Connect with us

Economy

What’s behind the explosive growth in Canadian university costs?

Published

8 minute read

From the Macdonald Laurier Institute

By David Clinton for Inside Policy

Dramatic increases in high-end employment costs have been a significant driver of rising university costs.

We’ve probably all seen reports describing out-of-control higher education costs in the United States. An education that in the 1970s could be financed with some savings and a part-time job at the local Burger King will now cost you the equivalent of a down payment on a multi-family investment property.

Those increases are not just the result of regular inflation. When you track US college costs against consumer goods (as the economist Mark J. Perry did), you’ll see that, besides healthcare, rising college-related expenses are unlike anything else.

What changed? The word on the street is that those crazy tuition costs are mostly due to colleges hiring vast armies of non-teaching administrators.

But what about Canadian universities? Back in 2006–07, according to Statistics Canada, across all Canadian universities the average inflation-adjusted cost of one year’s undergraduate tuition was $17,363. Fast forward to 2023–24 – and that same tuition-only cost has now doubled to $34,628.

Note how I referred to those numbers as “costs.” That’s because $34,628 is what you’ll pay if you’re an international student without scholarships. Thanks to government subsidies, Canadians get a big discount. In fact, the average domestic student currently pays only $6,434. But it’s taxpayers who cover the difference.

So, tuition is rising far faster than inflation. But figuring out what’s behind those increases will take some work.

The rise of the university administrator

As the chart shows, since 2001, teaching jobs have dropped from accounting for 17.38 percent of all university positions down to 14.52 percent in 2022. In other words, universities are, proportionally, hiring teaching staff at significantly lower rates than they used to. But please do keep that “proportional” bit in the back of your mind, as we’ll come back to it later.

Source: Statistics Canada/The Audit

However, those numbers don’t tell us who universities are hiring instead of teaching staff. Perhaps they’re building up their food services, security, and custodial crews?

There is at least one identifiable subgroup that’s visibly ballooned: education support services. That North American Industry Classification System category (NAICS Code 6117) includes educational consultants, student exchange program coordinators, testing services, research and development, guidance counsellors, and tutoring and exam preparation services.

Since 2001, the proportion of support services staff in relation to all hires has more than doubled, from 1.06 percent to 2.62 percent. Their absolute numbers across Canada rose from 3,829 to 15,292. (Statistics Canada offers plenty of data and insights on the topics raised in this article. For further investigation, go herehere, and here).

That’s certainly an interesting trend. But an increase of just 1.5 percent isn’t enough to explain the tuition growth we’ve experienced. And I’m also not sure that the “education support services” category maps directly to the class of high-earning administrator they’re talking about in the US. It looks like we could use some more data.

Tracking Salary Changes in Ontario Universities

The year 1996 saw a welcome victory for government transparency when Ontario’s then-Progressive Conservative Premier Mike Harris mandated the annual disclosure of all public sector employees earning more than $100,000. Since that year, the Sunshine List, as it’s popularly known, has grown from just 4,500 names to more than 300,000. However, $100,000 won’t buy you what it once did – especially if you must live in Toronto.

Perhaps we could bring those numbers up to date. Using the Bank of Canada’s inflation calculator, I identified the inflation-adjusted value of 100,000 1996 dollars for 2003 and for 2023. I then identified the individuals on the list who were employed by universities in 2003 and in 2023 and whose salaries were above the inflation-adjusted thresholds. The new thresholds, by the way, were $117,000 for 2003 and $175,000 in 2023.

The first thing that hits you when you see the adjusted data is the explosive growth in hiring. Ontario universities (not including colleges) employed 2,191 individuals earning more than $117,000 in 2003. Twenty years later, the number of employees earning more than $175,000 had ballooned to 8,536. That’s 290 percent growth. The number of people with “dean” in their job description climbed from 195 to 488 during those years. And there are now 6,772 professors on the high earners’ list as opposed to just 1,782 back in 2003.

For context, Statistics Canada tells us that there were 397,776 students enrolled in Ontario universities in 2003 and 579,057 in 2022 (the latest year for which data is available). That’s an increase of 46 percent – which doesn’t justify the 60 percent jump we’ve seen in high-paid deans and the 74 percent increase in similarly high-paid professors.

I think things are starting to come into focus.

Now let’s find out what happened to salaries. Did you know that there’s a strategic management professor who’s earning more than $650,000 annually? And what about that hybrid dean/lecturer who’s pulling in close to $600,000?

Okay… those are probably outliers, and there isn’t much we can learn from them. However, I can tell you that the average university employee in our Sunshine List earned $140,660 back in 2003. Twenty years later, the inflation-adjusted equivalent of that salary would be $211,887. But in the real world – the one that those on the public payroll graciously agree to share with us – the average 2023 university employee on the list earned $220,404. That’s a difference of only 4 percent or so, but that’s after we already accounted for inflation.

Perhaps I can illustrate this another way. The sum of all university salaries above the $117,000 threshold in 2003 was around $308 million. In 2023 dollars, that would equal $464 million. But the actual sum of all 2023 salaries above $175,000 was $1.8 billion (with a “B”)!

So, yes, tuition has doubled since 2006–07. And it seems that dramatic increases in high-end employment costs have been a significant driver. As the taxpayers paying for most of this, there’s a question that we must ask ourselves: has the epic growth in university employment delivered value to Ontario – and to all Canada – at a scale that justifies those costs? In other words, are the students now graduating from Canadian schools equipped to successfully enter a demanding job market, navigate a fractured political environment, and strengthen weakened communities? Recent scenes from campus protests suggest that might not be the case.

David Clinton is the publisher of The Audit (www.theaudit.ca), a journal of data-driven policy analysis. He is also the author of books on data tools, cloud and Linux administration, and IT security.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author

Alberta

Emissions cap threatens Indigenous communities with higher costs, fewer opportunities

Published on

Dale Swampy, founder of the National Coalition of Chiefs. Photograph for Canadian Energy Centre

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Deborah Jaremko

National Coalition of Chiefs founder Dale Swampy says Canada needs a more sustainable strategy for reducing emissions

The head of the National Coalition of Chiefs (NCC) says Ottawa’s proposed oil and gas emissions cap couldn’t come at a worse time for Indigenous communities.

Dale Swampy says the cap threatens the combined prospect of higher costs for fuel and groceries, along with fewer economic opportunities like jobs and revenues from involvement in energy projects.   

“Any small fluctuation in the economy is affected on our communities tenfold because we rely so much on basic necessities. And those are going to be the products that increase in price significantly because of this,” says Swampy, who founded the NCC in 2016 to fight poverty through partnerships with the natural resource sector.

He says that of particular concern is the price of fuel, which will skyrocket under the emissions cap because it will force reduced Canadian oil and gas production.

Analysis by S&P Global found that meeting the cap’s requirements would require a production cut of over one million barrels of oil equivalent per day (boe/d) in 2030, and 2.1 million boe/d in 2035.

“Production gets reduced, and the cost of fuel goes up,” Swampy says.

“Our concern is that everything that has to do with both fuel for transportation and fuel to heat our homes is amplified on First Nation communities because we live in rural Canada. We live in isolated communities, and it costs much more for us to operate our daily lives because we have to travel much further than anybody in a metropolitan area. So, it’s going to impact us greatly.”

Indigenous communities are already stretched financially, he says.

“What you could buy in 2019 terms of meat and produce is almost double now, and even though the inflation rate is trending downwards, we still haven’t gotten over the impact of what it costs for a bag of groceries these days,” Swampy says.

“In our communities, more than half are under the age of 21, so there’s a lot of bigger families out there struggling to just get food on the table.”

The frustrating timing of the cap is that it comes amid a rising tide of Indigenous involvement in Canadian oil and gas. Since 2022, more than 75 Indigenous communities in Alberta and B.C. have agreed to become part owners of energy projects.

Three major projects – the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion, Coastal GasLink Pipeline and LNG Canada export terminal – together have spent more than $11 billion with Indigenous and local businesses.

“We’re at a turning point right now. There’s a real drive towards getting us involved in equity opportunities, employment opportunities, and contracting opportunities,” Swampy says.

“Everybody who didn’t talk to us in the past is coming to our front door and saying, ‘Do you want to work with us?’ It couldn’t come at a worse time when we have this opportunity. The emissions cap is going to reduce the amount of activity, and it’s going to reduce the amount of investment,” he says.

“We’re part of that industry now. We’re entrenched in it now, and we have to support it in order to support our people that work in this industry.”

Economic growth, and more time, is needed to fund development of low emissions energy sources without ruining the economy, he says.

“I think we need more consultation. We’d like to see them go back to the table and try to incorporate more of a sustainable strategy for emission reductions,” Swampy says.

“We’re the only country in the world that’s actually incorporating this type of legislation. Do you think the rest of the world is going to do this type of thing? No, they’re going to eat our lunch. They’re going to replace the production that we give up, they’re going to excel in the economy because of it, and they won’t talk about significant emission reduction initiatives.”

Continue Reading

David Clinton

The Hidden and Tragic Costs of Housing and Immigration Policies

Published on

The Audit

 

 David Clinton

We’ve discussed the housing crisis before. That would include the destabilizing combination of housing availability – in particular a weak supply of new construction – and the immigration-driven population growth.

Parsing all the data can be fun, but we shouldn’t forget the human costs of the crisis. There’s the significant financial strain caused by rising ownership and rental costs, the stress so many experience when desperately searching for somewhere decent to live, and the pressure on businesses struggling to pay workers enough to survive in madly expensive cities.

If Canada doesn’t have the resources to house Canadians, should there be fewer of us?

Well we’ve also discussed the real problems caused by low fertility rates. As they’ve already discovered in low-immigration countries like Japan and South Korea, there’s the issue of who will care for the growing numbers of childless elderly. And who – as working-age populations sharply decline – will sign up for the jobs that are necessary to keep things running.

How much are the insights you discover in The Audit worth to you?

Consider becoming a paid subscriber.

The odds are that we’re only a decade or so behind Japan. Remember how a population’s replacement-level fertility rate is around 2.1 percent? Here’s how Canadian “fertility rates per female” have dropped since 1991:

Output image

Put differently, Canada’s crude birth rate per 1,000 population dropped from 14.4 in 1991, to 8.8 in 2023.

As a nation, we face very difficult constraints.

But there’s another cost to our problems that’s both powerful and personal, and it exists at a place that overlaps both crises. A recent analysis by the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) frames it in terms of suppressed household formation.

Household formation happens when two more more people choose to share a home. As I’ve written previously, there are enormous economic benefits to such arrangements, and the more permanent and stable the better. There’s also plenty of evidence that children raised within stable families have statistically improved economic, educational, and social outcomes.

But if households can’t form, there won’t be a lot of children.

In fact, the PBO projects that population and housing availability numbers point to the suppression of nearly a half a million households in 2030. And that’s incorporating the government’s optimistic assumptions about their new Immigration Levels Plan (ILP) to reduce targets for both permanent and  temporary residents. It also assumes that all 2.8 million non-permanent residents will leave the country when their visas expire. Things will be much worse if either of those assumptions doesn’t work out according to plan.

Think about a half a million suppressed households. That number represents the dreams and life’s goals of at least a million people. Hundreds of thousands of 30-somethings still living in their parents basements. Hundreds of thousands of stable, successful, and socially integrated families that will never exist.

And all that will be largely (although not exclusively) the result of dumb-as-dirt political decisions.

Who says policy doesn’t matter?

How much are the insights you discover in The Audit worth to you?

Consider becoming a paid subscriber.

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Trending

X