Mount Royal and Grant MacEwan
A comparison of two distinct educational institutions
When it comes to making comparisons between post-secondary institutions, no two are alike.
Each has its own method of course delivery, particular mix of programs, and unique financial
makeup. Even when programs carry the same name, the actual content can differ. It is this
uniqueness that defines an institution’s character and provides students with choices. In
comparing Mount Royal and Grant MacEwan, there are at least four fundamental areas in which
they differ: program mix, course transferability, funding/financial structure, and operating
environment. The following analysis explores these four areas of difference in greater detail.
Evolution in Program Mix
Over the past ten years, Mount Royal has shifted towards degree-level programming -- less
Diploma and more Applied and Collaborative Degree enrollment. As well, enrollment has
increased in both University Transfer and General Studies although their proportion of total
enrollment has remained about the same (see Figure 1 below and note that 2003/04 is the latest
year for which comparable key performance indicator data is available).
During this same ten-year period, Grant MacEwan has experienced much less change in its
program mix. Applied Degree enrolment was added in 2003/04 representing 3% of the total.
Aside from this development, the same four program types remain but with the University
Transfer proportion increasing at the expense of General Studies and Diplomas. The enrollment
distribution of Grant MacEwan in 2003/04 more closely resembles that of Mount Royal 10 years
prior (1994/95) – mostly University Transfer and Diploma programs and degree-level enrollment
in the range of 39% to 41% (see Figure 1 below).
Figure 1: Mount Royal added Applied and Collaborative Degrees that now represent about one third of
total enrollment. In 2003/04, 41% of Grant MacEwan’s enrollment was in degree-level
programs. Mount Royal had 39% in degree-level enrollment by 1994/95.
Evolution of Mount Royal Program Enrollment
Distribution of FLE by Program Type *
Mount Royal
Grant MacEw an
100%
90%
80%
Degree-level
60%
50%
40%
30%
Degree-level
M RC Univ. Level (2003/04)
70%
GM C Univ. Level (2003/04)
20%
10%
0%
1994-95
1999-00 2003-04 2009-10
Collaborative Degree
Applied Degree
University Transfer
1994-95
1999-00 2003-04
General Studies
Sources: Alberta Advanced Education KPI cube (accessora.mdc); Mount Royal Enrollment
Projections; Grant MacEwan Enrollment Plan 06/07 to 10/11.
Certificate
*
2009-10
Diploma
Excludes A cademic
Upgrading P ro gramming.
1
Mount Royal first offered a Collaborative Degree (Nursing) in 1993, and two Applied Degrees
were later offered in 1995 (Business; Communications). By 2005, Mount Royal offered 13
Applied Degrees plus two Collaborative Degrees. In comparison, Grant MacEwan offered four
Applied Degrees in 2005. Both institutions have expanded their University Transfer enrollment
beyond that of the previous ten years.
Current Program Mix
Given the latest year for which comparable enrollment data is available (2003/04), Mount
Royal’s enrollment mix looks quite different from that of Grant MacEwan. (see Figures 2 & 3
below). About 60% of Grant MacEwan’s enrollment is in Diploma, Certificate, and General
Studies programs, while approximately 79% of Mount Royal’s enrollment is in Applied and
Collaborative Degrees, University Transfer, and General Studies. Although they carry the same
label, the General Studies programs play different roles at each institution. Mount Royal’s
General Studies program, more so than Grant MacEwan’s, serves as a program to allow students
to take university-level courses before deciding on a field of specialization. Grant MacEwan’s
website categorizes its General Studies program as “College Prep” activity for those who
“…don’t meet admission requirements for their program of choice”. Grant MacEwan’s General
Studies program also offers some courses that are transferable to a university.
In 2003/04, 3% of Grant MacEwan’s total enrollment was in Applied Degree programs
compared to 22% of Mount Royal’s. In 2005, the breadth of Applied Degree program choices at
Mount Royal (13) was more than triple that of Grant MacEwan (4). Mount Royal had 10% of its
enrollment in Collaborative Degrees while Grant MacEwan had none.
Figure 2: Including General Studies as course-based university transfer, Mount Royal had
79% of its enrollment in degree-level studies in 2003/04.
Mount Royal Program Enrollment Mix* (FLE)
2003/04
Applied
Degree 22%
Collaborative
Degree 10%
Diploma 17%
University Transfer 27%
Certificate 4%
General
Studies
(Course-level UT 20%)
University Level
Programming
* Excludes Academic Upgrading Programming
Source: Alberta Advanced Education KPI Cube (accessora.mdc)
2
Figure 3: About 41% of Grant MacEwan’s enrollment was in degree-level studies during
2003/04.
Grant MacEwan Program Enrollment Mix* (FLE)
2003/04
Applied Degree
3%
Diploma 40%
Certificate 8%
University Transfer 38%
General
Studies 10%
University Level
Programming
* Excludes Academic Upgrading Programming
Source: Alberta Advanced Education KPI Cube (accessora.mdc)
There are other important differences in program offerings at the two institutions. Unlike Grant
MacEwan, 70% of Mount Royal’s Certificate programs are post-graduate offerings (e.g.
Journalism, Athletic Therapy, and all Nursing programs). The remaining 30% of Mount Royal’s
Certificate programs have admission criteria stating that preference is given to applicants with
post-secondary education and/or related work experience.
Grant MacEwan has chosen to concentrate its focus on two-year Diploma programs, with 33
Diplomas compared to 11 at Mount Royal.
Over the last ten years, joint partnerships between Mount Royal and the Universities of Calgary
and Athabasca have allowed Mount Royal to gain experience in the delivery of full baccalaureate
programs. Mount Royal has offered a Collaborative Bachelor of Nursing Degree since 1993 and
a Collaborative Bachelor of Arts Degree since 2001.
Although both institutions offer Academic Upgrading and ESL courses, Grant MacEwan’s is
classified as credit programming. Mount Royal offers and funds its own Academic Upgrading
activity under the credit-free umbrella. Unlike Mount Royal, Grant MacEwan has also offered
skill training courses in recent years and is now discontinuing this programming.
Future Program Mix
Philosophical and strategic differences between the two institutions have become more
pronounced since the introduction of new legislation to the Post-Secondary Learning Act, Bill
43, which provides the opportunity for Alberta Colleges to award Bachelor Degrees. Grant
MacEwan was granted permission by Advanced Education in June 2005 to confer three Bachelor
Degrees. Although an application has only recently been submitted, it is clear that Mount Royal
has spent more than a decade in a gradual and measured transformation towards university-level
3
programming. Mount Royal has clearly stated its intention to grant degrees that are nationally
recognized through the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC) so that
graduates will not be limited in their employment and graduate school options.
Figure 4: Approximately 84% of Mount Royal enrollment will be in degree-level
programming by 2010.
Mount Royal Program Enrollment Mix (FLE)
2009/10
General Studies
, 7%
Baccalaureate,
Collaborative &
Applied
Degrees , 77%
Certificate, 4%
Diploma, 12%
University Level Programming
So urce: M o unt Ro yal Enro llment P ro jectio ns
Figure 5: Grant MacEwan’s enrollment plan estimates that about 65% of Grant
MacEwan’s enrollment will be in degree-level programming by 2010.
Grant MacEwan Program Enrollment Mix* (FLE)
2009/10
General
Studies, 7%
Certificate, 7%
Diploma, 28%
University
Transfer,
Applied &
Baccalaureate
Degrees, 58%
University Level Programming
So urce: Grant M acEwan enro llment plan 06/07 to 10/11
*
Excludes A cademic Upgrading
4
Course Transferability
When it comes to transferability and mobility for its students, Mount Royal has worked to
increase the number of transfer courses and articulation agreements. Over 800 of Mount Royal’s
courses are accepted by other Alberta post-secondary institutions, more than any other Alberta
institution. In 2003/04, Mount Royal had 236 more transfer courses, and 1,193 more transfer
agreements, than Grant MacEwan (see Table 1 below).
Table 1:
In 2003/04, Mount Royal had 236 more transfer courses and 1,193 more transfer
agreements than Grant MacEwan.
Transfer Courses 2003/04
Mount Royal
Grant MacEwan
833
597
# Courses Accepted by 1 Receiving Institution
178
186
# Courses Accepted by 2 Receiving Institutions
81
61
# Courses Accepted by 3 Receiving Institutions
94
43
# Courses Accepted by >3 Receiving Institutions
480
307
3,322
2,129
# Transfer Courses
# Transfer Agreements
Source: Alberta Advanced Education, KPI Cube 2003/04 (accessora.mdc)
Revenue Sources and Expenses (2003/04)
Both institutions operate with government grants at 41% of total revenue. Base operating grants
are of similar magnitude but this is where the similarity ends. Each institution receives certain
specific funding according to priorities of either the institution or of government.
Table 2:
Revenues, expenditures, and enrollments are a function of each institution’s
unique program mix.
Revenue, Expenditure, and
Enrollment (2003-04)
Total Revenue
Mount Royal
Grant MacEwan
$122,327,075
$127,464,854
$49,892,826
$54,248,820
$42,495,573
$43,786,389
Access
$5,646,499
$7,336,140
Other Government Funding
$1,750,754
$3,126,291
41%
41%
7,751
10,409
$6,437
$5,212
$10,312
$9,473
Grants
Base Operating
Grants as % of Total Revenue
FLE
Total Grant per FLE
Cost per FLE
Source: Alberta Advanced Education FIRS Cube 2003/04 (revenue.mdc)
5
In 2003/04, Grant MacEwan’s government grant was $1,225/FLE lower than that of Mount
Royal, however, their program cost was also lower by $839/FLE (see Table 2 above). Less
expensive programs require less revenue to operate.
Mount Royal’s credit program cost per FLE is higher because it offers programs that are more
expensive to deliver. For example, Aviation and Broadcasting Diplomas require very specialized
and costly equipment and facilities.
Credit program cost is a function of credit program mix. Academic Upgrading is a considerably
less expensive type of programming that is offered at both institutions; however, it is not part of
credit activity at Mount Royal. At Grant MacEwan, Academic Upgrading is credit activity and,
as a result, it is added to the count of credit FLE enrollment. Because it is one of the least
expensive types of credit program offered at Grant MacEwan (see Table 5), while also being one of
the largest programs, it has the effect of lowering the institution’s average cost per FLE. A lower
cost per FLE in turn suggests that less revenue per FLE is required to run the program.
By contrast, at Mount Royal, Academic Upgrading is non-credit activity that is not governmentfunded and does not affect the total FLE, cost per FLE, nor grant per FLE indicators.
Academic Upgrading activity at Grant MacEwan is integrated into their credit business model.
Attempts to compare Mount Royal and Grant MacEwan by simply removing associated FLE,
cost, and grant amounts from indicator calculations would be misleading.
In the case of credit tuition and related fees, Mount Royal operates at almost 28% of operating
expenses compared to 30% at Grant MacEwan, the maximum allowable limit set by the
government. Grant MacEwan’s tuition revenue per FLE was about $160 less than Mount
Royal’s in 2003/04. This is also directly related to Mount Royal offering programs that are more
expensive to deliver.
Table 3:
Grant MacEwan is closer to the tuition fee cap than Mount Royal, but receives less credit
tuition revenue per FLE.
Mount Royal
Grant MacEwan
Credit Tuition & Related Fees
$29,609,553
$38,090,441
Programs Subject to TFP
$23,922,255
$29,242,061
Tuition Fee Compliance (% of Operating Expenses)
27.6%
30.0%
Credit Tuition and Related Fees per FLE
$3,820
$3,659
Source: Alberta Advanced Education FIRS Cube (revenue.mdc) and Tuition Fee Compliance Cube
2003/04
Another notable difference is in the amount of revenue generated from Community or Non-credit
activity. In 2003/04, Mount Royal generated twice as much total revenue ($16 million, or $613
per student) compared to Grant MacEwan ($7.9 million, or $406 per student). Most of this
difference is attributable to the number of students served and the nature of the courses and
6
programs offered (e.g. type, duration). Academic Upgrading revenue at Mount Royal is included
in the credit-free revenue category, while it falls under credit revenue at Grant MacEwan.
Table 4: Mount Royal generates twice as much non-credit revenue as Grant MacEwan.
2003/04
Mount Royal
Non-Credit Revenue
Non-Credit Headcount
Non-Credit Revenue per Student
Grant MacEwan
$15,792,159
$7,867,444
25,776
19,369
$613
$406
Source: Mount Royal College Trends at a Glance, August 2005, Alberta Advanced
Education FIRS Cube (revenue.mdc) 2003/04, Grant MacEwan Quick Facts,
November 2005.
It is difficult to compare institutions on a program-by-program basis due to variances in intake
cohort sizes, pedagogy, and equipment expense; however, program costs per FLE at Mount
Royal are highest in Aviation and Broadcasting, two programs which Grant MacEwan does not
offer. A side-by-side comparison of cost per FLE by program type demonstrates the difficulty in
making across-the-board comparisons. The most notable difference appears in the area of PostBasic Certificate costs, where delivery of specialized training in Nursing occurs.
Table 5:
Overall, Mount Royal offers programs that are more costly to deliver. Program cost
per FLE varies widely between the two institutions. Academic Upgrading is one of
Grant MacEwan’s least costly credit programs.
Cost per FLE Comparison by Program Type
Certificate
Mount Royal
Grant MacEwan
$9,027
$9,635
$15,374
$9,619
$9,653
$11,543
$11,537
$10,891
$9,176
$7,129
Academic Upgrading
-
$7,179
Skill Training
-
$13,693
University Transfer
$10,883
$8,950
All Program Types - Cost per FLE
$10,312
$9,470
Certificate - Post-Basic
Applied Degree
Diploma
General Studies
Source: Alberta Advanced Education KPI Cube 2003/04 (Tuition Fee Compliance Cube)
7
The Operating Environment: Regional Access Issues
Approximately 80% of the enrollment in each institution originates from the city in which the
institution is located (83% for Grant MacEwan and 79% for Mount Royal). In 2003, Calgary
institutions (47,000 FLE) serviced almost 8,000 less FLE than Edmonton institutions (55,000
FLE). To put this into perspective, this number represents an institution the size of Mount
Royal. Calgary post-secondary institutions serviced 508 FLE per 10,000 population, 314 less
FLE per 10,000 population than that serviced by Edmonton institutions.
Table 6:
Calgary services about 8,000 fewer FLE than
does Edmonton (314 less FLE per 10,000 of
population)
City
Population
FLE
FLE
/10,000
2003
2003
2003
Calgary
922,315
46,882
508
Edmonton
666,104
54,805
823
Difference
256,211
-7,923
-314
Source: Alberta Municipal Affairs, Local Government
Services Division, Municipal Services Branch,
2003 Official Population List; Alberta Advanced
Education KPI Cube (accessora.mdc)
Each institution receives approximately three applications for each quota spot available, yet
Mount Royal has been able to grow its enrollment by only 19% between 1999/00 and 2003/04
compared to 33% for Grant MacEwan.
Table 7:
Supply has not kept pace with demand at either
institution, however, it is much more pronounced at
Mount Royal.
FLE Growth
1999/00
2003/04
% Growth
Grant MacEwan
7,851
10,416
33%
Mount Royal
6,518
7,751
19%
Note: Grant MacEwan incorporated Alberta College enrollment
during this period.
Source: Mount Royal College Trends at a Glance, August 2005,
Grant MacEwan Quick Facts, November 2005.
Supply has not kept pace with demand at either institution, however, it is much more pronounced
in Calgary, and at Mount Royal.
Mount Royal is poised to increase accessibility and to provide students with more opportunity to
obtain a Bachelor Degree credential. The Alberta Government is responding to the post
secondary accessibility issue in this province by providing increased funding to institutions to
allow for more spaces. Every institution needs to be funded based on standard criteria. At the
same time, institutions should be individually recognized for the specific contributions they each
make to programming within a particular market and operating environment.
8
Sources:
Alberta Advanced Education KPI Cubes, 2003/04
Alberta Advanced Education FIRS Cubes, 2003/04
Grant MacEwan College, Quick Facts & 5 Year Trends, November 2005
Grant MacEwan College, Course Calendar, 2004/05
Grant MacEwan Enrollment Growth Plan 2006/07 to 2010/11
Mount Royal College Trends at Glance, August 2005
Mount Royal Enrollment Projections, 2005
Alberta Municipal Affairs, Local Government Services, Municipal Services Branch, 2003 Official Population List
9