TORONTO, Sept. 18 /CNW/ - Today, 22 Canadian universities were served with official access to information requests from Maclean's. This action follows various announcements made in the past few weeks by all of these universities indicating that they would not make public basic, and previously available, information about their organizations and their student bodies. Over the 15-year history of the annual Maclean's university rankings, the magazine has used this information to complete those rankings and has presented that information to its readers and the Canadian public to help students and parents make informed post-secondary educational decisions.

Maclean's believes the requested information must legally be made available to the public under various provincial access to information laws, known as Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Acts. "As public institutions, universities have the responsibility to make this information publicly available," says Tony Keller, Maclean's managing editor, special projects. "Freedom of Information legislation was created to ensure openness and accountability. I am hopeful that most universities, being institutions that are in favour of openness and the free exchange of ideas, will respect the law and make this information public, as they always have in the past."

Maclean's has asked for the following information in its requests to each of the universities: total first-year undergraduate enrolment in the fall of 2005 and the number of international students and out-of-province students in that group; average entering grades of the undergraduate class that began its studies in the fall of 2005; the "retention rate", which is the percentage of students who began their studies in the fall of 2004 who were still enrolled in the fall of 2005; the percentage of alumni who made a donation to their alma mater over the past five years; the percentage of faculty with Ph.D.s; and the percentage of classes taught by tenured faculty. Among the universities that today received these access to information requests: the University of Toronto, York University, Queen's University, McMaster University, Carleton University, Ryerson University, the University of Ottawa, the University of Windsor, Concordia University, the Université de Montréal, Dalhousie University, the University of Manitoba, the University of Alberta, the University of Calgary, the University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University. Universities in British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia are all subject to provincial Freedom of Information legislation. Maclean's has not filed requests with two universities that have refused to make data public: the University of New Brunswick and the University of Moncton. New Brunswick's Freedom of Information law does not cover universities.

The 2006 Maclean's University Rankings issue will arrive on newsstands across the country starting Nov. 2.

About Maclean's:

Maclean's is Canada's only national weekly current affairs magazine. Maclean's enlightens, engages and entertains 2.9 million readers with strong investigative reporting and exclusive stories from leading journalists in the fields of international affairs, social issues, national politics, business and culture. Visit www.macleans.ca.

For further information: Media contact: Jacqueline Segal, (416) 764-4125, Jacqueline.segal@rci.rogers.com

Maclean's magazine is using provincial freedom of information laws to try to force some schools to participate in its annual survey, which assigns rankings to 47 Canadian universities.

The presidents of 11 universities sent a letter to Maclean's in August saying they would not take part in this year's survey because of concerns about the methodology and validity of some of the measures.

"It is truly hard for us to justify the investment of public funds required to generate customized data for your survey when those data are compiled in ways that we regard as oversimplified and arbitrary," the letter said.

Maclean's responded Monday by serving official access to information requests on 22 Canadian universities in a bid to obtain the data it needs for the survey.

It did not file requests with two other universities that refused to co-operate — the University of New Brunswick and the University of Moncton — because the institutions aren't covered under that province's freedom of information law.

The magazine said it believes universities in other provinces are legally required to make the information public.

"As public institutions, universities have the responsibility to make this information publicly available," said Tony Keller, Maclean's managing editor of special projects.

"Freedom of information legislation was created to ensure openness and accountability," he said. "I am hopeful that most universities, being institutions that are in favour of openness and the free exchange of ideas, will respect the law and make this information public, as they always have in the past."

There was no immediate indication from the universities as to whether they would comply with the requests.

Toronto -- A growing number of universities are refusing to participate in the Maclean's university ranking issue, with six more sending a joint letter to the magazine yesterday.

The letter was signed by the presidents of Brock University, Trent University, University of New Brunswick, Laurentian University, Brandon University and University of Moncton.

Last month, 11 major universities said they would no longer participate, setting the stage for others to drop out.

Trent University is joining other Canadian universities in boycotting the Maclean's annual ranking of post-secondary education institutions.

"Trent will continue to discuss with Maclean's how their survey can be improved, and remains committed to transparency and providing new and improved benchmarking data to parents, students and the public," said Trent University president Bonnie Patterson in her decision. In a letter to Maclean's, Ms Patterson noted there are two main reasons for Trent's withdrawal.

The first is "the methodology used to produce a league table, ranking institutions within three major categories, does not hold up to analytical or statistical scrutiny." Ms Patterson wrote the second reason for Trent's withdrawal is "as numerous competitor, primarily undergraduate institutions in Ontario have indicated they will not be submitting the data requested, the value we receive from being able to benchmark ourselves using some of the more meaningful data elements has eroded."

On Aug. 14. a letter was sent to Maclean's stating that 11 universities, including the University of Toronto, McMaster University and the University of Ottawa, won't participate in the annual Maclean's questionnaire that provides the publication with information for its annual university rankings issue set to hit newstands Nov.2. More recently, other universities, including Trent and Queen's in Kingston, have also opted to withdraw.

Letter to Maclean's Magazine
August 30, 2006

Mr. Tony Keller
Managing Editor, Special Projects
Maclean’s Magazine
One Mount Pleasant Rd.
Toronto, ON M4A 2Y5

Dear Mr. Keller:

After considerable discussion and consideration, Trent University has decided not to participate in the 2006 Maclean’s survey that results in a ranking edition of your magazine. There are two primary reasons for our decision to withdraw. First, as has been pointed out by many members of the sector over a number of years, the methodology used to produce a league table, ranking institutions within three major categories, does not hold up to analytical or statistical scrutiny. Secondly, as numerous competitor primarily undergraduate institutions in Ontario have indicated they will not be submitting the data requested, the value we receive from being able to benchmark ourselves using some of the more meaningful data elements has eroded. More recently, I understand that additional universities across Canada in our category have also withdrawn.

We would welcome the opportunity to participate in a dialogue with our colleagues and Maclean’s on an alternative to the current league tables in order to strengthen the value of the information you provide to prospective students and their families which support their decision making. It would also be important to review the considerable commitment and cost to institutions of submitting data as it is currently requested by Maclean’s.

The methodology used would need to address several of the concerns that have been expressed by the university community. Attached we have reiterated just a few examples of where methodology and league rankings based on your approach raise serious concerns for our institution. We hope you find them useful.

We believe it important to provide useful and accurate information to the public about our institution and indeed Trent will continue to do so by sharing both information and benchmarking data obtained through various other survey instruments on our website and in numerous annual publications.

I have gone on at some length, Tony, to help you and your colleagues understand just some of the challenges we find in the approach taken to the Maclean’s annual ranking. Let me reiterate what I have said to you on the telephone in earlier discussions. Trent University would remain open to participation in future surveys that Maclean’s will conduct once our concerns around your methodological issues in your rankings have been addressed and the workload involved in submitting data as you currently request it is reviewed. I encourage you to enter an open dialogue with colleague universities to address issues that would lead to an outcome mutually acceptable to all parties.

In the meantime, this fall we will be providing stakeholders interested in learning more about Trent University, additional information about our institution’s performance. Along with data sets developed in concert with Ontario universities, the public will have indicators from which to understand Trent’s performance and that of other institutions in this province. It is our belief that this approach will better inform students, their parents and the public about why they should consider joining and supporting our University community.

Yours truly,

Bonnie M. Patterson
President and Vice Chancellor

Example Concerns Regarding Maclean’s Methodology and Approach to Rankings

1. In the student body section of the ranking you rate the quality of new intakes by assuming all primarily undergraduate Universities have a homogenous distribution of intakes in programs of study. For example, in the 2004-05 academic year, a comparator primarily undergraduate institution had more than 30% of its new intakes in professional based programs, while Trent University had only 12% of its new intakes enrolled in those same professional based disciplines as defined by your magazine. As a result of enrolment limitations in these professional programs, universities are able to raise their admission standards and thus increase the quality of their intakes with entering grade point averages above 75%. This makes institutional benchmarking on grade point averages misleading to prospective students trying to assess the academic value and reputation of each University based on overall student composition.

2. Issues exist around the methodology used to assess University finances and expenditures per weighted full-time equivalent enrolment. As you are already aware, Trent University and other Ontario Universities have had to accommodate the double cohort in this province, thus reducing our operating expenses per student and adversely impacting our rankings due to economy of operation. Meanwhile, institutions outside of Ontario did not experience the same surge in enrolment that Trent and all other Ontario Universities have experienced over the past three academic years, thus their rankings have not been impacted adversely.

3. Methodology concerns centre around evaluating the quality of faculty research. Your ranking on faculty research performance only counts research awards from the federal government’s granting council agencies. As you are already aware, Research Infosource Inc. ranked Trent University for the third year in a row as number one in the Primarily Undergraduate research category. Their rankings are based on a variety of factors – half of the points awarded are based on financial indicators such as total sponsored research income, research income per full-time faculty position and research income per full-time graduate student. The remaining points were awarded based on the number of publications per full-time faculty member. Your methodology at best captures less than half of the research activity on campus. Using additional factors such as externally funded research from the private sector, the provincial government and graduate students allows a more accurate perspective on the research performance of our university.

4. A final concern is about the weighting system used in your methodology to generate Trent’s ranking as a tool to measure the overall experience that Trent University offers its students. By assigning weights in the various categories used in your methodology your magazine has developed an assessment tool to rank our University against others as an output measure of the student learning experience. However, should one view the results from the 2006 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), one would find that students attending Trent think highly of their learning experiences. Data provides evidence of a strong supporting campus environment designed to help students achieve their ultimate goal of attaining a University degree. For example, from this instrument we have learned that our students are more engaged in their learning experiences than those at Ontario universities.