The research revenue attracted from private sector sources metric sets targets in dollars for research revenue attracted from the private sector. The source will be the Canadian Association of University Business Officers (CAUBO) annual report. As with the other research metric, the target settings process is simply a rolling average… Read More »Innovation: Research Revenue Attracted From Private Sector Sources
This metric is active from the first year of SMA3 and measures an aggregate of the institution’s funding received from the three federal research granting agencies: Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research—the Tri-Agencies. The data are provided… Read More »SMA3 Metric: Research Funding and Capacity: Federal Tri-Agency Funding Secured
The institution-specific economic impact metric by itself is more like the differentiated contracts associated with SMA2 than all but the institutional strength/focus. As with institutional strength/focus this metric is another example of how SMA3 blends all three of Adam’s (2020) PBF program types, with this metric being the second contractual… Read More »SMA3 Metric: Institution-Specific (Economic Impact)
Strategy 1: Grow enrollment year over year to match or exceed the local population growth
Strategy 2: Be located/relocate to a local population that is in decline
Strategy 3: Maintain enrollment levels, start a campaign to drive the local population to move elsewhere
As initially introduced in the SMA3 template, each institution SMA3 includes a paragraph in the skills and job outcomes section that gives some preliminary information about the skills and competencies metric: For the skills and competencies metric being initiated for performance-based funding in 2022–23, the Ministry of Colleges and Universities… Read More »SMA3 Metric: Skills and Competencies
This metric begins to answer the question how differentiated is each Ontario university, according to each university? Because each institution nominates its own area of strength, while the data source and proportion of enrolment measure are consistent, this metric begins to provide a common differentiation measure in SMA3, where SMA2 mostly provided different measures.
There is evidence to suggest that graduation rate is not an output of a university that is predominantly affected by the student’s experience at the university, rather it is predicted by student backgrounds and experiences that occur before a student even applies to university.
Without the mitigations against anti-access selectivity found in established PBF programs this metric has the potential to do twice the harm to student access goals while being generally redundant to the established graduation rate metric and possibly the similarly untested year 3+ metric graduate employment earnings.