1 / 36

CAUBO, 26 June 2007

CAUBO, 26 June 2007. A Demographic Time Bomb?. Business Officers’ Involvement. This is NOT simply an issue for VP academics, recruiters and registrars Input from, and involvement of, business officers is appropriate and vitally needed

mihaly
Download Presentation

CAUBO, 26 June 2007

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CAUBO, 26 June 2007 A Demographic Time Bomb? CAUBO at UPEI

  2. Business Officers’ Involvement • This is NOT simply an issue for VP academics, recruiters and registrars • Input from, and involvement of, business officers is appropriate and vitally needed • Understanding of future enrolment levels must inform building and service plans • Business officers need to influence programming strategy A Demographic Time Bomb?

  3. Population Trends • By far the most dominant group of university students in Canada consists of Canadian undergraduates aged under 25 • We don’t need to guess about their numbers for the next two decades • And for some jurisdictions, the numbers are deeply scary A Demographic Time Bomb?

  4. Population Aged 19 – 24: NF 2006: 100 2011: 88.2 2016: 79.4 2021: 67.6 2026: 60.3 A Demographic Time Bomb?

  5. Population Aged 19 – 24: NB 2006: 100 2011: 96.5 2016: 89.4 2021: 76.5 2026: 69.4 A Demographic Time Bomb?

  6. Population Aged 19 – 24: Sask 2006: 100 2011: 97.3 2016: 88.4 2021: 75.9 2026: 72.3 A Demographic Time Bomb?

  7. Population Aged 19 – 24: NS 2006: 100 2011: 100 2016: 92.4 2021: 80.4 2026: 76.1 A Demographic Time Bomb?

  8. Population Aged 19 – 24: PEI 2006: 100 2011: 99 2016: 91.2 2021: 80.4 2026: 77.5 A Demographic Time Bomb?

  9. Population Aged 19 – 24: Man 2006: 100 2011: 101 2016: 96 2021: 85 2026: 81 A Demographic Time Bomb?

  10. Population Aged 19 – 24: Que 2006: 100 2011: 103.2 2016: 101.1 2021: 87.2 2026: 81.9 A Demographic Time Bomb?

  11. Population Aged 19 – 24: Alta 2006: 100 2011: 100.1 2016: 96.7 2021: 88.2 2026: 86.6 A Demographic Time Bomb?

  12. Population Aged 19 – 24: Ont 2006: 100 2011: 106.6 2016: 109.4 2021: 100 2026: 98.1 A Demographic Time Bomb?

  13. Population Aged 19 – 24: BC 2006: 100 2011: 104.8 2016: 106.4 2021: 102.4 2026: 102.4 A Demographic Time Bomb?

  14. Population Aged 19 – 24: Canada 2006: 100 2011: 103.8 2016: 103.8 2021: 93.3 2026: 91.3 A Demographic Time Bomb?

  15. Participation Rate – the great unknown Enrolment = Cohort size X participation rate We know the cohort size but predict about the participation rate. Remember: all predictions are unreliable, particularly when they are about the future A Demographic Time Bomb?

  16. Possible Futures 1. Participation levels stay the same 2. Participation levels reduce (Doomsday) 3. Participation levels increase (AUCC) A Demographic Time Bomb?

  17. Possibility 1: Participation Levels Unchanged Unless governments accept reduced “efficiency” we will have 27 UPEI-sized universities too many in the year 2026. If we continue building and growing to meet short-term growth, we will have 38 UPEI-sized universities too many in the year 2026. A Demographic Time Bomb?

  18. Possibility 1: Participation rate unchanged – university reaction (a) • Few if any will embrace or plan for reduction in size. • Most will attempt to maintain size, which means increasing market share. But: since selective institutions can maintain intake by reducing entrance requirements, they will automatically increase their market share. Therefore, non-selective institutions will be fighting over a smaller share of a smaller market. A Demographic Time Bomb?

  19. Possibility 1: Participation rate unchanged. University reaction (b) • Universities will significantly increase promotional activities, but this does not increase the size of the market, just the balance of winners and losers • Since the above can’t work for all, price wars will break out – MUN has shown that price reductions work. So business officers in most universities could expect fee reductions and greater promotional costs, as well as a shrinking share of a shrinking market. A Demographic Time Bomb?

  20. Possibility 2: Doomsday Scenario – Participation levels decline Why consider this? • Haven’t participation levels always increased? • Doesn’t the AUCC say it can’t happen? A Demographic Time Bomb?

  21. AUCC: No Worries, Mate The AUCC gives three scenarios for enrolments: all involve an increase in the university participation rate. Remember that AUCC is an advocacy organization. It is in the business of reinforcing government commitment to universities, not advising them to reduce university funding. A Demographic Time Bomb?

  22. Beware of Believing our Rhetoric Our rhetoric: • Every study shows that university graduates have better health, income, employment levels and civic engagement • University participation rate is just 23.1% • Therefore we should aim to increase the participation rate, and it will be relatively easy True? Or a fine example of advocacy-speak A Demographic Time Bomb?

  23. Our Rhetoric (1) • University graduates have better health, income, employment levels and civic engagement - Of course they do. People who gain 70% + in grade 12 will inevitably have better outcomes than those who don’t. A Demographic Time Bomb?

  24. Our Rhetoric (2): Participation Rate AUCC: University participation rate is 23.1% for people 18 – 21. How is it calculated? Find total number of all 18-21 year-olds, and divide by the number in university. So – all those still in school, taking a year off, or who have dropped out, or enter university after 21, or have graduated, are excluded. A Demographic Time Bomb?

  25. Young Adult Participation Rate – a more telling figure Better Definition: the proportion of 24 year-olds who have at some point enrolled at a university in a degree program Canadian YAPR: ~40% (PEI: ~53%) A Demographic Time Bomb?

  26. University YAPR 1950: ~5% (median student: gifted) 1975: ~20% (median student: bright) 2007: ~40% (median student: average ability) A Demographic Time Bomb?

  27. Bachelor Degree Completion Rates (US, 2006) Highly selective: 81.7% Selective: 61.1% Traditional: 45.7% Liberal: 41.2% Open: 42.0% A Demographic Time Bomb?

  28. Degree attainment rate by family income (US, 2006) Top quartile: 72.6% Bottom quartile: 12.3% A Demographic Time Bomb?

  29. Drop-out rate of males from the bottom income quartile 85%? A Demographic Time Bomb?

  30. Reasons why a pro-university culture might change Dropout rates become recognized Reaction to heavy student debt Recognition of the Cote – Allahar thesis Attitudes of boomers replaced by attitudes of boomer-echo Reality of graduate unpreparedness for employment Competition from trades Shortage of employees curtails credentialism A Demographic Time Bomb?

  31. Consequences of the Doomsday Scenario If declining school-leaving cohort is combined with declining participation rate, the consequence for universities is catastrophic. A YAPR of 30%, rather than 40%, would see imply a reduction of 254,000 full-time students in Canada by 2026: 77 too many UPEIs, or 110 if we engage in short-term expansion A Demographic Time Bomb?

  32. Possibility 3: Reasons participation rate may increase • University for their newborn child is now almost a universal aspiration for parents • 90% of grade nine students say they want to go to university • The economy is increasingly knowledge-based • Governments are competing to up the educational ante • Universities may adapt to the 21st century student A Demographic Time Bomb?

  33. Strategy: make sure participation does increase! Main strategy: Attract Social Group C males If males entered university in the same proportions as females, the total intake to university would increase by 20%. How? Not by offering liberal arts and science degrees A Demographic Time Bomb?

  34. BSc Animation Technology BSc Interactive Media BA Sports Marketing BA Adventure Recreation BA Disaster Management BSc Fire Safety BSc Exercise and Nutrition BA Moving Image Production BEng Renewable Energy Bachelor of Coaching Science BA Events Management BEng Pollution Control BA Digitial Arts BA Professional Communication BA Arts Management BA Sports Tourism MSc Mobile Computing Examples of programs to engage the semi-disengaged male A Demographic Time Bomb?

  35. Second Strategy: retention Dramatically increase retention by replacing a curriculum designed in the 1960s for the gifted and bright. Offer: - Enhanced IB-style for the gifted - Current offerings for the bright - Polytechnic-style programs for the normal A Demographic Time Bomb?

  36. Third Strategy: Professional Masters Degrees • With bachelors degrees so commonplace, ambitious graduates need a masters degree to differentiate themselves in the marketplace. • US gives 40 masters degrees to every 100 bachelors degrees • Canada gives 19 masters degrees to every 100 bachelors degrees • (If you run short of students to teach – teach them twice!) A Demographic Time Bomb?

More Related