Quality assurance and graduate student support

Fred L HallFormer Dean of Graduate Studies at

University of Calgary, 2007-2011McMaster University, 1999-2007

Overview

• Canadian national context for quality assurance

• Quality assurance criteria for graduate programs

• Canadian context for financially supporting graduate students

• Use of quality criteria to assist in funding graduate students in one university

Canadian national context for quality assurance

• Education is the responsibility of the provinces, not of the national government

• Council of Ministers of Education of Canada have agreed on an overall approach that each province follows

• Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada has agreed to principles that universities follow internally

CMEC Procedures for Quality Audit of New Degree Programs

• Review conducted by an independent panel of experts with experience in the discipline being assessed; majority senior academics

• Process includes – a written proposal from the institution,– discussion between panel and proponents, – site visit by panel when necessary, – written report by panel, – response from institution

AUCC’s “Key Characteristics of a Quality Review”

• “The quality assessment process is based on self-evaluation and peer review.

• The process includes, as a fundamental dimension, the involvement of external disciplinary experts.

• The process involves internal and external stakeholders including students, faculty, and the administration of the institution, and may also involve alumni and representatives of the community.”

Key considerations for graduate program quality assurance

• Matters pertaining to the program itself• Resources available for the program• Faculty• Students• Program success indicators

Matters pertaining to the program

• Objectives of the program• Summary of program requirements, and how

these achieve the objectives• Issues raised in prior review (if any), and how

they were addressed• Graduate supervision criteria and plans• Appropriate and effective measures to assess

student achievement

Resources

• Are there sufficient resources to support an excellent graduate program over a continuous period?– Appropriate laboratories, computing facilities,

specialized equipment?– Adequate library facilities on or off campus?– Financial support for graduate students?– Office space for faculty, staff, and graduate

students?

Faculty

• Number of faculty– Full-time and part-time numbers; adjunct

appointments– Commitments to this and other programs (e.g.

undergraduate)• Qualifications and credentials appropriate to

this program• Research and scholarly record– Publications, research funding received

Students

• Is there a critical mass of graduate students to maintain program viability?

• Are the students’ previous records and grades appropriate for admission to this program?

• Numbers on applications, admissions, and registrations.

• Academic awards won by students• Publications by students

Indicators of program success

• Completion rates for students• Times to completion of degree• Attrition rates and times• Job placements of graduates• Awards won by students

U15 graduate student average financial support by year of study,

2009-10

Sources of graduate student support

• Example from University of Calgary, 2009-2010

• Total support to students >$60 million• 3100 students, average support $19,600/ year

Sources of graduate student support

Context at UCalgary

• Roughly half of the university funding goes through FGS to distribute to graduate programs: $6.5 million.

• An allocation scheme was developed that used several of the quality indicators

Indicators• Number of students funded in previous year above– Masters students, value of TA: $7600.– PhD students, $11,500

• Completion rates for most recent 3 entering cohorts at – 4 years for Masters and – 6 years for PhD

• Number of students receiving national awards• Student rating of program on Canadian Graduate and

Professional Student Survey• (Program quality rating from reviews)

Details of calculation

• Multiplied funded student count by average completion rate to get expected graduations from current numbers

• Overweighted PhD numbers by 20%• Added a disciplinary weighting to reflect the

relative availability of external funding to different areas (Social Sciences, Sciences, Medicine)

• Constrained reductions to 10% per year

Benefits of approach

• Clarity about the key criteria for programs• Greatly reduced subjectivity in allocations• Programs now pay attention to completion rates,

and to improving them• Programs began to assist students to apply for

national awards• Incentive to programs to increase the number of

students funded above threshold• Consistency with quality assurance criteria

Further information• Council of Ministers of Education of Canada– http://www.cmec.ca/Publications/Lists/Publications/

Attachments/95/QA-Statement-2007.en.pdf• Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada– http://www.aucc.ca/canadian-universities/quality-

assurance/principles/ • Campus Alberta Quality Council– http://www.caqc.gov.ab.ca/caqc-handbook.aspx

• Ontario Universities Council on Quality Assurance– http://www.cou.on.ca/related-sites/the-ontario-

universities-council-on-quality-assura/pdfs-(1)/quality-assurance-framework---guide-may-2012