I am grateful to the Economic Club of Canada for the honour of inviting me to speak here today, and humbled to share the head table with a distinguished and interesting group of people.

Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon to all of you…

With a famous former Ambassador speaking not only at the same time but in this very hotel, today was Taylor-versus-Naylor, a history-making hero versus a pointy-headed professor. In those circumstances, special thanks to everyone for being here.

Of course, I recognize that time is your most precious non-renewable resource. I will not go much over 20 minutes. But I do hope to hold your interest with a rather un-Canadian proposal.

In brief, here’s what I have to say.

Almost everyone agrees that research performance is an important factor for any jurisdiction in attracting, training, and retaining the talent on which our capacity for innovation depends. I believe that, contrary to widespread assertions and assumptions, Canada is at increasing risk of losing ground on this crucial front. In Budget 2013 the federal government signalled a very welcome interest in reinforcing excellence in post-secondary research. So today, I will make the case, if I can, for a Canadian research excellence fund, as a practical, necessary and inclusive step in support of sustainable success for our society.

Download the full text and select slides as a PDF

Address to the Rotary Club of Toronto

Read Dr. Peter Simmie’s introductory remarks

Thank you, Dr Simmie, for that generous introduction. It’s a point of pride for us that, earlier in your very successful career, we benefited from your wisdom when you taught at the University of Toronto. And it was a pleasure at lunch to learn about your early engagement with the co-op program in Management and Economics at our east campus.

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the members of the Rotary Club of Toronto, as you celebrate your centennial year. And I would also like to thank your President, Neil Phillips, Peter Simmie, alumnus Brian Westlake, and the members of the program committee for inviting me to speak with you today. …

Universities world-wide share Rotary’s commitment to making a difference by empowering the next generation. And, in a world where change has become the only constant, we are particularly focused on our social role as catalysts for innovation.

Download the full text and select slides as a PDF

There is an obituary for Officer Collier posted on MIT’s website and MIT is also hosting an online book of condolences.

April 24, 2013

Dr. L. Rafael Reif
President, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
77 Massachusetts Avenue
Room 3-208
Cambridge, MA 02139-4307

Dear President Reif:

On behalf of the University of Toronto, I extend sincere condolences on the loss of Officer Sean Collier. Officer Collier’s service exemplifies the crucial role of campus police in building safe communities, and our sympathies go out to his friends and family at this difficult time.

We join MIT in mourning this terrible loss. On Friday, April 26th the University will observe Canada’s National Day of Mourning for those injured or killed in the workplace by lowering our flag. On that day our thoughts will very much be with you.

Best wishes.

Yours sincerely,

David Naylor
President

The Short Story

In short, the University of Toronto received funding for ten new Chairs – an outstanding result. This institutional success story reflects an enormous amount of work by individuals across the whole research spectrum at U of T – from principal investigators and scholars, to graduate students and RAs (and, in a growing number of instances, undergraduate students); from Principals, Deans, Department Chairs and Directors, to administrative teams in the divisions and centrally in the Research and Innovation portfolio under the excellent leadership of VP Prof. Paul Young.

The Longer Story

The longer story revolves around how Canada Research Chairs are allocated by the federal government. Each eligible research institution receives a share of the CRCs based on a strict proportional calculation of the amount of research grant funding awarded to each institution from the three federal granting council agencies – NSERC, CIHR, and SSHRC. Almost everything goes in the pot. Thus, simplifying things a little bit, the greater an institution’s proportionate share of the national research pie, the greater the number of CRCs the federal government will award.

The Toronto research community excels at producing highly original, fundamental research; and our faculty, staff, and students have enjoyed remarkable successes in the tough and wide-open peer-reviewed academic competitions. However, as I flagged recently to the Empire Club of Canada, Tri-Council Agency funding has become increasingly earmarked and driven by partnerships and networks.

About networks: U of T’s size, our three campus system, and the local eco-system of research institutes and academic hospitals, all mean that regional networking within the extended U of T family is every bit as complex as the structure of many so-called national networks. Alas, that is not how the rules of the game work. Geographic dispersion of funds has long been part of Ottawa’s zeitgeist and our national fabric. One can lament the resulting diminution of meritocracy and some of the geographic jockeying that occurs. However, I think it is only fair to acknowledge that this ethos, perhaps outmoded today, was a very practical response to the demographic realities of our huge and thinly populated country.

In any case, these changes have meant that U of T’s share of Tri-Council Agency funding – though still the largest in Canada – has declined over the past decade. Result: Our share of Chairs was also declining.

If that decline had simply been the result of so-called democratization and dispersion of research funds, one might accept it as the Canadian way and move on. But there was a hitch. Many excellent institutions were picking up Canada Research Chairs over the years, not least our friends at UBC who took a ruthlessly practical approach to the changing funding landscape. Put simply, we decided to follow suit – and it is working very well indeed. (I would add that, within the U15 family, there is ongoing movement up and down as the Figure below illustrates. Click for a larger version.)

The latest allocation of ten new CRCs to U of T signals the resolve, adaptability and strength of the University of Toronto research community. We will continue to press unrelentingly for more investment in open investigator-initiated research. But our colleagues and students have also shown themselves willing to compete and win in research competitions that involve industry collaborators and networks of domestic institutional partners.

For that success, I want to convey both congratulations on behalf of the University, and my personal gratitude, to hundreds of members of our community who together turned this tide.

On April 5th I had the great pleasure of a wide-ranging conversation with two esteemed colleagues who know a thing or three about universities. One was Heather Munroe-Blum, who will complete her second and final five-year term as Principal of McGill University on June 30th. The other was U of T President Emeritus J. Robert S. Prichard, currently Chair of Torys LLP, a prominent leader in the private sector, and a tireless contributor to public service over the last dozen years.

I am not sure that either of these much-admired individuals needs an introduction. However, newer members of the community may not know that Heather Munroe-Blum served our university with distinction as Vice President – Research (1994 – 2002) and as Dean of Social Work (1989-1994). For his part, Robert Prichard was Dean of Law (1984-1990) before serving two very successful terms as President (1990-2000) – and has been a continuing source of wise counsel and encouragement to this typist.

To all that, you might reasonably say: “OK. Two nearly defunct University heads and some former head turned business type got together for a private chat and some mutual psychotherapy. So what?”

Well, what was unusual was that the conversation occurred under the auspices of the Canadian Club, before a full house that included many loyal alumni of both institutions and representatives of the media. It was also a tad unusual that Canada’s Governor General, the Right Honourable David Johnston, turned up. The Governor General knows a thing or five about universities, having served as McGill’s Principal for 15 years and then as President of the University of Waterloo for 11 years. And he elegantly capped off the proceedings with a set of closing reflections.

Many thanks are in order for this opportunity: The idea for the conversation, typically, came from the agile mind of Rob Prichard. Ideas count, but so does execution. In that respect, Alison Loat, President of the Canadian Club (and Co-Founder and Executive Director of Samara) along with the Canadian Club team, made it all happen. The Governor General was gracious and generous in his commentary, per usual. But I am grateful above all to the many alumni and great friends of the institution who showed up to cheer us along.

The conversation ranged widely. Among other topics, we covered the challenging fiscal landscape facing post-secondary institutions and its implications for the global standing of Canada’s research-intensive universities; the facts and factors which should be taken into account in debates over tuition levels; and the fast-developing world of online learning.

We’ll soon post some highlights from a transcript of the conversation. At present, for hardy and curious souls with a longer attention span, the webcast is available on the Canadian Club of Toronto website.

For the most part, these are not scholarly rankings. As Professor Peter Pauly, Vice-Dean, Academic, at the Rotman School of Management points out, they are often influenced heavily by non-academic criteria such as graduates’ salaries or recruiter perceptions. These non-scholarly criteria may be interesting but it is important to note that they are difficult or impossible to influence and subject to a host of external factors well beyond our control.

However, every year the Financial Times, as part of their overall ranking, includes two categories that are based on standard academic metrics: faculty research (based on peer-reviewed publications in a set of top-tier journals) and PhD programs (based on the number and quality of academic placements).

The Rotman School of Management is among a handful of elite institutions in these categories. This year it is ranked #9 worldwide in the research category (up from #10 last year) and #8 for its PhD program (up from #15 last year). Seven other schools have hit the same “scholarly top ten double”: Harvard, Wharton (Penn), Stanford, Michigan, Northwestern, Chicago, and NYU. This is very fine company – and warm congratulations are certainly warranted to the faculty, staff and students of the Rotman School. (Please have a look at the figure on the right for a summary of these and other related rankings. Click for a larger version (PDF).)

Management’s rise reflects another facet of the University at large. The Rotman School’s reputation has risen as a result of a powerful combination: an outstanding leadership team, public intellectuals who make a difference by propounding novel ideas to wide audiences, curricular innovation grounded in local scholarship as well as best practices from other universities, careful attention to core programming (i.e. the MBA), recruitment of superb students, and cutting-edge research that lifts every aspect of the School, not least its PhD programming. The same could be said for one division after another – a phenomenon that leads this particular typist to be very grateful to countless members of our community as his term winds down.

Address to the Empire Club of Canada

Earlier this week, the University of Toronto made a wonderful decision in naming Meric Gertler as my successor as President. As my term winds down, I have to say that it has been an extraordinary privilege to serve the University of Toronto community.

At the same time, impending retirement does mean that I am now something of a zombie…lurching around for a while in a transitional state. And who better than a zombie president to tackle two zombie ideas about higher education and advanced research!

You may ask: What’s a zombie idea? Well, it’s one of those persistent and infectious pieces of misinformation, a meme that shouldn’t be alive but just won’t die…

Download the full text and select slides as a PDF (8MB)

Accompanied by his wife and several ministers from France, the Prime Minister toured the Sidhu research laboratory, which specializes in cancer research at the Terrence Donnelly Centre for Cellular and Biomolecular Research.

The delegation also took part in a panel discussion with five U of T interdisciplinary post-doctoral fellows about inter-institutional collaboration between France and U of T and signed a memorandum of understanding on science and technology.

The Prime Minister and his wife greeted students from the Department of French and as well as students presently studying at the University of Toronto from France.

From the U of T News: http://news.utoronto.ca/prime-minister-france-visits-u-t

From the Globe and Mail: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/french-pm-outlines-obstacles-to-canada-eu-trade-deal/article9808368/

On February 27 at Rideau Hall, Governor General David Johnston graciously hosted the annual awards of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), an important celebration of Canadian discovery and innovation at its best. Prizes were given in eight categories, ranging from graduate students to rising stars in full mid-career flight and lifetime achievers. University of Toronto researchers won in six of the eight, including NSERC’s senior prizes.

Excellence in the natural sciences and engineering is essential if we are to have successful societies and a sustainable world. This year’s unprecedented performance by our faculty and students – which builds on a consistent record of success over many years – highlights the University’s leadership role in these important disciplines.

This is the third year in a row that a U of T researcher has won the Herzberg medal, NSERC’s highest honour, given for sustained excellence and overall influence in research. And, over the last two years, three U of T researchers have won the John C. Polanyi award, honouring the year’s outstanding advance in science or engineering made by a Canadian-based researcher. Faculty members also won three of six Steacie fellowships this year. I was particularly encouraged that our winners covered a range of disciplines and included students and colleagues from every phase of the academic life-cycle as well as a Synergy Award for Innovation, recognizing exemplary academic-industry partnership.

In an intensely and increasingly competitive world, Canada simply must be able to compete and win in the global arena. This is true for research-intensive universities no less than for businesses and social-purpose enterprises. To the extent that our institutions can raise the Canadian flag on the global stage, the nation’s ability to innovate, educate, and attract top-tier talent will be greatly enhanced.

In that spirit, I would like to offer two votes of thanks. The first goes to our immediate academic family at the University of Toronto, whose members continue to excel by any measure. A second and broader acknowledgment is due to all those who support Canada’s research-intensive universities – students and their families, alumni and benefactors, foundations, elected and appointed officials in different levels of government, and, not least, Canada’s national granting councils.

A final note: In my last entry, I was looking forward to attending the NSERC awards at Rideau Hall and celebrating with our NSERC winners! The weather, unfortunately, did not cooperate, and many flights were cancelled. However, I gather it was a grand event in any case. Again, congratulations to all the NSERC awardees!

Here are some great photos of the event and a link to a story in the University of Toronto News…

(Photo credit: Cpl Roxanne Shewchuk, Rideau Hall)

On February 27 at Rideau Hall, Governor General David Johnston graciously hosted the annual awards of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), an important celebration of Canadian discovery and innovation at its best. Prizes were given in eight categories, ranging from graduate students to rising stars in full mid-career flight and lifetime achievers. University of Toronto researchers won in six of the eight, including NSERC’s senior prizes.

For more, please read President Naylor’s blog post on the NSERC Awards.

From the University of Toronto Bulletin: http://www.news.utoronto.ca/u-t-leads-way-national-science-awards

(Photo credit: Cpl Roxanne Shewchuk, Rideau Hall)

Thank you, Mr Chair. First, I would like to congratulate and thank the Search Committee and the Governing Council for an excellent decision. You have placed our University in the hands of an outstanding scholar, a strong and experienced academic leader, a gifted teacher, and an individual of vision and integrity who is deeply and thoroughly committed to this institution and its special role in Canada and the world.

I also wish to extend my warmest congratulations to Meric Gertler. Meric, thank you for your inspiring and generous words this morning, and above all, thank you for accepting these new responsibilities. I never sleep much, but I’m sleeping better these days!

Ladies and gentleman, what could be more fitting at this time in global history than to have this University led not only by one of the world’s greatest scholars of urbanism, but by an individual who has closely studied the geography of creativity and innovation?

Moreover, having led a Faculty that is larger than a great many universities in North America, our new President is no stranger to complexity. He has also enthusiastically championed the huge breadth of disciplines that Arts and Science represents. There is accordingly no doubt that Meric Gertler’s leadership will embrace our entire academic community, be it on the University’s three campuses or in the great partner hospitals of the Toronto region. I am similarly certain that the President Designate will sustain and strengthen our relationships with the University’s global alumni community and with the very wide range of sectors, enterprises, and institutions that are so important to our continuing success.

From here on, I will be working closely with Meric to effect a smooth transition both for the leadership of Arts and Science and for the Presidency. I will also be looking to the future with great confidence that the President’s Office is in very capable hands.

Mr President Designate, please accept again our collective congratulations. Welcome aboard!

Election to the Royal Society of Canada is a proud milestone in a scholar’s career, and, unsurprisingly, scholars from the University of Toronto are well-represented in the Society. Scholars from U of T account for about 17% of all Fellows elected since 1980.

This record has been more than sustained in recent years. For example, in 2012 we had 17 faculty members elected as Fellows, one fewer than last year’s record total of 18.

For benchmarking purposes, the chart below shows the number of Fellows elected from each of the U15 universities for the period from 2005 to 2012. Nearly a quarter of the Fellows elected from U15 institutions are from the University of Toronto. (Click for a larger version (PDF) and a data table.)

Toronto’s leadership is more pronounced when the same comparison is made for Ontario universities. As shown below in the second figure, about 45% of all Ontario-based Fellows originated from our three campuses. (Click for a larger version (PDF) and a data table.)

Let me conclude by anticipating three questions, tossing a few bouquets, and looking ahead to another royal celebration this week.

1. ‘Why don’t we hear about these types of results more often?’
Not an easy question… We do struggle with messaging because the University of Toronto has outstanding faculty, staff, students, and programs across a huge range of disciplines. Simplicity and repetition are important in effective communication. But we can’t talk fairly about a few stars when the University is blessed with a galaxy. Nor can we riff on a single theme when there are so many different stories to be told.

The other part of the puzzle is the wonderful Canadian affinity for humility. Hiding one’s light under a bushel is considered good manners. On a less positive note, Tall Poppy Syndrome is pervasive. Or, if one prefers a canine metaphor: We want underdogs to rule, while big dogs drool.

2. ‘OK, stop drooling and answer this question: You’re big. Aren’t you just getting your fair share?’
Well, a per-capita adjustment of some type certainly narrows the gap between Toronto and UBC or McGill. But U of T is not five times larger than McMaster or six times larger than Waterloo. Moreover, it helps to be a heavyweight in the global ring. No university in Canada – and only a handful in the world – can rival the University of Toronto’s breadth and depth of excellence. Students have the opportunity to learn from world-leading scholars in nearly any field. Those same scholars share ideas and perspectives across three thriving campuses and many partner institutions, not least the great research hospitals of the Toronto region. The resulting convergence means that our faculty and students can conduct original research in fields – such as bioengineering, digital humanities, and quantum information processing – that blur the boundaries of traditional disciplines.

3. ‘Hmmm. If you’re such a big worldly dog, how are you doing at winning international prizes and awards?’
Here, intriguingly, there is bad news and good news. The bad news is that Canada has not won certain pinnacle prizes for many years. It’s 20 years since UBC’s Michael Smith won a Nobel Prize and more than 25 years since Toronto’s John Polanyi won his Nobel laurels. However, Toronto faculty have shone globally time and again, winning two Holberg Prizes for the humanities, a Bower Prize, the Kyoto Prize, and scores of other major distinctions.

As one very recent example, Toronto professors won 5 of the 10 Sloan Fellowships awarded to rising stars at Canadian universities. That’s consistent with our long-term record – over 40% of all Sloan Fellowships awarded to Canadians through the years have come to our faculty colleagues. And it’s also consistent with the metrics for a variety of international awards. Put simply, the gap widens between Toronto and its Canadian sister universities as the competition intensifies.

That brings me to the bouquets. Vice President Paul Young and his team in Research and Innovation, along with our Principals, Deans, and Department Chairs, have all done a fabulous job in advancing and promoting our outstanding scholars for recognition in diverse competitions. On behalf of the University community, I want to thank all these individuals who have worked so selflessly to see their colleagues celebrated and recognized.

Above all, warmest congratulations to the many scholars who have been recognized recently by the Royal Society of Canada; to their supportive (and patient!) family members and friends; to our brilliant students and dedicated staff who have worked with them; to all the other colleagues who have won so many awards and distinctions through the years; and to the many meritorious colleagues who are still awaiting appropriate recognition. Together, you have made the University a better place for our students, and you have made a positive difference in the world.

Last, as mentioned, there’s another royal wrinkle here. On Wednesday in Ottawa, the Queen’s representative, Governor General David Johnston, will again host a reception and ceremony celebrating the awards of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. The Governor General graciously welcomed a small army of University of Toronto prize-winners and their colleagues from across the country at last year’s event. This year, the army returns in larger numbers. The exact results are still under embargo, but faculty and students from U of T have won or shared the honours in a substantial majority of categories – an unprecedented performance that ranges across the life-cycle from graduate students through young investigators and on to the most senior levels of recognition.

A post-script to the awardees: I will also be at Rideau Hall, humbled by your accomplishments, and grateful that you have made my last NSERC ceremony such a memorable celebration of our University’s enduring commitment to excellence. Thank you and, in advance, my congratulations…

The recipients (listed below in alpha order) were honoured for their exceptional service to scholarship, science, and the arts in Canada.

Professor Peter G. Martin, Department of Astronomy & Astrophysics
Professor Emeritus Alexander McLean, Department of Materials Science & Engineering
Professor Emerita Betty Roots, Department of Cell & Systems Biology
Professor Marla Sokolowski, Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology
Professor R. Paul Young, Vice-President, Research & Innovation and Department of Civil Engineering

For more information about the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal, please visit: http://www.gg.ca/document.aspx?id=14019&lan=eng

From the U of T eBulletin: http://www.hrandequity.utoronto.ca/about-hr-equity/news/2013news/rsochfuotp.htm?utm_source=Bulletin&utm_medium=html&utm_content=Staff

Residents of the Toronto region have seen transportation plans come and go, following a depressing pattern of studies, announcements, and political gridlock. Actual improvements are inadequate to the region’s present needs – not to mention its needs over the next generation and beyond – and these are achieved at a glacial pace. (Perhaps in the face of climate change, this metaphor now understates the problem.) All the while, people in the region, including many U of T students, staff, and faculty, wait – for traffic to move on the DVP, for the next bus to arrive, and for their elected representatives to do something about it. According to several sources, we have one of the worst average commute times in North America. For example, CivicAction reports it is 82 minutes per day, worse than Los Angeles. TomTom ranks Toronto as number 6, among the most congested cities on the continent, noting that a 30-minute commute in the city adds up to 80 lost hours per year.

The consequences are increasingly dire – for our quality of life, for our environment, and for sustainable economic growth in Canada’s leading urban region. The OECD and Transport Canada, among others, have studied the economic costs to the region, with estimates ranging from $2B to $6B. HDR Inc. has estimated the annual costs for commuters at $3.3B with an annual economic drag on the region of $2.7B. (These studies were done between 2005 and 2007, which seems like the good old days on the highways now.) Of course, calculating the direct and indirect costs of traffic congestion is a vast, complicated, and in some ways dubious project. One person’s cost is another person’s income. And estimates of the drag on the economy are based on the presupposition that time saved by shorter commutes would be used for economically productive activity.

Nonetheless we can agree on some basics. For a lot of people in the Toronto region, the commute to work or school is unacceptably long. Our public transit is woefully underdeveloped and an embarrassment when compared to other jurisdictions. And these problems, over time, will become a significant disadvantage in our efforts to attract the smart and talented people we need to keep building a successful society.

Fortunately not everyone is waiting for politicians to act. In that spirit I would like to draw readers’ attention to your32.com – CivicAction’s campaign to raise awareness of the concrete benefits to building the transportation system we need.

The campaign encourages students in particular to make their voices heard, by answering the question, “What would you do with 32?” (32 minutes being the time Metrolinx estimates commuters will save each day on average, if The Big Move transportation plan is implemented). The campaign is intended to stimulate awareness and discussion, and ultimately action by decision-makers.

When I first saw CivicAction wanted to frame the issue by asking people what they’d do with another 32 minutes a day, I wondered whether that overall average would resonate with individuals who have personal commuting times ranging from a few minutes to over an hour. The construct may still feel somewhat theoretical to someone who is fortunate, as am I, to live fairly close to the University. But over the course of this year as I look ahead to the end of my term and to finding new housing, the issues of driving time and adequate public transit are about to get a lot more urgent and personal. I have memories of a long daily commute, early in my career, from the north-east part of Toronto down the DVP and across the city to Toronto Western Hospital. Not an experience I want to repeat.

So what would I do with an extra 32 minutes per day? More regular exercise, more recreational reading, and most definitely more time with Oscar the border collie (who is a very engaging conversationalist). What about you? Not worth thinking about? Well, over an adult’s working lifetime, that 32 minutes of commuting adds up to at least an extra half year of life. So check out your32.com/utoronto and tell us instead what you’d do with 6 months of free time!

U of T continues to be recognized as a world leader in higher education and advanced research. Our standing is built on the ongoing contributions of wonderful faculty, staff, and students on three flourishing campuses. It is embodied in the world-wide impact of more than 500,000 alumni who lead in every imaginable walk of life and corner of the world. And it is sustained by the support we receive from so many friends, benefactors, and institutional partners.

It remains a privilege for me to serve as President of this extraordinary and amazingly resilient institution.

I hope the new year brings you and your loved ones good health and great happiness.

Yours sincerely,

David Naylor (with Oscar the border collie)
President

p.s. If you are curious, please have a look at this holiday update (PDF) for a few highlights of our community’s recent successes!

President Naylor addressed the gathering and offered a tribute to The Hon. Bill Davis, a multiple graduate of the University of Toronto and a steadfast friend over many decades.

You can also read a profile of the event on the OISE website and watch a slideshow of the event prepared by OISE.

Remarks by Professor David Naylor
On the dedication of the Nexus Community Lounge at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education in honour of

The Hon. William G. Davis, P.C., C.C., Q.C., LL.D.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am delighted to join you here at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, and to celebrate the vision and foresight of Ontario’s 18th Premier, the Honourable William G. Davis.

There have been many things named in the Premier’s honour – schools, college campuses, and awards. Here at the University of Toronto, we have a major building at the Mississauga Campus and an Academic Chair right here at OISE. I know that he is shy about this sort of recognition. However, I hope our honouree will not be cross with me for wondering if we could launch a movement to see the Sky Dome at the Rogers Centre renamed the “Davis Dome”! In fact, the last time I saw him was at the Dome, cheering on the Argos to victory in the Grey Cup – this was fitting, I think, for a former Varsity Blues football player, who has been a faithful friend of football and athletics generally at this University over many years.

Mr. Davis has also been a very steadfast friend of the University of Toronto. It was he who saw the University of Toronto Act through the Legislative Assembly in his role as Education Minister 30 years ago. And his interest in his alma mater has continued, as we saw in the 9 years that he spent on our Governing Council. I feel fortunate indeed that a portion of my term overlapped with the Premier’s time on Council.

Notwithstanding his being shy about recognition, no one is more deserving of accolades than Mr. Davis – or should I say Dr. Davis? In fact our records indicate he has received no fewer than 13 honorary degrees, including the degree Doctor of Laws from this University.

Ladies and gentlemen, as you know the Honourable William G. Davis is responsible for a trifecta of accomplishments of crucial importance in the history of education in Ontario.

First, in 1965, the college system was introduced under his leadership as Minister of Education. What a path-breaking initiative that was – and it has been emulated all over the planet in different forms.

That same year, Mr. Davis launched OISE. Today an integral part of the University of Toronto, OISE is known as one of the world’s education gems. It is not just Canada’s brain trust for research on education and a source of inspired teachers and education leaders for the country. It is respected world-wide. Just last month, I visited China and, as part of the Beijing Forum, took part in a symposium on higher education. The Dean and Associate Dean of the Graduate School of Education at Peking University welcomed me most warmly, and that reception, they made clear, was all about the great reputation of OISE!

The third step forward by Mr. Davis was taken in 1970, when he funded what is now known as TVO. It was a time when the educational power of television and distance learning was just becoming apparent. And I suspect that is part of the reason why TVO’s Steve Paikin has joined us today.

When Mr. Davis became Premier in 1971, he continued to support Ontario’s education aspirations. I know from a colleague that he maintained informal annual luncheons with all of the college and university presidents, to stay in touch and to keep the lines of communication open.

It was a golden age of foresight, expansion and innovation. Colleges were colleges. Universities were universities, but they did not all expect to be miniature versions of the University of Toronto! In many ways it was a better time, and certainly under the leadership of the Honourable William G. Davis, we had a better and clearer vision of what education could and should be. Small wonder that Mr. Davis is still known as “the education Premier”!

In other ways, too, it felt like a better time. The social consensus was stronger. There was, as always, a broad spectrum of opinion but it was firmly anchored in a mainstream of shared Canadian values. Debate was vigorous and differences were sometimes very stark, but there was greater civility, with none of the bitter polarization that we see so often today. No one embodied this better spirit of generous partisanship, this inclusive vision of Canada, than the man we are honouring today.

Friends, it gives me hope for a better Canada that the counsel of this great Canadian is still so widely sought by people in every walk of life. They consult Mr. Davis across party lines and across all three levels of government. And he makes time for them, as he does for his family and countless friends.

In closing, let me say that the University of Toronto is extremely proud to claim the Honourable William G. Davis as a member of our family. And of course, Mr. Davis, OISE considers you as the head of its family – its founding father.

As a tribute to your vision and leadership, OISE would like to dedicate this community lounge to you. This space is a place of reflection, for a bit of respite, for colleagues and friends to meet. It is a place to encourage the development of a family of educators – just as the name Nexus suggests, to bond, to form linkages, to promote the connections that produce inclusive excellence – a hallmark of OISE and this great institution, and a hallmark of your extraordinary career of public service.

Premier, on behalf of the entire University family, Dean Julia O’Sullivan, and the many students, faculty and staff who have learned and worked here, as well as the countless others who have benefitted from the pedagogic talents and ideas of OISE graduates and faculty members, we are pleased and proud to dedicate this lounge in your honour.

Check against delivery.

On the morning of Friday, November 9, I had the privilege of attending the University of Toronto’s 88th Remembrance Day service at Soldiers’ Tower. As always, I was struck by the dignity of the event, the large turn-out, the wide participation of the estates of the University in the wreath-laying, and the evergreen messages conveyed by the ceremony.

In that latter regard, I was impressed by the salience of the welcoming words offered at the Service by David Platt, CD, Chair of the Soldiers’ Tower Committee. Major Platt reminded us that those who served – not least those who made the ultimate sacrifice – did so to safeguard core freedoms of our democracy, including, of course, our academic freedoms. He has kindly given me permission to reproduce the text below.

Words of Welcome, David Platt, Chair of the Soldiers’ Tower Committee

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the 88th Service of Remembrance at the now totally restored Soldiers’ Tower. This restoration work affirms the pledge made in 1919 when the cornerstone of the Tower was laid that the University of Toronto would always remember and honour its war dead. We are most grateful to our donors, including Facilities and Services, our masonry contractors, and our heritage architects. Thank you all very much.

Today, as we honour all those who died fighting in Canada’s wars we especially remember the 1,185 men and women of this university’s community who were killed in the First and Second World Wars and whose names are inscribed on our memorial walls.

It was through the sacrifices of all those who fought and especially of those who died that we continue to exercise and enjoy the freedoms and liberties of living in one of the world’s greatest democratic societies. Amongst these freedoms are:

• • thought, expression and speech;
• • of assembly and association;
• • the right to hold or not hold religious belief;
• • of a free judiciary and a free press;
• • open and honest elections;
• • the paramount Law of Habeas Corpus;
• • and importantly for institutions such as ours, the freedom of intellectual discourse and academic and scientific research.

This is the debt we owe those we are honouring today.

We must never forget that. We must never forget them.

Today, we are fortunate to live in an era when armed conflicts occur at a reduced scale compared to the two world wars of the last century. More recent conflicts have sometimes lacked the moral clarity of earlier trans-national conflagrations. But it is useful, I think, to keep in mind that members of our armed forces serve the governments that we democratically elect. Without their past contributions and sacrifices, there would be no such governments for them to serve.

Honorary degrees are awarded to recognize extraordinary achievement in community, national or international service and to honour individuals whose accomplishments are of such excellence that they provide, through example, inspiration and leadership to the graduates of the University.

From the U of T News: http://news.utoronto.ca/convocation-vandana-shiva-inspires-new-alumni

For Dr. Shiva’s biography, please visit: http://www.convocation.utoronto.ca/vandana-shiva.

And to watch a video of Dr. Shiva’s address to the graduating class, please visit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=879VpdYdFmo.

More information on honorary graduates of the University of Toronto, including links to past graduates, biographies, videos and more can be found in the Honorary Graduate section of The Office of Convocation’s website.

There is a news story with heritage photos on the U of T News site.

President Naylor wrote a brief piece about the Service on his blog in which he quoted the Major David Platt’s superb welcoming words in full.

The photos below are included courtesy of Jackie Atlas and The Soldiers’ Tower Committee.

Thank you Ms Ho for those kind words. It is an honour and a privilege to address this distinguished body, and to be introduced by such a distinguished alumna.

Special thanks to Mr. David Nesbitt, and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong for the invitation to speak to you this afternoon. I also want to acknowledge the presence of Canada’s Consul General to Hong Kong and Macau, J. Ian Burchett. …

By way of a quick overview, my talk today, of course, is about two urban regions – Hong Kong and Toronto – regions that differ sharply in many ways, but also have much in common including some shared history.

But I want to begin with some personal history. Most Canadians have a romantic vision of Hong Kong. But the dynamism of this special region really came to my attention as a 19 year old, first year medical student way back in 1974. Twenty percent of my classmates at the University of Toronto medical school were from Hong Kong.

Download the full text and select slides as a PDF

Watch the speech on YouTube.

Scheduled to open in September 2014, the first phase of the multi-phase North Building reconstruction will feature four storeys with improved theatre rehearsal space, computer labs, classrooms, offices, informal study space and an expanded food services area.

From UTM News: http://www.utm.utoronto.ca/main-news/north-building-groundbreaking-touches-past-looks-future

A submission to begin the process of developing strategic mandate agreements (SMAs).

Submitted to the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities on behalf of the University of Toronto by President David Naylor.

This submission has benefitted from valuable discussions with faculty, staff, and students, including the Academic Board, student governments, and the Faculty Association. That said, responsibility for any errors, omissions, or points of difference rests with the President and Vice-Presidents.

Part 1: The University of Toronto – Vision

The University of Toronto is a vibrant and diverse academic community. It includes 12,000 colleagues holding faculty appointments, 200 librarians, 6,000 staff members, and 80,000 students across three distinctive campuses and at many partner sites, including world-renowned hospitals. More than a key resource to Ontario, the University is one of the most respected and influential institutions of higher education and advanced research in the world. Its strengths extend across the full range of disciplines: The 2012-13 Times Higher Education ranking groups the University of Toronto with Stanford, UC Berkeley, UCLA, Columbia, Cambridge, Oxford, the University of Melbourne, and the University of Michigan as the only institutions in the top 27 in all 6 broad disciplinary areas. The University is also consistently rated as one of Canada’s Top 100 employers, and, in North America, only Harvard and Yale are rated as providing better library resources.

Adopted in 1992 and continuously upheld since then, the University’s “Statement of Institutional Purpose” includes a succinct Mission statement: “The University of Toronto is committed to being an internationally significant research university, with undergraduate, graduate and professional programs of excellent quality.” Twenty years on, Toronto remains a research pacesetter not only for Ontario, but for the world: only Harvard publishes more. We are also a continental leader in knowledge-translation and entrepreneurship: Toronto students and faculty generated 25 spin-out companies in 2011 alone. And while we have long been a critical contributor for Ontario and Canada in graduate and professional education, degree holders from U of T undergraduate programs are in leadership roles across Ontario and around the world.

To reinforce the value of a baccalaureate in a world of ‘credential creep’, we have made intensive efforts in recent years to ensure that undergraduate education at our University is enriched by the same culture of inquiry, discovery, and creativity that is the life-blood of our research success. This enrichment is the touchstone for the creative and critical thinking skills that can help our students be successful no matter where they live and work. Ideally, this approach will give students the tools to pursue careers that have not even been invented or, better yet, to become the leaders who invent those new employment opportunities for their fellow Canadians.

While our Mission is unchanged, the accelerating shifts in our context led the University in 2007 to embark on the most extensive planning exercise in our 180-year history. Towards 2030 took both a shorter- and long-term view of the University’s position and strategies. Its coverage ranged from strategic differentiation across the three campuses, to renewal of undergraduate education and modes of managing medium-term fiscal challenges.

Within the last few months, the University’s Provost has completed a wide-ranging review of the progress achieved since adoption of that plan. The results, reported in much greater detail elsewhere, are extraordinarily encouraging.

We are recruiting outstanding young colleagues to faculty positions. Our mid-career and senior faculty members continue to win a strikingly disproportionate number of national and international awards for research excellence. We have created the President’s Teaching Academy and made major investments to support excellence and innovation in teaching and learning, including the creation of a teaching-stream. Our dynamic east and west campuses are evolving rapidly into comprehensive universities that combine innovative undergraduate programming with selective expansion of graduate and professional education as well as more on-site research.

Our renewed commitment to undergraduate education has been manifest in: a complete overhaul of recruitment strategies with dramatically positive results; curriculum renewal and academic restructuring in the major first-entry divisions; the pursuit of our novel Big-and-Small strategy to augment student engagement in the face of enrolment pressures; the expansion of our excellent and intensive First Year Foundation Programs across colleges, divisions and campuses; major growth in experiential learning; and an Undergraduate Course Development Fund to catalyze greater engagement with undergraduate teaching by top researchers in the professional faculties (Law, Medicine, Social Work, and others). Due to internal changes and investments as well as our outstanding partnership with MaRS, we have seen a remarkable flowering of student and faculty entrepreneurship, innovation, and knowledge translation.

Above all, we have never seen better students – not just from Ontario, but also in rising numbers from across Canada and around the world. For example, in 2012, almost 20% of our first-year students in undergraduate programs are international. Equally important, from the standpoint of putting students first in Ontario, some 40% of our domestic undergraduates are from low-income households. We invest over $147M each year in student bursaries and scholarships with one aim in view: to ensure that students can be admitted on merit, not on the basis of personal or parental income. In this, we are driven by an abiding belief that in every free and democratic society, higher education is the social institution that best aligns ambition and talent with equity and opportunity.

Today’s students, of course, are tomorrow’s alumni. While we are proud of our historical and massive ongoing contributions to research and innovation in Canada, it is ultimately our graduates who constitute our single biggest contribution to the strengthening of communities and the creation of successful and innovative societies. The University claims over 500,000 alumni in 175 countries: they are in leadership roles on every continent and in every sphere of human activity with surprising concentrations of influence everywhere from Hollywood to Hong Kong.

Part 2: The University of Toronto – Proposed Mandate Statement

The 2030 Planning Framework, as approved by the University’s multi-constituency Governing Council in 2008, covers a range of issues highly pertinent to the SMA exercise and our Ontario Mandate. We recap the most salient items briefly below. All quotes refer to the 2030 Framework.

The University’s “distinctive role” as Ontario’s academic flagship is prominent at the outset of this key institutional document, which also highlights “the academic rigor of its educational offerings at all levels”, and the goal that our programs be at least nationally pre-eminent and ideally very competitive on a global scale. Today we are busy innovating in digital education, already provide hundreds of transfer credits each year for equivalent courses at sister universities, and have developed productive partnerships with regional community colleges. However, consistent with our “distinctive role”, we will not compromise the integrity of a University of Toronto degree. To do so would not only harm the fabric of our institution but would be a betrayal of stewardship of standards for our students, our alumni, and the citizens of Ontario.

As the 2030 Framework observes, “The University contributes meaningfully to the prosperity of the Toronto region, Ontario and Canada. In addition, the University’s students, faculty and staff engage in a range of activities that help build successful communities locally, nationally and globally.” Our priorities below include initiatives that will strengthen community engagement, experiential learning, and entrepreneurship by our students.

Regarding “Enrolment Plans”, we affirmed our commitment to work with the Government of Ontario “to meet anticipated changes in demand for university places”. We stand by that commitment.

In working with the Ministry, one of the University’s goals was and remains to “reinforce its unique strengths in research and scholarship, as well as our acknowledged leadership position in graduate and second-entry professional education provincially and nationally”. Today, the University of Toronto educates 23% of Masters students and 32% of PhD students in Ontario. We are encouraged by continuing positive results on the Canadian Graduate and Professional Student Survey. Sustaining student engagement and satisfaction is no small feat given that we have added 1848 Masters and 680 PhD students in the last 6 years. Moreover, the University has also responded rapidly to societal need and demand in framing professional Masters programs. We currently offer 63 such programs, with 20 more in the planning stages – the largest by far of any university in the country. Many have highly innovative features, be it the prominence of integrative thinking and design in the Rotman MBA or UTM’s Masters of Biotechnology, highly regarded by industry leaders.

The Framework asserts that we will enable “strategic tri-campus differentiation of academic programs”. In this respect, domestic undergraduate growth on the St. George campus will be limited, and our goal is to expand graduate enrolments, with a longer-term goal of raising the current 26% graduate proportion to at least 35%. At the east and west campuses, we “envisage growth in a range of professional masters programs, along with doctoral-stream expansion in selected disciplines.” Depending on capital and operating support, undergraduate enrolment expansion across these two campuses combined was projected as rising by as much as 5000 domestic places.

This broad rubric will continue to guide our work with the Ministry on enrolment expansion. And as Ministry-approved growth proceeds, we shall sustain high levels of student financial aid “with the goal of ensuring that accessibility is maintained for all meritorious students”. In 2008 we put a high priority on “fund-raising to generate bursary and scholarship funds that can support recruitment of outstanding students from the widest possible range of backgrounds”. We kept that promise. Today over $850M in our endowment is directed to scholarships and bursaries for students. From the remaining $900M that the University’s Boundless Campaign must raise to reach its $2B target, about $200M will be directed to scholarship and bursary support. Under the current tuition framework, we also reallocate substantial tuition revenues to student aid. The result: some 45% of U of T undergraduates in receipt of OSAP paid less than half the posted tuition fees even before the new Ontario Tuition Grant was launched. Over 2000 students had full tuition coverage. Indeed, with bursaries, scholarships, OSAP support, and internal tuition set-asides, the effective or net tuition increases at U of T, averaged across all programs, amounts to slightly more than 3% per annum.

As promised, we identified “internal best practices that may be generalizable” to enhance students’ experiences. We have invested in initiatives that “helped students learn together in small groups with the direct support of teachers and mentors”, and are making major investments “to make participatory learning opportunities available to all first-year students and eventually extend these opportunities to more undergraduates in their upper years.” We also affirmed “the importance of co-curricular initiatives for students on its three campuses, including experiential learning for credit in diverse forms”. These figure in our highest priorities below.

The Framework further states: “The University of Toronto will advance its use of information technology and seek to become a leader in digital education.” At that time, Toronto was behind many of its peers. Today, as outlined in our priorities, we are making great strides and intend to do more.

We sought better processes that would ensure “that societal, academic and economic benefits are more consistently realized from the University’s excellence in research.” In partnership with multiple academic hospitals, research institutes, and local universities, U of T and MaRS led the creation of a path-breaking commercialization consortium, and have launched other initiatives as outlined in our priorities. Without fanfare, the combined force of MaRS and the U of T academic family, including fully affiliated hospitals, has created a footprint in commercialization, entrepreneurship, and knowledge translation that is having a substantial economic impact not just regionally but across the province and beyond.

These foregoing summaries of our Mission and Mandate already speak clearly to our differentiated position in the Ontario PSE ecosystem. We emphasize that differentiation has myriad dimensions – ranging from francophone instruction to programming that targets northern and rural access. Each institution will have a unique niche. The dimension of differentiation for the University of Toronto is research-intensity and its ripple effects as regards programming, enrolment patterns, and both graduate and undergraduate student experience. The priorities below are self-evidently aligned around sustaining our unique role, while recognizing fiscal realities and meeting various Government system objectives.

We take up below the invitation to comment on policy issues for priority #1. For now, we note that the University has made its first priority a set of measures that address efficiency and productivity. We cannot set targets without clarity about how the Ministry defines productivity. Productivity measures conventionally involve delineating inputs in relation to outputs or outcomes. The latter could include diverse metrics of research, knowledge translation, and educational performance. Neither the weights for these outputs/outcomes, nor the framework for analysis (e.g. average or marginal measures) has been delineated. We would welcome a conversation to clarify these analytical issues, as we together seek creative and effective responses to shared fiscal pressures.

Part 3: The University of Toronto – Priority Objectives

Priority #1: Enhance Efficiencies and Productivity while Sustaining Research-Intensity and Enrolment Differentiation

Leadership Track Record:

For over two decades universities in Ontario have had the lowest per-student grants in Canada. Even with welcome increases in government grants and tuition revenue over the past ten years, a significant gap remains. Meanwhile, as reported by the Government, degree completion rates have risen, and Ontario continues to enjoy the highest PSE participation rate of any province. Howsoever productivity is defined, these data speak volumes about the relative efficiency of Ontario universities.

Ontario’s research-intensive universities face additional challenges. These include the very low level of federal reimbursement of the indirect costs of research, and the lagging numbers of graduate fellowships and scholarships relative to growth. Above all, we operate with a funding formula that penalizes research excellence by combining research and educational salary support in a single block grant, without regard to research performance or measures of educational outcome. Even among an outstanding family of research-intensive institutions, Toronto stands out for its enrolment mix, extraordinary research outputs, success in knowledge translation, high graduation rates of skilled people, and continued global reputation – and our productivity is arguably sui generis. This has been possible only because of the superb faculty and staff we have been able to attract and their dedication to the institution, as well as the support of our alumni and friends.

The fiscal context, however, leaves us no choice but to look for even more efficiencies.

In the past, to enhance operational effectiveness and to sustain the quality of the learning environment, we have been pioneers in, for instance, creating a new category of teaching-stream faculty and crafting an explicit Big-and-Small model of delivering undergraduate courses. Like many sister institutions, we have increased year-round learning, including the recent development of compressed summer courses. In the summer of 2012 the University of Toronto taught 27,668 students across its three campuses, while hosting a wide range of other events. This has resulted in increased productivity and efficiency (greater utilization of our physical plant and infrastructure) while at the same time providing students with additional flexibility in completing their degrees.

Recent efforts to enhance mobility for our students should also improve efficiency. We have recently joined six other Ontario universities in forming the University Credit Transfer Consortium. Its aim is to streamline credit transfer among students in a set of institutions that have similar admission standards and a record of successful credit transfer through usual ad hoc methods. This should reduce paperwork for students and participating universities alike.

Most importantly, the University implemented a new Budget Model in 2006 that encourages efficiency and frees up resources to enhance quality of front-line teaching and research. By investing in central financial analysis, sharing information widely, and devolving decision-making, we have given academic divisions the incentives to be creative and entrepreneurial in meeting their academic objectives. The fact that a number of other universities across Canada are studying and emulating this model is a marker of its value as an innovative practice.

Future Priorities:

We will continue to demonstrate leadership in creating operational efficiencies and enhancing productivity by pursuing the following strategies, subject to appropriate resources and relevant approvals:

a. Expansion of the 3+2 Undergraduate/Masters Model

The Bologna reforms to European PSE are receiving increased scrutiny, as their practical implications come into clearer focus. However, a very interesting feature of the Bologna paradigm is the 3+2 model as a path to equipping students with two rigorous and meaningful degrees in five, as opposed to six years. We have positive experience in this regard with capable students who know what they want to do and are highly motivated to combine an undergraduate and Masters degrees. For instance, our innovative Jeffrey Skoll Combined BASc/MBA Program allows selected students from the Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering (APSC) to complete both a BASc and an MBA degree in less time than it would take them to do both degrees sequentially and with an extensive internship, giving them real-world insight into the interface of business and engineering. Skoll students typically maintain high grades in both programs, and are highly valued by employers.

Our Deans and Chairs are excited by the possibility of generalizing this model, and have a number of combined degrees in the planning stage. The model aligns well with the intensification of our graduate mission and our differentiated role in the system. This will be a great thing for our students, saving those who choose this route a year of study, while delivering to them two highly-regarded degrees. One-time-only monies will be needed for program development, and we will seek permanent endowments to provide financial aid to students as needed.

b. Expand the Number of Teaching-Stream Faculty

To cope with funding shortfalls, other universities across North America have increased the number of contract faculty they employ. To maintain the quality of the academic experience for our students, we believe that it is preferable for them to be taught by faculty with continuing appointments. The University of Toronto has been a leader in creating a Teaching Faculty Stream – brilliant educators and valued colleagues who devote a greater part of their time to teaching than do our tenure-stream faculty. Over the past 10 years we have increased the proportion of teaching-stream faculty and we will actively work to arrive at optimal proportions of these groups across our divisions.

Where this results in an increase in teaching-stream faculty, there will be net gains in the number of courses taught, at the same time sustaining or improving the quality of the learning experience for students. If productivity is defined as course delivery, relative to the overall faculty complement, the gains here are clear. What remains unclear is how the Ministry prioritizes research activity and graduate supervision as productivity elements. We have seen the clear and pressing importance of research and corresponding graduate supervision in the recent ranking declines experienced by Canadian universities. These activities need to figure prominently in any account of productivity.

c. Expand the Number of International Graduate Students

Ontario retains about 50% of international graduate students who have completed a research-stream degree. This subgroup shows a particular concentration in the STEM disciplines. However, unlike several other provinces that have recognized the importance of this source of talent, Ontario does not provide grants to universities to support research-stream international graduate students. As a result, Ontario’s research-intensive universities have lagged their out-of-province peers in recruiting these applicants. Today, Toronto continues to receive enormously strong applications to doctoral programs from international graduate students, but without associated funding we are severely limited in how many of these students we can afford to enrol. It makes little sense to turn away these creative individuals, who by virtue of their decision to study abroad, have already demonstrated themselves to be risk-takers.

Attracting global talent is a key to the future prosperity of Ontario. As outlined below, extending domestic-level funding to international graduate students is a very efficient strategy to enhance the pool of highly qualified talent needed by the province in these difficult times.

Policy Tool 1: Funding Formula Reform

One jurisdiction after another has fully or partially uncoupled research salary support to faculty from core educational grants, and aligned institutional missions to enrolment planning and funding envelopes, having some regard to differential costs. Ontario’s approach in contrast has been ad hoc, without role definition for institutions that aligns funding, mission and enrolment mix. Role definition cannot be type-casting, and differentiation has many elements other than research- and graduate-intensity. But if every institution’s aspiration is to be increasingly research- and graduate-intensive, as seems to be the case, the inevitable result is damage to the excellence of both teaching and research. We urge careful study of Clark’s paper on the California model, and its lessons for Ontario.

It is both paradoxical and unsurprising that U of T, as the province’s research leader, has led the way in building an outstanding cohort of teaching-stream faculty. As noted, we are working with our colleagues to optimize the balance of full-time faculty in differentiated roles. In this regard, we face a dilemma. The current funding model contains serious financial disincentives to research productivity and research-stream graduate intensification. However, the province also relies on us for leadership in both those dimensions of our mission.

Any change in funding formulae must be done with great care to avoid damage to a precariously balanced ecosystem. Obviously, post-hoc changes would be destabilizing and standardization in particular would be de-differentiating. It may be prudent to focus modifications prospectively on new growth-related funding. A results-based allocation formula, for example, could align incentives rationally, taking into account research performance on a university-by-university basis, markers of educational effectiveness (e.g. degree completion) and, longer term, learning outcomes. As an interim option, we are interested to explore with the Ministry flexible block-funding that would enable more nimble allocation of funds between undergraduate and graduate envelopes.

Policy tool 2: Extend Domestic Funding to International Graduate Students

This policy change involves no special treatment for international students at eligible institutions. It simply extends current domestic funding to international research-stream graduate students at universities that meet a defined quality threshold. It matches the precedent in several provinces. It is also arguably cost-saving. The public spends at least $180,000 to educate a student from kindergarten to a bachelor’s degree. Thus, if half the international graduate students stay on, the net savings is arguably $90,000 per student as compared to the equivalent domestic education. In brief, this measure would be a powerful and cost-effective boost to talent retention, could reinforce institutional differentiation, and involves no increases to university budgets.

Priority #2: Expand Technology-Assisted Learning Opportunities

Leadership Track Record:

New learning technologies offer innovative ways to elevate the learning experience and offer students more flexibility. The University of Toronto has expanded its suite of technology-enhanced courses and programs, currently offering 90 for-credit courses online with plans in place for more. Our Innovations in On-line Learning initiative uses online materials to support self-paced learning outside of the class, and enhanced activity-based learning in the class. Today, moreover, the University of Toronto has the largest on-one-server user base of Blackboard in the world. We have piloted the “inverted” or “flipped” classroom model and have plans for broader implementation in the University made possible by our recent acquisition of state-of-the-art lecture capture and live webcasting solutions. We were the first in Canada to be part of a Massively Open On-line Consortium (MOOC)-Coursera. We remain the only Ontario institution on a MOOC platform. We are committed to being leaders in shaping how this technology might work for students around the world and, very importantly, in Ontario. By way of example of the power of digital education, a mere eight weeks after the partnership with Coursera was announced, U of T’s five pilot courses had 100,000 registrations.

Future Priority:

a. Explore the Potential for Offering For-credit Foundational MOOCs

High-quality online courses require considerable investment of faculty time and resources. We share our students’ caution about the implications for the quality of their education if a significant proportion of courses are offered only on-line. Instead, because we are early adopters of this technology, we are able to explore the value of allowing our students to take a small number of our enhanced MOOCs for a reduced cost and flexibility, while maintaining the important one-on-one interaction our students expect and deserve. This would be a win-win situation made possible by the University of Toronto’s early and full participation in international MOOC initiatives.

The Gates Foundation has recently issued a Request for Proposals to create first-year MOOCs which will be accredited for two-year US colleges and potentially, in limited number, for our own students. The University of Toronto, currently the only Canadian university in this internationally cutting-edge competition, is submitting proposals for 4 courses in statistics, computer science, psychology, and writing instruction. The Gates Foundation will to provide a $50,000 grant for the curriculum development of each course selected in the competition. Additional costs will be incurred to sustain these courses and create new ones.

Priority #3: Enhance Entrepreneurship and Experiential Opportunities for Students

Leadership Track Record:

As already noted, the University of Toronto and its institutional partners lead Canadian academe in the numbers of start-up companies created. To sustain that advantage, UofT has created the Innovations and Partnership Office which works with MaRS to identify and leverage the commercial potential of discoveries and ideas arising from the work of our faculty, staff, and students. As well, the University’s Chemistry department has developed a unique model that involves converting underused space into state-of-the-art ‘pre-incubators’ to nurture new ventures. Not only do these companies provide an important source of employment for our new graduates; they enhance the productivity of Ontario by rapidly translating ideas into products with value.

In September 2012, the University took the step of opening new incubator and innovation space: The Banting and Best Centre for Innovation and Entrepreneurship. The Centre includes successful UofT start-ups as tenants, two recognized Centres of Excellence in Commercialization, and the University’s Innovation and Partnerships Office. Students are being mentored through programs run by the co-located BEST-IOS (Building Entrepreneurs in Science & Technology) group.

The BEST-IOS group joins a growing suite of Toronto-based educational programs designed to nurture the next generation of entrepreneurial leaders for Ontario and Canada. The MaRS convergence centre offers “Entrepreneurship 101”. Initiated by a University of Toronto professor in 2004, these weekly seminars cover topics such as how to make an effective pitch to potential investors and how to create a sales strategy. More than 1,800 people – many U of T faculty and students – take part in these sessions each year. The University of Toronto is also the founding academic partner of The Next 36, a high-profile national entrepreneurship program, and the highly successful TECHNO program, a three-week summer boot camp in ‘technopreneurship’ for recent graduates that has spawned 35 student companies over its first three years alone.

With respect to experiential learning, the University of Toronto provides work-integrated learning opportunities for students through co-op activity (1500+ students), Professional Experience Year programs (600+ students), and internship/practicum arrangements (100+ programs). We fund Work-Study positions (2000+ students). And we offer experiential opportunities for students to earn credit through placements in community settings. Each year thousands of UofT undergraduate students connect with community organizations through co-curricular service placements. The organizations benefit from the students’ wonderful energy and nascent expertise while the students gain an understanding of how to apply their insights and ideas to real-world settings.

An example of Toronto’s success in experiential learning is our unusual Master of Science in Applied Computing. Students spend the first 8 months on campus, taking our regular graduate courses plus one of two special courses (Communication for Computer Scientists and Technical Entrepreneurship). The students then move to an 8-month internship in May that we arrange, and return to campus the following fall in the evenings (during the second half of their 8-month internship) to take the second of the two special courses. All of the students thus far have been offered jobs on graduation by their internship employers.

Future Priorities:

Our future priorities include expansion of these opportunities in two specific areas:

a.“Entrepreneurship 101” for Undergraduate Arts & Science Students

Building on the successful Entrepreneurship 101 program, the Faculty of Arts & Science is developing an entrepreneurship for-credit course that will be available to all Arts & Science undergraduate students. It will be delivered in both in-person lecture and on-line formats thereby extending the number of students that might benefit. The course will be delivered by faculty from the University of Toronto, by alumni with relevant experience, and by expert advisors associated with MaRS. New resources will be required to expand the course and to provide transition support for those students who wish to pursue entrepreneurial activities.

This initiative has broad implications in terms of potential benefits for students and the Province. As vectors of knowledge and expertise into society, university and college graduates are Ontario’s best bet to drive enhanced productivity in the future. A larger number of graduates with entrepreneurial training and savvy will increase Ontario’s chances of a rapid return to previous levels of prosperity.

b. Experiential Opportunities for Students

We will expand both paid and unpaid opportunities through a variety of unique partnerships and models:

i) CUSP – The University of Toronto is a core member of an important international consortium that was the second winner of Mayor Bloomberg’s Applied Sciences NYC competition. The Center for Urban Science and Progress (CUSP) will focus on developing solutions to the critical challenges facing the world’s cities, including infrastructure, tech integration, energy efficiency, transportation congestion, public safety, and public health. If we can put the requisite funding in place, University of Toronto students will gain vital expertise that can be applied to challenges facing the City of Toronto and other cities in Canada. Furthermore, participating students will be able to conduct collaborative research with top companies such as ConEdison, National Grid, Siemens, Xerox, Port Authority of NYC, IBM, Cisco, Google, etc.

ii) UTIAS – Building on other successful partnerships with private sector partners, the University of Toronto Institute for Aerospace (UTIAS) is deepening its relationship with Bombardier and building a partnership with Centennial College and, in time, other academic institutions, with plans to provide new training for the next generation of aerospace technologists and engineers. Future students will engage in industry-relevant projects related to environmentally-sustainable aviation. Students will learn about aerodynamics to reduce drag on airplanes, study lightweight options in aircraft construction, examine biofuel options and conduct life-cycle assessments of aerospace technology. Over the span of six years over 130 undergraduate and graduate students are expected to participate in the program. Discussions regarding a dedicated aviation and aerospace campus at Downsview Park are also ongoing.

iii) Internships: From Unpaid to Paid – We have entered an era where unpaid internship opportunities are available in abundance, much to the advantage of those who can afford to take them and much to the disadvantage of those who need to work at paid jobs. The University is troubled by this inequity. We have already developed a small number of scholarships for undergraduate students in the biosciences to offset the part-time income they forgo when volunteering in labs. Expansion of this program is needed if we are to find a way of providing academically-relevant work experiences to our students without disadvantaging the already-disadvantaged.

President David Naylor addressed the Hong Kong Canada Chamber of Commerce on October 11. In his address, “Toronto and Hong Kong: A Tale of Two Regions“, he noted that Hong Kong and Toronto are two regions that differ sharply in many ways, but also have much in common. President Naylor reviewed a number of those similarities and considered ways in which Toronto and Hong Kong face shared opportunities.

Check against delivery. (Download a PDF version.)

Let me begin by extending my sincere appreciation to Mr. Koji Omi for the kind invitation to be a part of the STS Forum this year and to be here with you today.

I want to acknowledge our esteemed Chair Dr. Matsumoto, President of a great research university, and note the presence of distinguished leaders from diverse walks of life on the panel and in the audience.

I will offer only two local data points that speak to my perspective or biases. Thomson-ISI regularly creates a global tally of total published research output. For a number of years, the top three universities in order have been Harvard, Toronto, and Tokyo. We also confer over 9,000 degrees each year, and have maintained our research position despite per-student funding that is about one fifth the average level of US private research universities. Thus, the practical question of the university’s role in the 21st century is very much on our minds in every budget decision we make.

This afternoon I have only three brief points to make in addressing this issue.

1. The Nature of Graduates?

We can’t talk about the role of the university in the 21st century, in my view, without thinking about what kinds of leaders our global community needs.

The next generation will confront challenges – everything from climate change to cyber-security – that are more intertwined and complex than ever before. Solutions to these challenges will require convergent thinking across disciplines, creativity, ingenuity, and excellent collaboration and communication skills.

There is no easy consensus on how to define these and other attributes. But I would nonetheless propose that the job of universities is increasingly to help build what some call
T-shaped individuals – a column of deep and specific expertise, capped by a substantial breadth of perspective.

That means more multi-disciplinary and experiential learning, and lots of opportunities for interactive problem solving inside and outside the classroom or the laboratory. It also means embracing globalization – in the flow of students and faculty, and in the range of our collaborations with universities, industry, governments, and civil society alike.

2. A Sustainable Educational Eco-System

My second theme relates to an old maxim. Take three positive attributes: Good, Fast and Cheap. You can maximize two rather easily, but it’s hard to optimize all three at once. The same is true in higher education, where we can talk about another triad: Quality, Availability and Affordability.

We heard thoughtful reference this morning to inclusive innovation. We also need inclusive higher education if the world is to confront its grand challenges in an effective and equitable way.

Each nation is sorting out the mix of public and private funding that will optimize quality, availability and affordability. Each nation is deciding how to manage the growth of private institutions. And all institutions are responding to the rapid emergence of digitally-enhanced education as a disruptive innovation that may have both positive and negative effects.

It is truly a period of accelerating change. I would argue that it is critical in this context to think carefully about the eco-system of higher education that is sustainable, as well as best suited to meet societal needs and improve the human condition.

My bias is that every university graduate must have a perspective shaped by research and scholarship. However, I hope we would all agree that not every university, college or polytechnic should have a strong focus on generating new knowledge. That is simply unaffordable. It is also highly inefficient.

Unfortunately, university rankings tend, perhaps by accident more than design, to value research-intensive institutions more than vocational colleges and polytechnics, undergraduate-intensive universities, or comprehensive universities renowned for their teaching and their professional programs. This creates an incentive for homogenization with all institutions playing the research game.

Diversification is healthy in any eco-system. And, absent specialization and differentiation in universities, no country can have globally competitive research. This leads logically to my third and final theme.

3. The Roles of Fundamental and Applied Research

This morning Jean-Lou Chameau reminded us that much apparently useless research turns out to be surprisingly useful. That theme has been repeated eloquently by speakers this afternoon.

Today, there is tremendous – and increasing – social pressure for university research to be quickly translated into products and services. We all understand why this is happening. No question about it: We need incremental applied research, and we need to work effectively to translate and commercialize our research findings.

But we also need to recognize that many of today’s most challenging problems call for paradigm-shifts and disruptive convergent innovation.

After all, necessity is the mother of invention only in the very short term. Over the long haul, invention is the mother of necessity – changing not only what is possible, but what we regard as essential.

Conclusion

Let me summarize briefly.

First, the world needs universities, particularly major research universities, to produce graduates with a new mind-set.

Second, the world also needs differentiated and diversified systems of higher education that can broaden participation and drive globally competitive research, without sacrificing quality.

Last, the world needs research universities in particular to advance an exciting agenda of discovery and knowledge translation, not only in and across the STEM disciplines, but at the interface of science and technology with a full range of other fields of research.

These three propositions are hypotheses that may be dead wrong. But I hope that they are at least helpful in sparking discussion in our session today.

Thank you for your kind attention.

For more information about the Centre, please visit: http://cjs.utoronto.ca/

From the Faculty of Arts and Science: http://www.artsci.utoronto.ca/main/newsitems/campaign-for-jewish-studies

A Response to the Honourable Glen Murray’s Discussion Paper on Innovation to make our University and College System Stronger.

Submitted, October 1st, 2012
On behalf of the University of Toronto by:
David Naylor, President

This submission has benefitted from valuable discussions with faculty, staff, and students, including student governments and the Faculty Association. That said, responsibility for any errors, omissions, or points of difference rests with the President and Vice-Presidents.

The University of Toronto – Overview

The University of Toronto is a vibrant and diverse academic community. It includes 12,000 colleagues holding faculty appointments, 200 librarians, 6,000 staff members, and 80,000 students across three distinctive campuses and at many partner sites, including world-renowned hospitals. More than a key resource to Ontario, the University is one of the most respected and influential institutions of higher education and advanced research in the world. Its strengths extend across the full range of disciplines: The 2011 Times Higher Education ranking groups the University of Toronto with Stanford, UC Berkeley, UCLA, Cambridge, Oxford, and the University of Michigan as the only institutions in the top 25 in all 6 broad disciplinary areas. The University is also consistently rated as one of Canada’s Top 100 employers, and, in North America, only Harvard and Yale are rated as providing better library resources.

Adopted in 1992 and continuously upheld since then, the University’s “Statement of Institutional Purpose” includes a succinct Mission statement: “The University of Toronto is committed to being an internationally significant research university, with undergraduate, graduate and professional programs of excellent quality.” Twenty years on, Toronto remains a research pacesetter not only for Ontario, but for the world: only Harvard publishes more. We are also a continental leader in knowledge-translation and entrepreneurship: Toronto students and faculty generated 25 spin-out companies in 2011 alone. And while we have long been a critical contributor for Ontario and Canada in graduate and professional education, degree holders from U of T undergraduate programs are in leadership roles across Ontario and around the world.

To reinforce the value of a baccalaureate in a world of ‘credential creep’, we have made intensive efforts in recent years to ensure that undergraduate education at our University is enriched by the same culture of inquiry, discovery, and creativity that is the life-blood of our research success. This enrichment is the touchstone for the creative and critical thinking skills that can help our students be successful no matter where they live and work. Ideally, this approach will give students the tools to pursue careers that have not even been invented or, better yet, to become the leaders who invent those new employment opportunities for their fellow Canadians.

While our Mission is unchanged, the accelerating shifts in our context led the University in 2007 to embark on the most extensive planning exercise in our 180-year history. Towards 2030 took both a shorter- and long-term view of the University’s position and strategies. Its coverage ranged from strategic differentiation across the three campuses, to renewal of undergraduate education and modes of managing medium-term fiscal challenges.

Within the last few months, the University’s Provost has completed a wide-ranging review of the progress achieved since adoption of that plan. The results, reported in much greater detail elsewhere, are extraordinarily encouraging.

We are recruiting outstanding young colleagues to faculty positions. Our mid-career and senior faculty members continue to win a strikingly disproportionate number of national and international awards for research excellence. We have created the President’s Teaching Academy and made major investments to support excellence and innovation in teaching and learning. Our dynamic east and west campuses are evolving rapidly into comprehensive universities that combine innovative undergraduate programming with selective expansion of graduate and professional education as well as more on-site research.

Our renewed commitment to undergraduate education has been manifest in: a complete overhaul of recruitment strategies with dramatically positive results; curriculum renewal and academic restructuring in the major first-entry divisions; the pursuit of our novel Big-and-Small strategy to augment student engagement in the face of enrolment pressures; the expansion of our excellent and intensive First Year Foundation Programs across colleges, divisions and campuses; major growth in experiential learning; and an Undergraduate Course Development Fund to catalyze greater engagement with undergraduate teaching by top researchers in the professional faculties (Law, Medicine, Social Work, and others). Due to internal changes and investments as well as our outstanding partnership with MaRS, we have seen a remarkable flowering of student and faculty entrepreneurship, innovation, and knowledge translation.

Above all, we have never seen better students – not just from Ontario, but also in rising numbers from across Canada and around the world. Equally important, from the standpoint of putting students first in Ontario, some 40% of our domestic undergraduates are from low-income households. We invest over $147M each year in student bursaries and scholarships with one aim in view: to ensure that students can be admitted on merit, not on the basis of personal or parental income. In this, we are driven by an abiding belief that in every free and democratic society, higher education is the social institution that best aligns ambition and talent with equity and opportunity.

Today’s students, of course, are tomorrow’s alumni. While we are proud of our historical and massive ongoing contributions to research and innovation in Canada, it is ultimately our graduates who constitute our single biggest contribution to the strengthening of communities and the creation of successful and innovative societies. The University claims 500,000 alumni in 175 countries: they are in leadership roles on every continent and in every sphere of human activity with surprising concentrations of influence everywhere from Hollywood to Hong Kong.

The Discussion Paper Overview

This foregoing institutional overview is relevant in several dimensions, starting with one observation. The Discussion Paper released this summer by the Minister/Ministry of Training Colleges and Universities [MTCU] does not speak directly to the role of Ontario’s research-intensive universities. Indeed, while the Paper rolls up some appealing concepts into a general vision statement, it does not set out a vision for the Post-Secondary Education [PSE] system per se. Instead, it promotes discourse around ‘Innovation’ as understood by MTCU, takes its policy cues from the Bologna Agreement, and embraces technology and standardization as the keys to government-led system ‘transformation’.

More generally, there is no clear articulation of the concept of different roles and responsibilities for institutions in the PSE system. This omission is noteworthy on two levels. First, the principle of differentiation has driven greater efficiency and effectiveness for both teaching and research in higher education world-wide. Second, that principle has also been part of the Government’s policy agenda. Nonetheless, the word ‘differentiation’ is nowhere to be found. Graduate and professional education get no attention. The word ‘research’ appears a handful of times. At no point is scholarship highlighted in a way that suggests students’ education can be enriched by encounters with great minds inside or outside a classroom. Whereas most definitions of experiential learning include participation in research projects or community volunteer activities, the MTCU frame is largely vocational. Moreover, while one reads in the Paper about learning outcomes in relation to a ‘renewed funding formula’, and sees an interesting suite of performance measures for entrepreneurship education, measuring or rewarding research excellence or superb graduate education is apparently not on the agenda.

While these emphases and omissions are concerning, we believe a number of the proposals embody elements of sound public policy if they can be implemented in a disciplined, rational, and fair fashion. Before addressing the questions in the Discussion Paper, a brief review of the current context may be helpful – along with further reflections on how the opening pages of the Discussion Paper have framed the issues.

Context

The change in Ontario’s PSE system in the last decade is striking: some 140,000 additional students; rising completion rates in both colleges and universities; the highest participation rate in Canada, and a major increase in graduate enrolment. Ontario can claim more leading research-intensive universities than any province, and a host of celebrated comprehensive universities and community colleges.

At the same time, Ontario still has the lowest per-student PSE operating grants among provinces. The rate of growth of Ontario’s per-student university grants between 2002 and 2012 has – after full adjustment for changes in enrolment mix – closely tracked general inflation. Per-student university funding in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland is roughly double Ontario levels. Inter-sector comparisons are also unfavourable. For K-12 (measured as per-student funding) and to a lesser extent for Health (measured on a per-capita basis), Ontario’s spending tracks above the average of the other provinces.

The conjunction of outstanding PSE performance and high participation rates alongside low levels of Government funding speaks to a simple fact. By almost any measure, Ontario universities lead the country in productivity.

Unfortunately, the province continues to face very difficult fiscal circumstances. Ontario also faces a demographic challenge as the population ages and the economy shifts. To meet the needs of the knowledge economy, not only should participation in PSE rise among those aged 18-25. We need more adult learners re-tooling and building new skills, not least those who are marginalized or do not meet traditional institutional admission criteria.

As the Discussion Paper rightly implies, salaries and wages in the PSE sector on average have risen faster than CPI, a mismatch given that growth in adjusted per-student funding, as noted, has tracked but not exceeded CPI. The difference between per-student funding and salary growth has been covered in part by tuition revenues. However, the coupling of salary increases to tuition increases is arguably overstated. On the one hand, posted tuitions have indeed outstripped CPI. On the other, given both provincial and institutional student aid, including tuition reductions for students with demonstrated need, the fees actually paid by tens of thousands of Ontario students are well below the ‘sticker price’. For example, at U of T, net tuition increases on average have been closer to 3% than the 5% cap on institutional average increases that is part of the current tuition framework.

Because revenue growth has not been sufficient to fully offset growth in expenses, student-faculty and student-staff ratios have risen at many institutions. Those employed in the sector observe that the levels of per-student funding were and remain comparatively low, and that workloads have also risen. In response, the Ministry observes that salaries are more than competitive with other jurisdictions, and that rising workloads are partly self-inflicted because budgets stretched by pay raises could not fund the new hires needed to respond to enrolment growth. There is no easy way to reconcile these viewpoints politically or economically.

Conceptually, however, a submission in response to the Discussion Paper has been made by Professor Ian Clark that offers a compelling reconciliation of the problem. Clark argues that the current funding formula is built around the presumption that all universities do very similar things, and operating grants for similar programs should be standardized. Based on the usual job description for the professoriate, about $850M per annum is drawn from Government operating grants to pay for research-related activities by professors. But block grants mean that funding is not allocated with reference to research mission and actual research and innovation performance. The productivity flaw in this arrangement for teaching has been illuminated with stunning clarity in Clark’s related analysis of California’s two-tiered public university system. The teaching-intensive California State system offers bachelors and some professional masters degrees. Tenure-stream Cal State professors teach more than their counterparts in the research-intensive University of California system (and more than their colleagues in Ontario). U Cal professors teach less in the classroom, but do more research and graduate supervision. When the two sub-systems are combined and averaged, California is far ahead of Ontario in both contact hours and research productivity.

Obviously, it is impossible for Ontario to adopt the California bimodal university system. The array of Ontario institutions is best understood by reference to a matrix of attributes rather than on a simple continuum where differentiation turns only on research-intensity and percentages of graduate and professional program students. But as Clark’s analysis highlights, the failure to separate research performance funding from educational grants has contributed meaningfully to the current woes of the Ontario PSE system.

Other jurisdictions have taken a different path. As but one example, the UK has created two tranches of operating grants for universities. One tranche supports the teaching mission. It reflects student mix and numbers, with some variable components based on high-needs students and innovative projects. The other tranche supports the research mission and graduate education. It reflects the results of peer review and transparent research metrics. Project-specific funding from the equivalent of our granting councils comes in on top of those funds. So it is that, for 2012-13, Oxford’s initial allocation for education was about £43.4M. Its research allocation was £131.5M. An additional £2.9M was awarded from the innovation fund. Neighbouring Oxford Brookes University received a base grant of £23.7M for teaching and £3.5M for core research support with an allocation of £1.6M for innovation.

Small wonder the UK’s great research universities have sustained their place in the world, with more of them joining Oxbridge atop the league tables. Undergraduate education does not have to cross-subsidize research and research-stream graduate studies; class sizes can be kept down – as is also very much the case in institutions such as Brookes that have a stronger teaching/undergraduate focus. Conversely, at Oxford, high graduate enrolments can be maintained along with the recruitment of top-flight research-stream faculty members. We believe Ontario, as a single sub-national entity, can learn more from such national policies than from a multi-national exercise such as the Bologna Agreement.

The Paper’s Frame

These considerations bring us to the Discussion Paper’s framing of the issues and opportunities confronting the Ontario PSE system.

The Government’s vision (p7) is positive so far as it goes. Reading it in fiscal context, however, one is reminded of the old adage: ‘Good, fast, cheap – pick any two’. Its analogue in public policy is: Quality, availability, affordability – pick any two. The Paper anticipates short-circuiting these trade-offs through technological innovation and process innovation, i.e. wider adoption of ‘best practices’. Experience in sectors such as healthcare shows that the impact of technological and process innovation in cost-containment is critically dependent on both labour substitution and consumer acceptance. The corollary for PSE is clear as regards faculty, staff and student acceptance.

It is also noteworthy on two levels that the Discussion Paper seems to take its cue from changes successfully effected in the K-12 system. First, those changes unfolded through a multi-year strategy. And the path to reform was rendered easier by the relatively higher baseline spending on K-12 and declining enrolments – both of which contrast sharply with the PSE sector. Second, the direction of the Paper at times seems more appropriate to K-12 – a sector characterized by greater standardization, relatively less professional autonomy, no expression of collegial self-governance, and no research mission.

Bologna is prominently referenced. The 1999 Bologna Agreement was indeed a bold step to create a more unified PSE system across jurisdictions. However, its relevance as a touchstone is limited as there is no such accord across North America or even across Canada. Were such an accord to be created, it would be on the basis of four-year degrees.

Meanwhile, the Bologna vision and the reality on the ground appear to be diverging as time passes. In theory, credits are widely transferable; in practice, mobility is still restricted by institutional capacity and independent admissions standards. The Discussion Paper also offers a head-line claim that Bologna credentials are ‘high-quality’ and states: “For those countries and institutions that previously operated on four-year or longer programs, the objective was not to compress existing programs. Rather, new three-year bachelor’s programs created comparable degrees across jurisdictions that were aligned with inter-jurisdictional trends in technology and the economy”. In contrast, a number of critics have argued publicly that compression is indeed what has happened, that students are stressed, and that the usual three-year degrees are not preparing students adequately for either the workplace or graduate studies.

It is easy, of course, to be tantalized by the excellent three-year undergraduate degrees at, say, Oxford, Cambridge, or Manchester. However, students enter those universities with an extra high-school year of A Levels and a degree of specialization that is more than equivalent to our first year of university. Meanwhile, in the USA, China, and Brazil, four-year degrees are the norm. Paradoxically, were Ontario’s top undergraduates to pursue MTCU’s preferred path of three-year degrees without compression, doors around the world would slam shut on them for graduate studies – not just at Harvard or Michigan, but at Oxford and Berlin inside the Bologna zone.

On a more positive note, the Discussion Paper endorses Australia’s national “diploma supplement”. Such transcript notations are already done by many Ontario institutions including ours, but could and should be strengthened. Caveats above notwithstanding, the Paper’s emphasis on experiential learning and entrepreneurship is welcome.

The section on Learning Outcomes is also a step forward in policy scope. There is massive experience with use of both process and outcome measures to enhance quality in healthcare. Process measures, in fact, are frequently much more efficient than outcome measures – particularly if they have been validated against outcomes. We would flag as well the danger of misleading results arising from differential enrolment of very weak or very strong students. That said, as outlined below, U of T endorses the concept of developing effective and efficient measures that can reflect student success, and is already working with partners on a made-in-Ontario instrument.

Last, on the matter of credit transfer, the Government proposes to make “100 percent of first and second-year introductory, general education, and core courses fully recognized across institutions”. In Alberta and British Columbia, credit transfer systems are based on inter-institutional agreements, not government fiat; and there is no such sweeping recognition in either of those jurisdictions. Assuming, however, that the PSE system in Ontario can and must make rapid progress with and through OnCAT, there remains – as in the Bologna arrangements– the problem of who will actually admit students, particularly non-traditional learners, and who will grant them a degree?

This last concern speaks to the very real possibility that stakeholders across the PSE sector were too quick to dismiss the concept of a new degree- and diploma-granting entity that might combine elements of the proposed On-Line Institute and Contact North to create a modified version of Britain’s Open University.

Specific Elements

Questions: “How do we further strengthen the culture of innovation in the sector in order to enhance quality and productivity? What are the barriers and roadblocks to innovation and productivity today? What measures could be taken to remove them? Are there some practices already in place that could be used as best practices to guide the sector?”

One key step for Government is to streamline its transactions with universities and colleges. This avoids wasting time and money better spent by both sides. It also increases administrative bandwidth for both sides to deal with a period of hectic change.

However, the single most important step is funding formula reform. K-12 type standardization of the formula would undo decades of differentiation and destabilize the system to no clear advantage. Instead, results-based reforms are urgently needed, using both research performance measures as proposed by Clark, and educational outputs/outcomes. These measures could be applied to enrolment growth funds, leaving existing envelopes frozen until the province’s finances improve. Existing envelopes, moreover, could be set up on a block grant basis, with a return to BIU corridors as well as enrolment corridors. This would allow the Government to ensure efficient diversification of roles and responsibilities across institutions, while leaving universities free to manage their finances and enrolments in a more nimble fashion.

Last, COU and CO should be encouraged to develop on-line directories of best practices as submitted by member institutions. We would be happy to contribute.

As already noted in our institutional overview, faculty and staff at the University of Toronto today continue a long-standing tradition of innovation in higher education. To add other examples, our outstanding teaching-stream faculty have made a huge difference to the effectiveness and efficiency of undergraduate program delivery. Toronto was the first Canadian University to be part of Coursera, the massively open online course [MOOC] consortium. As an example of our Big-and-Small Strategy combined with experiential learning, Engineering Strategies and Practice is an award-winning first year program that melds large lectures with design projects, pairing small teams of 4-5 students with a client and a faculty adviser. On the institution-wide front, the University’s relatively new (2006) budget model is an excellent example of an organizational innovation that encourages efficiency and frees up resources to enhance quality of front-line teaching and student experience. This model relies on the transparent delineation of revenues and expenses, and places decision-making authority in the hands of divisional leaders closest to the activities of teaching and research. Academic divisions have used the resulting transparency and alignment of incentives to be smart and entrepreneurial about ways to increase revenues and generate efficiencies, e.g. through increased summer enrolment, or decommissioning low-use space.

In brief, each university and college is finding innovative ways to move forward in the face of today’s fiscal pressures. We believe these stories should be shared so that each university or college may learn from, and adopt or adapt the innovations developed by their sister institutions.

Questions: “How can we improve on Ontario’s current range of credential offerings – for example, through three-year degrees, an increased focus on learning outcomes, and time to completion? How else could Ontario move forward to increase student choice and improve labour-market outcomes for students?”

We raised above the problems with a broad shift to three-year degrees at Ontario’s universities. A further problem is that the learning outcomes articulated in Ontario’s current degree-level expectations for undergraduate honours degrees are unlikely to be met in a three-year time-frame. Instead, as noted, the three-year bachelor degrees in Bologna-compliant countries have been criticized as insufficient either as a vocational qualification or as a prerequisite for graduate studies. In contrast, a four-year degree provides students with the time to participate in opportunities such as service learning, internships, co-op, international study, and co-curricular activities. And increasingly, such experiential learning opportunities are what our students expect and demand.

Completing a 20-credit degree within a three-year time frame does remain an option at the University of Toronto. Indeed, a specialized Fast Track three-year degree is in pilot stage, with academic enrichment offered to very accomplished students who can manage the faster pace. And some Ontario universities still offer a 15-credit, three-year degree as an option for students.

While we do not support a universal shift to three-year degrees for universities, it would seem timely for academically strong colleges to do more in this respect. Returning to an earlier theme for universities, more explicit differentiation of roles among colleges is overdue, and would be reinforced by asking some colleges to initiate or expand existing three-year degree offerings.

Last, while we welcome initiatives by the Ministry to broaden the range of options and models for credentials in Ontario’s post-secondary system, we suggest that such measures are best situated in the context of policies that clarify institutional roles and do not skew funding allocations. For the University of Toronto’s part, we are actively working to expand our own range of credential options by offering combined bachelors and masters/professional degrees – the best feature in our view of the Bologna project. Our bellwether in this regard is the University’s prestigious and successful Jeffrey Skoll BASc/MBA. By advanced acceptance into graduate courses, and some parallel tracking, students are then able to complete the two degrees on an accelerated basis.

Questions: “The government hopes to further improve credit transfer and student mobility between colleges, between universities, and between colleges and universities. What further steps should the province take to improve Ontario’s credit transfer system? What additional tools are needed? How do we ensure that Ontario credits and credentials remain compatible and competitive?”

Improving the ease with which students may shift from one institution to another is an important first step towards supporting student mobility. But facilitating mobility through credit transfer is not the end of the process. The ultimate goal for students, institutions, and the province is more appropriately focused on ensuring that students who wish to move between institutions in Ontario are able to complete their studies and obtain the credential(s) they seek without unnecessary impediments. As noted, we believe that an Open University/College model has been discarded too quickly. Investment in such an entity would maximize the impact of OnCAT and could encompass any new On-Line Institute.

U of T also urges continuing investment in facilitated college transfer models, in which students receive intensive, personalized supports before, during, and after transfer to the University. On all three campuses, U of T has formed strategic transfer agreements with high quality, neighbouring colleges – an approach which responds to the major source of demand for transfer from college students, with the additional benefit of streamlining the administrative processes for students and the University.

As to inter-university credit transfers, each year academic divisions of the University of Toronto assess and give countless credits for undergraduate courses that our students have taken elsewhere. As well, the University recently joined six other Ontario universities in forming the University Credit Transfer Consortium – again with a view to streamlining administrative processes. Members of the Consortium are committed to ensuring that our students have access to a wide range of automatically transferable courses. Any first year Arts and Science-type course offered for degree credit by a member of the Consortium will be accepted for general credit by all member institutions providing the student has achieved a minimum course grade of 60%. Consortium members have further agreed to specific equivalency for a set of 20 high-enrolment foundational courses. The Consortium is committed to evaluating this initiative and expanding these agreements over the coming year.

While we endorse the importance of student mobility, our community takes seriously the quality of the degrees granted by the University of Toronto. We will continue to assess courses (and transfer applicants) independently and solely on their academic merits.

Questions: “What opportunities exist to provide year-round program delivery to more colleges and universities? How have some institutions in Ontario and around the world overcome challenges to year-round program delivery, such as attracting students to summer courses?”

The University of Toronto agrees that expanding summer learning options provides additional flexibility for students in completing their degrees. Our eastern campus has operated on a trimestered calendar since 2003. As a result of a planned expansion of summer offerings across all three campuses, last summer we had 27,668 students taking courses at U of T.

The University of Toronto plans to continue to expand its summer enrolments and further support year-round learning opportunities for our students. Our faculty and researchers hire as many summer students as their funding allows and the University of Toronto is self-funding the much-lamented Government of Ontario’s Work Study program which was cancelled in the last provincial budget.

We do note the following caveats regarding summer term operations. The majority of university space (90%), including libraries, study space, research laboratories, offices, administrative space, etc., is utilized by universities year-round. This is particularly pertinent to the University’s St. George campus, which is more graduate- and research-intensive than the newer east and west campuses. Second, course enrolments and academic conference traffic together mean that, even in summer, the vast majority of formal classroom space is utilized to near capacity. Third, expanding summer learning options also comes with notable additional costs, most obviously in additional faculty and staff and in installing and/or operating cooling systems. In that regard, our experience has shown that to achieve greater efficiencies and cost savings depends on how the summer programming is designed. This experience is consistent with an Educational Advisory Board study in the US that found a discontinuous relationship between enrolments and cost savings from trimesterization. Similarly, a University of Waterloo study concluded that running summer courses to accommodate co-op students resulted in an increase of about 18% for instructional costs.

It may well be that, per the proposal above, universities and colleges can share best practices in the realm of trimesterization and efficient summer use of facilities.

Questions: “What are the competencies that you expect graduates of our institutions to have and how do you measure whether they have been acquired? How heavy a weight could learning outcomes have in a renewed funding formula?”

Ontario universities are strongly committed to excellence in teaching and learning, including rigorous measurement and assessment. To this end, universities have made the assessment of learning outcomes the backbone of the new Quality Assurance Framework. The extent of these activities and their relevance, both as regards general learning and discipline-specific elements, is sometimes overlooked as one hears or reads ‘horror stories’ about the numbers of US students who, on the basis of one or other standardized test, show little or no progress from 1st to 4th year. We believe that all partners in the sector, including institutions and government, could do a better job at communicating how learning outcomes are formally incorporated into the design, teaching, evaluation and quality assurance of undergraduate education.

It is also relevant to focus these efforts where they may add some value. For example, University of Toronto is a world leader in the evaluation of learning outcomes in health science students through the use of simulation labs and Objective Structured Clinical Examinations [OSCEs]. Most of those programs are externally accredited, as is also the case with Engineering among other professional schools outside the health sphere.

As to more standardized measures, a vast amount of thought over many years has gone into some of the common goals of a fine undergraduate education. This brief submission affords no space to debate what should or should not be in this basket of degree-related desiderata. Rather, we would simply highlight again that, even if one assumes that available generic instruments are accurate and precise at measuring what they purport to measure, the full range of confounding variables needs to be considered. Discipline-specific instruments in non-accredited programs have the advantage of a narrower focus for assessment, but their marginal value may be limited in a system with appropriate quality oversight. Feasibility is also a challenge. The Ontario Collegiate Learning Assessment [CLA] pilot project was limited by weak student participation and illustrated the limited potential for adopting the CLA in Ontario.

As an alternative approach, U of T is currently in discussions with HEQCO about a different type of learning outcomes instrument. The survey-based instrument under development would represent a rigorous and innovative new approach to the assessment of broad learning outcomes; it will focus on arts and science programs and disciplines outside of accredited programs.

Longer-term views also matter. In 2012-13, the University of Toronto, along with 12 other Ontario universities, will survey its graduates five years after graduation on the impact of various elements of their educational experience. The survey results will provide valuable feedback on the status, experiences and perspectives of graduates related to learning outcomes.

Meanwhile, what is to be done? Obvious interim possibilities include measures of undergraduate and professional masters degree completion rates. On the other hand, pitfalls abound. We caution, for example, against extension of such measures to the doctoral stream (where there is marked disciplinary variation). Similarly, any use of a simple time-to-degree completion metric for undergraduates must be adjusted to avoid penalizing institutions for admitting students from lower-income households who may need to work part-time.

Questions: “In what ways are learning technologies best used to promote effective learning? How could a degree- and diploma-granting Ontario Online Institute interface with existing institutions?”

Learning technologies offer a range of new ways to connect with students and other members of the public. In utilizing learning technologies, institutions consider factors such as pedagogical objectives; the target audience; the needs of the student; costs; and quality.

Mindful of these factors, the University of Toronto continues to expand its suite of online courses and programs. Open.UToronto is the university’s platform for students and members of the community to find, use, create, and share openly licenced content, resources, and courses. Open.UToronto has a growing catalogue of online courses, lectures, and open access sites. We have posted thousands of pages of digital collections, open journals, a research repository, learning objects, and open courseware on this platform.

U of T currently offers 90 for-credit undergraduate and graduate courses online. Through the Online Undergraduate Course Initiative, U of T is increasing the number of online course offerings each year, with a goal of 30 re-designed undergraduate courses within three years. Ten new undergraduate online courses will be piloted in 2012-13. This initiative provides the seed funding, faculty supports, and technical course design resources necessary to ensure that new online course offerings meet the University’s standards with regard to quality and security.

We are also extremely pleased to be part of the Coursera consortium, and are offering five open access courses through this initiative. Within eight weeks after our partnership with Coursera was announced, U of T’s courses already had more than 100,000 registrations.

In addition to the growing suite of online for-credit and open access learning opportunities, the University is rolling out new student services for online delivery. For example, our new ‘Counseline’ initiative offers counselling online and on-site to Arts and Science students by graduate interns in the Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work. The University also offers online health and wellness webinars on a variety of topics related to health, wellness, and healthy coping skills for students.

As is the case for any form of pedagogy, technology-enabled learning can be developed and delivered with varying levels of resources. Online learning in a for-credit context requires significant resources in the development of the course, testing and evaluation instruments, operations and technical support. We caution against the assumption that online learning is necessarily cheaper than other modes of instruction. Instead, our experience has been that online learning can be used as a means to improve quality and responsiveness only when appropriate resources are available.

Last, we observe again that many learners who might benefit from on-line resources will not be in the 18-30 year-old demographic that typically dominates undergraduate and graduate courses. Ontario needs to open up a wide range of PSE opportunities to these individuals who will have difficulty gaining admission to existing institutions. Absent degree- or diploma-granting capabilities for an Open University/College that has a special emphasis on distance/on-line learning, we believe that many of these learners will be stranded.

Questions: “The government is committed to providing new and dedicated support for Ontario’s young entrepreneurs. How can the postsecondary education system contribute to this objective through experiential learning initiatives? What kinds of curricula, programs, or support are needed to increase the labour-market readiness and entrepreneurship capacity of students graduating from Ontario colleges and universities? What lessons can be learned from the apprenticeship programs as we design new experiential learning opportunities for Ontario college and university students?”

As above, it is somewhat puzzling that the Paper focuses on entrepreneurial and experiential learning while ignoring graduate and professional education. And, as regards experiential learning, it adopts a relentlessly instrumental or vocational approach.

That caveat aside, we support the efforts by the Government and sister Ontario institutions in fostering the entrepreneurial spirit of Ontario’s students and graduates. While not every student will want to become an entrepreneur, entrepreneurial thinking drives students to ask questions, take initiative, and seek better answers and solutions. These values are core to the mission of the University of Toronto. And again as emphasized above, U of T believes that both undergraduate and graduate education are enriched by research, and that a culture of innovation is important in every discipline we teach. Successful enterprises depend on people who have not only the requisite knowledge or skills, but creative minds coupled with an innovative outlook.

We accordingly take the position, as with other elements of the Paper, that developing and delivering these programs should be a core part of each institution’s mandate and any financial support should be catalytic, amounting to seed funding.

Meanwhile, the University supports entrepreneurship in a variety of ways. For students we offer highly coveted academic courses and training programs; career resources; and opportunities to connect with seasoned entrepreneurs. For faculty and researchers we provide business incubator facilities, focused training programs and supports. The University and its hospital partners lead Canadian academe in the number of start-ups created – many led by students. To sustain that advantage, U of T has created the Innovations and Partnerships Office [IPO], which works with MaRS and with MaRS Innovation (a group of 14 universities, institutes, and hospitals in downtown Toronto that is sharing resources and expertise to identify and leverage the commercial potential of discoveries made by faculty, staff and students).

Space is already part of the equation. For example, several years ago the chemistry department converted five underused labs into state-of-the-art “pre-incubators” that have already nurtured five spinoff companies; one of these is StemSpec which has 50 employees and manufacturing facilities in Markham. Our students are the primary drivers in these companies and often hold the top leadership positions. These are home-grown jobs that now represent an important sector of employment for our graduates.

Moreover, the University is now setting up additional incubator and innovation space to be named The Banting & Best Centre for Innovation and Entrepreneurship. The Centre already has five successful U of T start-ups (ViveNano, 1 Degree Bio, Syletta, BioAspect and Bionym) as tenants and also houses our Innovations and Partnerships Office, Mitacs, Techna (from the University Health Network), and the Center for Commercialization of Regenerative Medicine. Students will be mentored through programs run by the BEST-IOS (Building Entrepreneurs in Science & Technology) group lead by chemistry professor Cynthia Goh, herself a veteran of three start-ups; activities include a three-week summer boot camp in “technopreneurship” with participation by recent graduates from across the province.

Last, Toronto is also home to a growing suite of educational programs designed to nurture the next generation of entrepreneurial leaders in Canada. The MaRS convergence centre offers “Entrepreneurship 101.” These weekly seminars cover topics such as how to make an effective pitch to potential investors or create a sales strategy. More than 1,800 people – many of whom are U of T faculty and students – take part in these sessions each year. We are now moving in partnership with MaRS to develop this into a course that will receive credit in our downtown Faculty of Arts and Science.

As to work-integrated learning opportunities, the University offers these through its co-op programs, Professional Experience Year programs, and other programs that include internships/practicum components. Just over 1,500 undergraduate students per year (1570 in 2011-12) are enrolled in co-op programs at UTSC. Students employed by local and international companies gain up to 12 months of industry experience relevant to their undergraduate degrees.

The oldest and largest paid internship program in Canada, the Professional Experience Year [PEY] provides over 600 computer science, engineering, business and pharmacology students (665 in 2011-12) with a year of valuable industry experience. Over 80 other academic programs at the University of Toronto include internships/practicum components. These programs range from term internships in the Master of Global Affairs program to the 160-hour practicum for the MScCH in Public Health Sciences.

The University of Toronto also offers opportunities for students to earn credit through experiential opportunities in community settings. Each year thousands of U of T undergraduate students connect with community organizations in co-curricular service placements organized by the Centre for Community Partnerships. Participating organizations gain students’ expertise while students learn to apply theory to real-world settings. Work placements range from developing educational materials for the Kidney Transplant Network to designing music programs for the disabled.

In brief, these are now part of our core mission. We expect it is very much the same at sister institutions. Thus, so long as the definition of experiential learning is broad enough to include activities such as research or community placements in the non-profit sector, we believe this field of institutional activity is moving forward well.

The ribbon-cutting ceremony was attended by Munk School students and faculty, as well as a number of distinguished guests, including: His Excellency Dr. Leonel A. Fernández Reyna, Former President of the Dominican Republic, The Honourable John Baird, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ms Judy Goldring, Vice-Chair of the University`s Governing Council, and Peter and Melanie Munk.

From the U of T News: http://news.utoronto.ca/munk-school-global-affairs-officially-opens-newly-restored-315-bloor-st-west-location

2011 OSAP default rates, which pertain to students who last received Ontario Student Loans in 2008-09, are summarized below, with a comparison to the rates in the previous two years.

The average default rate for universities has decreased by 0.1% compared to 2010 and is at its lowest level to date, well below both the provincial average and the 25% default rate threshold at which institutions are expected to share the cost of the defaults. The default rate decreased for 11 universities, increased for nine, and stayed the same for three.

I recall that, in past years, the up-and-down changes have been modest and more or less random with, as expected, more statistical chatter in smaller institutions.  What is clear in any case is that the trends are encouraging for the University sector, and the Ontario Tuition Grant should sustain or even accelerate that those trends in 2012-13.

A Global University for a Multicultural Metropolis

This is an energizing season when we welcome thousands of new and returning students to another academic year.

Only a handful of universities in the world can rival the variety of the University of Toronto’s academic programs, and the array of outstanding scholars, staff, and facilities that support them. However, our greatest and most enduring strength remains the quality of our students.

Here’s one measure: Few if any universities in the world can match the cultural diversity of our student population. The array of traditions, customs, histories, and perspectives represented on our three campuses is exhilarating.

This year, our first-year undergraduate students come from 111 countries and over 900 municipalities from around the globe. (And that’s not counting the heritage of students from the Toronto metropolitan region, the world’s most multicultural metropolis.)

To get a sense of this remarkable breadth, the team in my office has geocoded and plotted on a Google Map the hometowns of U of T’s first-year, full-time, undergraduate class. One red bubble per municipality. As you will see, the globe is dotted red. The size of each bubble is proportionate to the number of students from the relevant municipality. (For ease of plotting, and to accommodate the large range in sizes, each bubble is proportionate to the square root of the number of students from the municipality.)

Incidentally, we used to say that the University of Toronto was a local / global institution, better known perhaps in London or Singapore than in Calgary or Halifax. One glance at the map shows that’s no longer true: this year, first-year undergraduate students hail from nearly 300 cities and towns from across Canada.

Below is a static view of North America. Click on the map to link to the full, interactive Google Map – drag the map to tour the globe and see where U of T’s new undergrads come from. (Note: the Google Map is a large file (2MB) and is best viewed with a fast internet connection.)

The President delivered brief remarks at the unveiling.

The plaque reads:

Shortly before the outbreak of the Second World War in September 1939, this fine 1892 house was purchased by the Board of Governors for the University of Toronto Contingent, Canadian Officers Training Corps (COTC). Together with the Drill Hall built that summer, it provided accommodation for a headquarters and other facilities where, during six years of war and the uneasy peace which followed, thousands of University of Toronto students and graduates received their initial officer training before serving Canada overseas and at home.

Erected on 10 September 2012 by the COTC Board of Trustees, with the support of the Ontario Heritage Trust.

The University of Toronto News site has a story and a few photos of the event.

Rear Admiral Bennett, Captain Larke, Professor Desloges, representatives of the Soldiers’ Tower Committee and the Ontario Heritage Trust, ladies and gentlemen.

Thank you for joining us at Woodsworth College today. I am honoured to represent the University of Toronto community on this occasion.

On this date in 1939, Canada declared war on Nazi Germany. Over the course of the war, more than one million Canadians served alongside our allies in the causes of freedom and social justice. Many faculty, staff, students, and graduates of this university served with distinction among them.

By 1945, more than 45,000 Canadians had made the ultimate sacrifice. Among the fallen were 557 of our students and graduates, whose memory is honoured at the Soldiers’ Tower.

And today we honour a very important part of this history, and an era in the life of the University of Toronto. Since 1974, 119 St. George Street has been the home of Woodsworth College. Its significance in the decades before that has been largely unknown to generations of students – and, I expect, to most other members of the community. The plaque to be unveiled today will help make known the prior history of this place. And it will also provide a source of inspiration, a reminder of the foresight and dedication of an earlier generation.

From 1939 to 1968, this house and the former Drill Hall formed the headquarters and training facilities of the University of Toronto Contingent, Canadian Officers Training Corps.

The University’s Board of Governors, as it was then called, purchased the house for the Contingent’s use. At the same time the Contingent paid for the construction of the Drill Hall, using funds accumulated in the inter-war period through members’ signing over their pay. As a result, when war was declared, the University Contingent was, for the first time in its history, housed in adequate, dedicated facilities. And, beginning in those crucial years and extending across three decades, thousands of students and graduates trained here for service at home and abroad.

University buildings exist for the education and formation of leaders. We see that reality today, as the students of this great College prepare to take on the world, and to make a better future. But, as the plaque soon to be unveiled will forever remind us, this site once served to prepare students for leadership in a very different time. Through their service, they helped to make our future possible.

It is well known that J.S. Woodsworth, for whom this College is named, was a pacifist who opposed Canada’s entry into both world wars – not a popular decision for a prominent politician. Many in the House of Commons signalled their respect for his courage and his position even as they disagreed vehemently with it. In that sense, they upheld a tradition of respect for dissent that is at the heart of both democracy and universities.

COTC, meanwhile, is long gone from our campuses. Now, in this troubled world, universities are thinking hard about the nature of our interaction with Canada’s military. For example, some citizens are asking whether students might again be given the opportunity to participate in a different form of military training – one geared to our peace-keeping traditions. The program is described not in terms of officer training, but, more appropriately, as a Canadian National Leadership Program – and I know many here today will be familiar with this effort.

Some, like J.S. Woodsworth, may be critical of the very idea. I will simply say that, just as we honour those who served, those who fell, and those who dissented, so also might we respect the freedom of our students to choose to participate in such a program – or to criticize it vocally.

That freedom to choose, after all, is built on the spirit of service of our COTC contingent. I am proud that such a spirit of service endures here among the students, staff and faculty of Woodsworth, who in their own ways, are doing so much to make this a better world.

In closing, let me say that I am gratified to see the history of the University of Toronto Contingent COTC recognized and made better known through the erecting of this plaque. On behalf of the University community, I offer my thanks and congratulations to all those responsible for today’s milestone.

Check against delivery.

The plaque reads:

119 St. George Street

Erected on 10 September 2012 by the COTC Board of Trustees, with the support of the Ontario Heritage Trust

In this context, the University of Toronto continues to stand out with its multi-dimensional strength. Our international reputation and research footprint remains strong across all the major disciplinary groupings. Nationally, we have had a magical run, with our faculty and students winning a striking number of major awards. We’ve sustained our 2011 record-setting pace with the number of faculty elected as Fellows of the Royal Society of Canada for induction this fall. And our footprint in creativity, knowledge translation, and innovation has grown at a startling pace.

With many big trees in our academic forest, smaller divisions of the University are not always in the sunshine, but their quality is impressive and, in many cases, their broad public impact is enormous. Prominent in this respect is the John H. Daniels Faculty of Architecture, Landscape, and Design (FALD). Its faculty, students, and alumni have quite literally transformed landscapes, institutions, and neighbourhoods across Canada. Lifted by a remarkable benefaction from John H. Daniels (B.Arch, ’50, LLD, ’11) and Myrna Daniels, FALD has been thriving.

This summer, the firm of Williamson Chong Architects, led by Daniels Professor Shane Williamson, has been awarded the Professional Prix de Rome in Architecture for 2012. Other Daniels faculty who have recently received this honour include Mason White in 2010 and Pierre Belanger in 2008. Two recent alumni — Drew Sinclair (M Arch 2007) and Kelly Doran (M Arch 2008) — have also won in the Emerging Practitioner category of the Prix de Rome.

And that is simply the start of what is a dauntingly long list of awards and honours for faculty members. Mason White’s firm Lateral Office/InfraNet Lab was a 2011 recipient of the North American Gold Award for Sustainable Construction from the Holcim Foundation for a project in the high Arctic. Brigitte Shim’s firm Shim-Sutcliffe Architects won both a Governor General’s Medal (one of a half-dozen received by Daniels faculty members in recent years) and an American Institute of Architects award for the stunning Integral House here in Toronto. The all-Daniels firm of Rodolphe el-Khoury, Robert Levit and Steven Fong has recently won two multi-stage, international design competitions — one to create a breathtaking light canopy that will transform Boston’s Copley Square, and another to build a vast Planning Exhibition Hall in Changzhi, China.

Aziza Chaouni, a 2009 recipient of an International Gold Award from the Holcim Foundation, this year received a Progressive Architecture Award for her ecotourism project in Bouarfa, Morocco. Also this year, Dean and Professor Emeritus George Baird was the recipient of the 2012 AIA/ACSA Topaz Medallion for Excellence in Architectural Education (given for lifetime achievement), which follows on his receiving the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada (RAIC) Gold Medal in 2010.

The Faculty’s students and recent graduates have similarly fared well over the last two years. For example, Clara Romero and René Biberstein won the prestigious Ed Bacon Student Design Competition, while Drew Adams, Fadi Masoud, Karen May, Denise Pinto, and Jameson Skaife received a National Urban Design Award for their student project. Przemyslaw Latoszek was recognized with a “Next Generation” Holcim Prize for his thesis project, while Drew Adams and Fadi Masoud won first prize in the Arizona Challenge Competition.

All this is, as noted, an incomplete list of Daniels faculty, students, and alumni who have been formally recognized for their excellence in recent years, both in Canada and internationally. Richard Sommer, Dean of the Daniels Faculty, puts it more succinctly: “When I say, publicly, that over the past few years, our faculty, students, and alumni have won more peer-reviewed awards and prizes than all of the other Canadian schools of architecture and design combined, it is not just hyperbole.”

Among other things, the article expands on a few of the recommendations of the Jenkins Panel that reviewed federal R&D spending in 2010-11. It recaps comments I have made in other contexts regarding the pitfalls in innovation discourse (comments which, I regret to say, bear repeating), and highlights some arguments and policies related to higher education.

If these two totals are more or less accurate, what explains the big per-capita differences? Three potential factors come to mind. First, Canada’s federal-provincial programs of student assistance offer more bursaries than their US counterparts. Second, we have almost no private universities and colleges. And tuitions for Canadian public universities are still markedly lower than their American public counterparts. See, for example, the table below showing our tuition fees for students entering Arts and Science compared to similar fees at peer institutions in the American Association of Universities.

Third, Canada’s high post-secondary participation rates are driven in part by high attendance at community colleges. The US overall not only has more baccalaureates per 1000 population, but has much higher participation in second-entry programs and graduate studies.

While I find these comparisons reassuring, they do not change my earlier recommendation, i.e. that a watching brief on student debt is warranted. I understand that, analytically, it is not straightforward to determine the extent to which indebtedness is affecting career choices. It is even more challenging to determine from a normative standpoint what is fair and unfair as regards the distribution of debt in relation to either student/family incomes or the balance of private and public benefits derived by students in different programs. Given those difficulties, I expect Left-Right debates in this realm will continue to feature competing anecdotes and heated rhetoric. But that does not excuse inactivity. A sound understanding of student indebtedness will help us frame better policy options for both tuition fees and student aid in the current period of public funding restraint, and thereby help ensure that both the quality and accessibility of higher education are protected in hard times.

The main article included some commentary from the executive heads of UBC and McGill as well as this typist. In addition, there was an op-ed about U of T in the same supplement. It’s probably familiar terrain to many members of the U of T community, not least because it drew on bits and pieces from some other short profiles I’ve published about the University. (A drafting credit on this one goes to Mr. David Curtin, an alumnus who has recently come back to the University after a lengthy stint as a writer with the Prime Minister’s Office.)

“A simple statistic says it all. Today, in total research output, the top two universities in the world, in order, are Harvard and Toronto.”

Those of us who work at the University of Toronto are often struck by a paradox. U of T’s academic standing is better appreciated outside of Canada than inside this vast and sometimes fractious federation. Like the Toronto region itself, U of T has become one of Canada’s key gateways to the world. And like U of T, the Toronto region has surprising multi-sectoral strengths that are little known to most Canadians.

Today, our three campuses welcome students from across Canada and scores of other countries to a vibrant and strikingly diverse megalopolis. They include thousands whose parents are first-generation Canadians and more than 9,000 students who have come direct to the Toronto region from all parts of the globe.

In time they will join our alumni community, about 500,000 graduates in more than 170 countries, with concentrations in unexpected places from Hollywood to Hong Kong. There is no continent nor walk of life where Toronto alumni are not in leadership roles.

This global footprint is seen also in the University’s research impact. Professors at the U of T developed insulin and the electron microscope, discovered cosmic black holes and stem cells, reinvented literary criticism, and theorized modern media and the digital age.

Our tradition of responding to global challenges continues today, with Toronto spawning innovations such as earthquake-resistant building materials, micronutrients for malnourished children, and nanoengineered paint to capture solar energy more efficiently. A simple statistic says it all. Today, in total research output, the top two universities in the world, in order, are Harvard and Toronto.

For students, our research strength translates most immediately into strong teaching and mentorship in our graduate and professional programmes. But our faculty members also have a remarkable commitment to undergraduate education.

Among our full-time staff who have won major research distinctions, more than 90 per cent are teaching undergraduates. The U of T community further supports undergraduate education with a range of special first-year programmes, small-group learning arrangements, seminar courses as a counterpoint to large classes in introductory subjects, and research opportunities.

Beyond this, the University of Toronto is one of the very few institutions in the world with the size or the breadth and depth of excellence to make a real difference in addressing complex, global challenges, such as urbanization or healthier human development. This creates a wealth of learning opportunities for our students. It helps them form the creative and critical thinking skills that will enable them to succeed and to make a difference, no matter where they live and work.

U of T students today can choose among three campuses. Our newer and smaller east and west campuses offer students academic excellence, a wonderful sense of community, and 200 hectares of beautiful parklands. Our original campus lies in the heart of downtown Toronto’s Discovery District, surrounded by major academic hospitals, research institutes and the massive MaRS innovation centre. And on all three campuses, our students take part in a vibrant social, cultural and athletic scene.

Like most public universities, we struggle with funding pressures. We cannot offer the deluxe accommodation and silver-spoon attention accorded students at some private universities in the United States. What we do offer is accessible excellence based on merit, a huge range of academic options, and membership in one of the world’s greatest communities of scholarship and learning.

This piece appeared as part of an Information Feature on Academic Excellence in the Globe and Mail on Tuesday, June 26, 2012.

Honorary degrees are awarded to recognize extraordinary achievement in community, national or international service and to honour individuals whose accomplishments are of such excellence that they provide, through example, inspiration and leadership to the graduates of the University

For Dr. Hoffert’s biography, please visit: http://www.convocation.utoronto.ca/graduation/honorary-degree-recipients/paul-hoffert.

And to watch a video of Dr. Hoffert’s address to the graduating class, please visit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RG7iML3-k10.

More information on honorary graduates of the University of Toronto, including links to past graduates, biographies, videos and more can be found in the Honorary Graduate section of The Office of Convocation’s website.

From the Toronto Star: http://www.thestar.com/sports/article/1211714–businessman-lawrence-tanenbaum-receives-honourary-doctor-of-laws

For Dr. Tanenbaum’s biography, please visit: http://www.convocation.utoronto.ca/graduation/honorary-degree-recipients/lawrence-m-tanenbaum-o-c.

And to watch a video of Dr. Tanenbaum’s address to the graduating class, please visit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vp6Z0nIIrVI.

Honorary degrees are awarded to recognize extraordinary achievement in community, national or international service and to honour individuals whose accomplishments are of such excellence that they provide, through example, inspiration and leadership to the graduates of the University.

The chart below shows the relative sizes of UTM and UTSC compared to the largest 80 universities in Canada. (click for a larger version):

The enrolment numbers are the total head-counts (no adjustment for FTE) of undergrad full-time, undergrad part-time, graduate full-time and graduate part-time. The data were acquired from the AUCC website. Only the largest 80 universities that are stand-alone institutions plus UTM, UTSC, and the U of T St. George campus were included.

These numbers reflect the ongoing evolution of the University’s east and west campuses and speak indirectly to their transformation into de facto mid-sized comprehensive universities, with specialized disciplinary strengths in lovely urban-green settings. (The President’s Message in the Spring 2012 issue of the U of T Magazine says more about the recent success and growth at UTM and UTSC.)

It is perhaps useful to reflect briefly on the history of our east and west campuses.

Erindale and Scarborough were established in the 1960s as exclusively undergraduate colleges with an understanding that both would evolve towards greater autonomy over time. From the start, they have been pedagogical and student life pioneers. (In 1967, Time Magazine profiled then Scarborough College’s advanced campus as “A Satellite Built for TV”!)

Twenty years from their genesis, as President George Connell reported in Renewal 1987, the two colleges had begun to develop graduate studies in different disciplines along with distinctive undergraduate programming. Praising the unique strength of Toronto’s tri-campus model, President Connell wrote:

By drawing on the University and its departments, the two suburban campuses have strengths they would not have achieved as independent institutions. At the same time, the University as a whole is stronger because of their faculty and students, their innovations and their potential. (p.21)

Today, the word ‘suburban’ clearly no longer fits. Mississauga is the sixth largest municipality in Canada and the region of Scarborough is an integral part of the City of Toronto itself. Nevertheless, President Connell’s comment remains both an interesting signpost and an apt description of the University of Toronto’s unique three campus model.

Further discussion of this theme can be found in my Synthesis report from the Towards 2030 planning initiative (see, for example, Chapter 2) and in the Provost’s recent and excellent Towards 2030: The View from 2012.