What is a modest increase in enrolment?????
10 Students???? 20 Students????

400 less students enrolling in School District 57 and a modest increase at UNBC indicates no growth in this area.

By saying that they're 'expecting' a modest increase means nothing -- it just sounds better than saying they're hoping to have the same number as last year.

As far as the 400 student drop, I look at it as an indication that people are having fewer kids.

It's hard to be able to afford to have more than two kids these days. It's even hard to afford one.

Last year there were about 50,000 less students enrolled in K-12 in BC than there were 6 years previously. That is an indicator of the age structure of the population; a bubble passing through the system. School enrolment is not a reliable indicator of economic well being. In Alberta they are once more concerned that the multitude of jobs which are available for which an education is not absolutely necessary is causing the decline in enrolment in post secondary institutes there.

I would not be worried with less k-12 children but focus on retention of kids grades 9 to 12. The drop out rate is too high (approx 30%) which means fewer kids going to Caladonia and UNBC. Post Secondary Institutes need to work closer with the school district to provide better incentives to our youth!

The reality is that PG's population has been static over a considerable number of years. In the abscence of an overall population trend analysis, I don't think the enrollment figures really indicate anything other than perhaps the demographics in the city are changing. It's just a stat. Without some more in-depth analysis, it's useless.

Now of course, even if PG's growth were to decline, that does not mean that CNC and/or UNBC would see their numbers decline as well. Unlike k-12, CNC and UNBC are reliant on people choosing to attend. With this comes an ability for them to seek students (customers) from outside of PG just like every other post secondary institution in the world does. The fact that their residences are full may indicate that they are doing a decent job in that area.

Their residences were full for the first time in 10 years which would indicate that they have had a problem for 10 years. A modest increase means maybe a few more in residence and a few less from the local population.

Indepth analysis of population growth for both Citys and Schools in the Northern Interior indicate a stagnant ;population, possibley decreasing until 2015.

With Kelowna, Kamloops, and other Universities coming on line in the past few years, there will be less students available for UNBC.

Student numbers from outside BC and from foriegn countries has remained static for at least the last 5 years.

UNBC state that they will have approx 3700 Students, but dont say if this is a Full Time Equivelant number or the total number of students enrolled. Universities are funded by the number of FTE students they have. This figure is arrived at by taking the total number part time students and full time students, and doing a calculation based on the number of courses taken etc which gives you an FTE number. The FTE Number each fall is the number that counts.

As an example Simon Fraser University for the fall of 2007 had approx 25000 full and parttime students,however after the calculation they had 18000 plus FTE students.

UNBC doesnt seem to want to put the FTE number out there.

Palopu is right about the difference between FTE (Full Time Enrol) numbers and all student numbers (FTE + part time). I saw a report earlier that gave an estimate of all FTE numbers in BC universities. In that report, the UNBC FTE numbers were reported lower than last year.

The FTE numbers will become public soon and
if any university is spinning the stats, then it will become clear soon and become a source of embrassment for its media liasion person.

I recall that the UNBC former VP Brunt became very angry when he found out that the statistics office in UNBC did not do its job and report correctly and made this fact public in a meeting with faculties. Subsequently, the lady in charge of statistics was discharged.

Page 14-15 of the following 2007 budget report gives the FTE estimates for all BC universities and colleges (including UNBC and CNC) for the next 3 years:
[url] http://www.mala.ca/EducationalPlanning/KeyDocuments/BudgetLetters/2007BudgetLetter.pdf
[/url]

Institution 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10
CNC 3030 3048 3048
UNBC 3249 3299 3299

According to this budget letter UNBC was expected to increase its 2007/08 estimated FTE by 50 students in 2008/2009.

We don't know what are the actual FTEs for UNBC in 2007/08 and 2008/09 yet, but one expects to be somewhere around 3174 (i.e the actual reported 2006-7 for UNBC). Perhaps Opinion250 can ask UNBC to release this UNBC FTE information to the public next time.

Can we get some real economic indicators for this city such as the change in retail space from 1985 to 2005 plus a change in retail spending in those spaces in constant 2005 dollars? Never see that kind of information. Instead people diddle with useless stats on public education probably because they have some unknown bone to pick with one or the other.

What you call "useless stats", is the means to measure the performance of an institution. Numbers/stats is one of the things that distiguishes intelligent humans from monkeys and other non-intelligent primates.

Currently UNBC is operating under performance and if it continues to do so its funding will be cut. Even the liberals in power have realised this and are making the universities' letter of expectations public to introduce some accountability. BTW the 2008 letter of expectations for UNBC is now public at:

http://www.aved.gov.bc.ca/budget/08_09/unbc_gle.pdf

Page 15-18 provides some very useful
stats about UNBC and its priorities and commitments.

Nowicki. I call them useless from the point of view of measuring the growth of a community. Read the first post in this thread, Palopu's original post where he ties the two together. In his second post he continues to jump to conclusions such as when he says that the residences being full for the first time in 10 years indicates they have had a problem for 10 years. To me it could mean many simpler things such as that there are fewer cheap places to be had in the community and/or that bus service is now better.

The link is to ALL post secondary educational institutions in BC. Read the one from CNC and you will see the tone is the same as UNBC. It is the same for all institutions!! Maybe the government is finally holding them to task.http://www.aved.gov.bc.ca/budget/#universities

Wear an objective hat and you will see much clearer. One of the most valuable lessons taught at most post secondary institutes.

I hope that we discuss the economic situation in PG in another article when it appears in this site. But my main expertise is on higher education and I do think that we in the media have a responsibility to highlight the problems in public institutions and to put the spotlight on UNBC and point to the sources of problems. By illuminating the dark points where the problems are happening.

The problems in UNBC are unique to it and I have not seen another public institution in BC where more than 4 VP and president of it (Poff[?], Blaow, Brunt,Cozzeto,...) have resigned over the past 3 years.

I have not seen another university in BC where the faculty are paid in total of about 1,000,000 Dollars to vote on its faculty agreement ($3000+ each e.g. in 2006). Where was the source of this funding? Did BC government gave money to UNBC for this and if not why the money was spent when UNBC is short of money and laying off people?
The interest of 1000000$ supports the hiring of at least one professor.

I have not seen another institution in which the publicly available report of it accuses it of "bad government" and the rule of "special interest groups" in it (quoted from the report, see 2003 collegilaity report chaired by Dr Poff). What is BC government's view on this report and wasteful lines of spending in UNBC budget? The public has the right to know.

I can go on and on ... but I am concerned that the newly hired VP Dr Dale would become part of this unfortunate trend in UNBC and follow the example of past VP Brunt; and not learning lessons from the past mistakes that the previous VP Brunt committed.

One should give this friendly advice in public to UNBC VP Dr Dale and his newly formed team in UNBC to go and read the 2003 collegility report on UNBC (available from UNBC FA page).

One should also warn Dr Dale that if he makes the past mistakes of his predecessors as his own, he will be questioned about his actions in the public and those mistakes will become his and his legacy and will be highlighted under the light, based on solid evidence and public data and statistics. The legacy of Dale should be different than the controvercial legacy of Jego/Brunt/McGill... in UNBC and the alleged influence of interest groups in UNBC.

If he has already commited mistakes, we hope he backtracks from those mistakes asap before those mistakes comes under spotlight.

UNBC has been put on the public watch and I strongly hope that Dr Dale will not support for (1) discrimination or (2) wasteful spending in UNBC among others, and wish him luck.

The headline talks about orientation at UNBC. If one wishes to take that and the article and apply it to the economics of the region, then one is allowed to do so, even if it is a bit of a segue. One could also talk about the state of the union behind the scenes at UNBC - called growing pains of a young university in my dictionary - and that would be a segue as well. You chose one. Palopu chose another. I chose to repond to Palopu's segue since the other is mired in quicksand and it needs to dry for a while. Some lessons in governance and conflict resolution for all parties would be a good start before anyone makes a major move. End of discussion for me.