteria.

Against this background, it is clear that the colleges and federated universities have never been more important to the success of the University’s largest campus. But it takes little imagination to surmise that challenges have also emerged.

The majority of the University’s students commute. While the colleges have been successful in tailoring events and services to the needs of commuter students, the challenge of engaging commuter students in college life persists. Some commentators have argued that the colleges should increase the number of residence spaces, but here a series of tensions emerges. An increase in the number of residence spaces might necessitate a shift in recruitment patterns and in turn require the University to cede some of its competitive advantage in attracting excellent students who prefer to commute from within the GTA. Likewise, accommodating more residential students may well enhance the overall quality of student life but it will require the construction of new residence halls in a period of increasingly tight budgets. As we look forward to 2030, what is the ideal balance of residential and commuter students that best serves the academic mission of the University?

There are various relationships between the Colleges and other academic units and specialized links continue to be developed, e.g. between Victoria and the Faculty of Music. Nevertheless, students often form associations with other students they meet in campus-wide academic courses and extra-curricular activities that are stronger than any connections to their home colleges. In this context, the Colleges are therefore well positioned to continue broadening the undergraduate experience through pioneering interdisciplinary programs.

Given the broad mandate of the Faculty of Arts and Science, there can be overlap in functions such as academic advising and provision of related supports for students. Although colleges provide students with services that are more personalized, there may also be problems with service integration between faculties and colleges. Debate continues about whether decentralization leads to diseconomies of scope and scale, or whether it is actually more efficient for some services.

Last, the new academic roles of the colleges have become more visible in recent years and with them has come greater visibility for the differential in resource base of these seven entities. While the usual Canadian impulse is to ‘level down’, or to ‘equalize’ by centralization, it is refreshing to note that there has instead been a constructive focus on innovation, differentiation, and local resource generation, including more aggressive fund-raising. That said, the emergence of academic programs at the college level has raised questions about the sharing of responsibilities and resources with academic divisions.

Our research hospital partners

The University of Toronto benefits enormously from a partnership with ten fully-affiliated hospitals, as well as its relationship with community hospitals and health service providers. This relationship is vital to health professional education in multiple fields. Over 50% of all research funding attributable to the University of Toronto is held by hospital-based faculty, and as many as 1800 research-stream graduate students work in hospital environments. The research hospitals no longer appoint adjunct and ‘status-only’ faculty only in traditional health disciplines. Among the academic disciplines now represented in the hospitals are chemists, mathematicians, engineers, social scientists, ethicists, informatics specialists, and computer scientists.

The framework for hospital-university relations has been clarified on multiple levels in the last few years. A multi-year omnibus agreement was signed regarding research revenues and collaborative research planning. Another milestone was the adoption in 2005 of a policy governing appointments of some 1300 full-time members of the clinical faculty. Guidelines have been implemented across the campus and hospitals on ethical conduct of research and the publication of industry-sponsored research. The framework for graduate supervision in hospitals settings has been clarified and aligned with University policy. As well, in 2007, all affiliation agreements were updated and standardized for both fully-affiliated hospitals and community hospitals.

While much has been accomplished, there are challenges. Many are short-term, and division-specific but some are more general and recurrent. We mentioned earlier the challenges of commercialization and the continuing problems of metrics that tally the performance of the University of Toronto campus rather than the entire academic family including hospitals. We also asked what structures might facilitate commercialization, leveraging the University and hospital activity and the relevant institutional machinery for technology transfer. Hospitals and the University are engaged in constant fund-raising. Benefactors frequently provide generous support to one or more hospitals as well as the University. Collaboration on specific initiatives might further reinforce these positive patterns of philanthropy. Public policy advocacy is another area where collaboration among the institutional partners occurs intermittently, but might yield more positive results if it were done more systematically.

Our Campuses, Colleges, and Affiliates in 2030 and Beyond

As outlined above, we face important strategic questions about the degree of autonomy and integration that is desirable for our three campuses. These questions were raised, considered and, not unreasonably, deferred in 1987. Leaders at UTM and UTSC then had differing views with respect to future autonomy, and neither campus was at a scale that gave practical credence to theoretical arguments about stand-alone status. Today, very few voices call for a separate University of Mississauga or a University of Scarborough, but there are rational divisions of opinion about how the tri-campus system should evolve in the next few decades.

These questions recur in different forms as we consider the system of constituent colleges and federated universities on the St. George campus. Each college has the status of a ‘division’ within the University with its own governance body (divisional councils) for decision-making, while the federated universities have substantial autonomy and unique resources. Indeed all of the Colleges could serve increasingly as institution-wide ‘innovation laboratories’, given their differing governance structures, endowments, and strong alumni relations.

Reporting relationships, however, are complex, and the principles underlying the sharing of responsibilities and resources are still being delineated as the role of the colleges and federated universities continues to evolve. It is self-evident that the vast majority of college students are enrolled in degree programs where the locus of academic oversight rests within a Faculty, usually the Faculty of Arts and Science. At the same time, students vary in the extent to which they identify with their college rather than their faculty or department, and the suite of services and programs offered by colleges is also variable. That variability seems likely to increase in the years ahead, posing new challenges as well as exciting opportunities.

5. Governance and Administration

It has been said that the administration and governance of the University of Toronto is more complicated than that of the Canadian federation itself. Despite radical demographic changes, Canada has retained its original provinces ranging from Ontario to Prince Edward Island; and the University likewise has retained divisions with deep-rooted traditions ranging from Arts and Science to Forestry or Information Studies. We have many Departments that are larger than Divisions, just as many Canadian cities are bigger than provinces. Indeed, the University is ‘ahead’ in one respect. We encompass many variations on sovereignty-association and asymmetric federalism in our immediate and extended academic family – exemplified by the east and west campuses, the federated universities, and, very importantly, ten fully-affiliated teaching hospitals. Like Canada, we have enjoyed remarkable success. And as is also true for our great nation, the University’s citizens sometimes wonder whether our success is because of – or in spite of – these complex federal arrangements!

Administration

The University’s three-campus structure is administratively asymmetric. As noted earlier, the east and west campuses function as divisions, but take responsibility for a variety of functions that are funded centrally for the divisions on the St. George campus. Conversely, all academic divisions on the St. George campus are expected to carry out similar administrative roles, but their size varies to such a degree that many smaller divisions strain to be effective in specialized areas ranging from fund-raising to human resources.

These challenges have been placed in high relief as a result of the new budget model that will be initiated in 2007-08. Under the current system, the annual budget for any faculty reflected a remote historical baseline, more recent adjustments made through strategic allocations to support academic objectives, and, starting in the 1990s, ad hoc revenue-sharing for new or expanded faculty programs. The new model calculates gross revenues for each academic division, attributes costs for both unique divisional expenses and shared academic and administrative services, and generates a net-revenue budget. The revenue drivers of the model are at once a weakness and strength. The imputed revenues derive from crude BIU approximations to program costs along with tuition levels that reflect politically-driven provincial regulation rather than reasonable cost-sharing with students and families. However, those revenues reflect our current fiscal realities and we ignore those realities at our peril. The implementation of the model accordingly incorporates a central pool called the University Fund, designed to avoid disruptive changes resulting from imputed revenues and vitiation of allocations made through academic priority-setting in the recent past. The University Fund will be allocated to divisions based on their academic plans and budget circumstances.

The new model provides incentives to academic divisions to increase revenues. More importantly, it should improve cost management of university-wide services. Useful debate has already unfolded as major divisions have considered the substantial costs of shared academic services such as facilities maintenance and libraries.

The model also clearly highlights differential spending on services across divisions, and is raising important questions of fairness in the treatment of UTM and UTSC. It has catalyzed dialogue within and among divisions as to how they might band together to achieve more effective and efficient operations. A few members of the University community have quietly wondered about the conversion of small divisions into departments within larger divisions, while others ask whether large divisions contribute to alienation among undergraduate students and should be functionally disaggregated.

In fact, there are other options to consider that would maintain small divisional identities or the multi-disciplinary character of larger divisions while promoting a more effective set of administrative structures. For example, a Faculty of Health Sciences could serve as the administrative home for academically autonomous Schools, or a Health Sciences Administrative Group could be constructed to serve all the health science faculties. Other groupings for administrative efficiency without compromising divisional governance could be made on the basis of proximity (as now occurs with human resources for Social Work and OISE), or disciplinary synergy (Forestry and Information Studies aligned with allied Departments in Arts and Science). In the final analysis, one could imagine five broad academic divisional groupings on the St. George Campus, each well-positioned to capitalize on the new budget model and provide more effective administration to serve the needs of students, staff, and faculty alike.

Last, the new budget model has also opened up a useful dialogue between divisions and the central administration as to ‘who should be doing what’ in our complex federal system. Inherent challenges for any future organizational model have been illuminated: for example, decentralization may enhance academic and administrative functions, but legal and financial accountabilities are almost entirely vested with the University as a single corporate entity. For reasons already stated, the dialogue has a different character depending on the division and its administrative capacity. What matters most, arguably, is that the issue of divisional versus central responsibility is now on the table and being discussed.

Governance

The University of Toronto has had a unicameral system of governance since 1972. The Governing Council, a 50-member body, oversees the academic, business, and institutional affairs of the University. In contrast, most North American institutions of postsecondary education have a Faculty Senate and a separate Board of Governors or Trustees to divide the academic and other oversight functions.

The single-chamber council provides a voice to each major constituency of the University community. Twenty-five members of the Governing Council are from within the University: 12 teaching staff, 8 students, 2 administrative staff, the President and 2 senior officers appointed by the President. The other 25 members consist of 16 appointees of the provincial government, 8 elected alumni and the Chancellor, who is also elected by the alumni. The Governing Council annually elects a Chair and Vice-Chair from among the members appointed by the province.
In view of the size and complexity of the University and the extensive duties of the Governing Council, it operates with the assistance of an Executive Committee and has delegated authority for various matters to three boards – the Academic Board, the Business Board, and the University Affairs Board. Six Committees operate under the three Boards. Members of Governing Council normally sit on at least one of the Boards.

The last review of the governance structure and processes was in 1987-88. At that time, the Governing Council commissioned Professor Edward J. Stansbury of McGill University to conduct a survey of the University community about the governing structure and its effectiveness. His report prompted a review, chaired by St. Clair Balfour, then Chair of the Governing Council, that resulted in the creation of the three Boards. Among these boards, the Academic Board was established to serve most of the functions of a Faculty Senate in other universities. The Balfour review also led to the articulation of a set of principles that has guided our governance for the last two decades, and the definition of some process changes.

“To my mind, it is the great strength of the U of T Governing Council that we can make decisions with the full and active participation of representatives from both academic and fiduciary backgrounds. Coming from a corporate world that can often be characterized by fast decision making, and being at least a bit less consensus oriented, I am amazed how smoothly this more complex structure works.”
Rose M. Patten, Chair of Governing Council, in an address to the National Association of University Board Chairs and Secretaries.

The University of Toronto Governing Council is responsible and accountable for a large, complex and highly de-centralized organization on three campuses. Not only has the institution grown dramatically in the last decade, but there has been increased pressure on universities and their governance for more detailed and sophisticated approaches to accountability and performance measurement. At present, our governance bodies receive almost 20 major accountability reports annually, as well as regular oral and written reports on a variety of matters at each meeting.

Notwithstanding these pressures, the governance system at the University of Toronto continues to function smoothly and avoids the tension that can arise between university Senates and Boards in bi-cameral governance. There has been gradual evolution in the function of boards and committees, and a succession of governors has selflessly dedicated themselves to the growing demands of our changing University and the postsecondary environment.

The University’s governance is characterized by values essential to the University and to collegial decision-making: transparency, openness, consultation, and fair debate, complemented by a strong and mutually supportive working relationship with the Administration. The workings of our governance ensure the opportunity for scrutiny of a great range of issues, but also result in repetition of presentation and debate as matters proceed through various bodies. Many items for approval move through multiple governance Committees and all three Boards before reaching the Executive Committee and ultimately the Governing Council.

Thus, while there is widespread wariness about seeking amendments to the University of Toronto Act, a number of governors, administrators and faculty members have raised questions about the efficiency of our processes. Advance planning to intercept the various governance cycles has become a logistical challenge for divisions and the central administration. The transactional load on committees and boards is enormous, and at times constrains opportunities for broader strategic debate. Some of the most illuminating exchanges occur at off-line meetings between administrators and subgroups of governors from specific constituencies. Furthermore, additional full-Council off-line meetings have become necessary to provide Governors with more time to review and discuss strategic issues.

Even as questions have been raised about improvements to University-wide governance, divisions have given considerable attention to governance over the past three years as a result of the changes in oversight of graduate education. Greater delegated decision-making authority to the academic divisions meant that their councils’ constitutions required revision. In a process that is still ongoing, academic divisions have reviewed their constitutions; clarified their decision-making, advisory and communication roles; and examined structures, membership and terms of reference of standing committees with a view to renewing and updating their processes and systems. Cross-divisional consultation means that there has also been a greater level of consistency in governance structures across divisions. With these improvements and refinements in hand, a larger number of governance approvals could perhaps be delegated to divisional or campus councils.

Only the Governors themselves can determine if it is timely to examine whether and how our governance procedures might be streamlined. However, the senior administrative team and the Governing Council secretariat alike would welcome the opportunity to support such a process, and strategic questions to this end are accordingly set out below.

Our Administration and Governance in 2030

The University of Toronto today is very different than it was three decades ago when the foundations of our current administrative and governance arrangements were laid. UTM and UTSC were comparatively new and very small campuses. The St. George campus was much smaller and much less research-intensive. Over 80% of the institution’s revenues came from provincial grants that tracked enrolment. The absolute disparities in the size of divisions were smaller, and the complexity of administration was dramatically less. As well, the accountability requirements for governance were radically different. Changes over the last three decades, together with the new budget model and the continued financial pressure on the institution, all suggest that some questions must be raised about the ways that our University will administer and govern itself over the next quarter-century.

President’s Afterword

The University of Toronto has been through a turbulent decade. We have rebounded from the deep provincial cutbacks of the early 1990s, and grown at an unprecedented rate. In the last ten years alone, revenue and expenditures have doubled, and student numbers have grown by a staggering 35%. Research revenues have also doubled, and many new programs, centres, and institutes have been established. The east and west campuses have been transformed, and capital projects valued at over $800M are underway or complete.

The next decades promise to be equally challenging. Major graduate expansion is beginning. The post-secondary educational system will be responding province-wide to increasing participation rates. Past demographic pressures leading to enrolment increases are likely to abate in other regions, but intensify in the GTA. We remain subject to huge budget pressures and Ontario trails the other provinces – and nearly all US jurisdictions – in per-student funding. Meanwhile, the University is making strenuous efforts to enhance the undergraduate student experience, raise its international profile and augment its capacity for research and scholarship.

Given this transformative confluence of events and opportunities, it is important that we pause to address some of the questions raised in this document.

Those questions are pitched deliberately at a high level of generality. Some readers will lament the absence of attention to strategic issues that they deem more important than those covered above. To that end, I encourage readers to flag any glaring omissions, and to put forward their own variations on the set of questions proposed here In so doing, however, I would again urge readers to focus on the ‘big picture’. The goal of the exercise, after all, is to answer one essential question: How can we ensure that the University of Toronto’s third century is even more successful than this one has been?

Our success to date, I would re-emphasize, has already been conspicuous. Despite ongoing financial constraints, the University of Toronto is recognized globally as a truly outstanding institution. We are clearly a small nation’s strongest contender in the increasingly competitive world of higher education. The University’s attainment of widely-recognized excellence in myriad dimensions of its mission is therefore important not just for the benefit of our own community, but for the success of Canada itself.

I look forward to hearing and reading your thoughts on the future of the University through the varied channels that will be open in the weeks and months ahead. In the meantime, please do not hesitate to send your initial thoughts to ‘towards2030@utoronto.ca’.

Thank you in advance for your ideas and input.

Best wishes,
David Naylor, President