That Elusive Quality
Sweatpants and a B average are good enough for U of M students — why not for the U of M?
CARSON JEREMA STAFF/
I like this university. I really do, and not just because a B average is included with your tuition. No, I like the people, the atmosphere, the hours spent boring others with my philosophical musings, the abundance of coffee, and four dollar pizzas at the Green House café. But most of all I like the U of M, because like Winnipeg, it is my home. Where else does one feel comfortable trotting around in sweatpants and a horribly unkempt beard?
But the U of M — like Winnipeg and the province in general — is cursed with an undeniable inferiority complex. Not only do we feel it necessary to sell ourselves to the rest of Canada but we need to prove our worth to ourselves as well. This is evident with the notoriously irritating “Spirited Energy” campaign that was recently launched by the province. And of course, we are all familiar with the Winnipeg Free Press and the Winnipeg Sun’s incessant insistence that Winnipeg is a hip place to be: “Did you know that J.Lo once smiled at some guy on Portage and Main? We’re not making this up!”
Our politicians might be forgiven for pandering to this need to feel that we don’t live in some suburban wasteland inhabited only by those who are stuck here. But we should expect more from our institutions of higher learning. Disappointedly, the U of M advertising campaign that, for example, featured the slogan “at the centre of it all” is just another example of where perceived inferiority meets scandalous over-compensation.
This drive to prove that we are not some god-forsaken backwater in the middle of an icy concrete hell is perhaps nowhere more evident than the ongoing feud the U of M has been having with Maclean’s over its annual university rankings. The U of M has consistently ranked low and has been dead last for the past two years in the medical-doctoral university category.
The rebel presidents
Recently, the U of M and 10 other universities have sent a letter to Tony Keller, managing editor of special projects at Maclean’s — saying that they will not be providing data for the magazine to use in its survey. This data includes such statistics as the number of international students and out-of-province students in attendance as well as graduation and retention rates.
The universities have implied that they will post information on their websites so people can compare institutions without the help of Maclean’s. Speaking with Keller, he pointed out that if the universities are going to simply post the information on their websites, then the protest is meaningless as Maclean’s will be able to access the information quite readily. But, if the universities are going to simply prevent the information from becoming public then there is something wrong with them.
Either way, choosing to opt out of participation in the survey is clearly a symbolic gesture intended to draw the public’s attention to what the rebelling university administrators consider to be questionable methods of research and design.
They question how Maclean’s aggregates its data, arguing that simply adding the scores for variables such as information related to the “student body, faculty, finances, library and reputation” is not satisfactory. In their letter to Keller, the 11 university presidents refuted this method of ranking by using the example of a general hospital:
“Consider how such an approach might pervert one’s understanding of a general hospital that is ranked number one in obstetrics and number 10 in cancer care. Averaging these rankings would result in this hospital being ranked number 5 overall. For the patient seeking care in one of those areas, such a measure would be useless at best and misleading at worst.”
U of M president Emöke Szathmáry has perhaps been one of the Maclean’s rankings’ most persistent critics. In an opinion article in the Winnipeg Free Press last year, she passionately — and convincingly I might add — defended the quality of research and teaching done at the U of M, as well as indicting the magazine’s ranking methods. She criticized the reliance of the rankings on reputation surveys that are mailed out across the country, asking Canadians to rank 47 Canadian universities — 16 per cent of the final ranking is calculated from this survey.
She writes: “I am not satisfied with this approach, simply because most people — including me — know nothing about many institutions that participate (I do not know have an informed opinion about the University of Cape Breton, for example, nor even of Nipissing University, and how many people know where St. Thomas University is?).”
She also points out that of the reputational surveys sent out only 11 per cent were returned in 2005 and defends the U of M’s practice of admitting students with low high school averages, which the university gets dinged for every year by Maclean’s.
The universities are not wrong to criticize Maclean’s and I do not intend to defend the magazine, but the decision to opt out is a bit uninspired and to be perfectly honest, childish.
The fact that included in the 10 universities choosing not to participate in the rankings are the bottom five in the medical-doctoral category (McMaster, Dalhousie, Ottawa, Calgary and Manitoba), the University of Lethbridge (13th in the primarily undergraduate category) not to mention the University of Toronto that was dethroned by McGill after years of being ranked first alone (last year, they were tied), makes it a little difficult to take the protest seriously.
Not fooling anyone
In a sense, the Maclean’s rankings — especially when considering the question of entrance grades — are little more than a comparison of nightclubs. At the top of the list you have the cool and trendy New York club where not looking the part is enough to keep you out. At the bottom is Coyote’s where any shlub with a shirt and shoes can get in. Who are they to turn away paying customers?
The problem with the U of M — with its ballooning advertising budget aimed at improving its reputation — is that it is your local dance bar trying to sell itself as the hip new mouse trap; it is a cup of Tim Hortons coffee masquerading as premium Columbian brew. Unfortunately, like most imitations, everyone can tell the difference.
The reality is that the U of M is a good school and the Maclean’s rankings that deem it un-hip have not hurt enrollment rates — which have been rising across the country in recent years and from which the U of M has greatly benefited. Just because we don’t top the cool chart doesn’t mean we are not a good quality institution. And if the U of M really wanted to be like McGill or Waterloo, it would have to raise entrance requirements, hire more tenuretrack professors, hike tuition, and quite frankly move the entire university to a more temperate climate.
We should just accept that we are the dorky younger brother that just can’t seem to get a date but is really sensitive (why else would we admit everyone with two feet and heartbeat?). Because in the end being cool is just as fleeting, as I’m sure the U of T will tell you, as being at the top of some silly list.
