It's a question that shouldn't be considered lightly. As tuition continues to increase, students expect that the value of their learning experience will increase alongside it. Over the lifetime of the current framework, tuition has increased by 35% but the value we are receiving in the classroom hasn't kept pace. Many classrooms lack basic technology needed for projectors, professors aren't given the tools needed to move away from chalkboards and overheads and the system is struggling to find new ways to teach increasingly large numbers of students. We have the capacity to do better, and the cost for the value of our education is good. However, as students see tuition increase, we have not seen our experience measurably improve. This is why OUSA's priority is undoubtedly the betterment of the classroom experience.

A large part of our conversation was taken up by the concept of differentiation, whether that's specializing in a program area, or research vs. teaching. It can be argued that institutions should focus on what they do really well, and limit themselves to just that. The panel appeared to agree that a greater degree of differentiation in the system was required, for a wide variety of reasons. As HEQCO wisely points out in the introduction of their paper on differentiation, universities could be differentiated in a number of ways. Horizontal differentiation across program strengths, vertical differentiation according to research and graduate focus, or even broader institutional missions could all be considered in a process of differentiation. Students' frustration with the debate on greater differentiation is not with the idea itself; greater differentiation could potentially bring more clarity to a system that perhaps has become too singularly focused on research-oriented objectives. However, as was witnessed on the panel last week, how to differentiate universities is a subject of great disagreement, largely due to its potential to create winners and losers. While this political discussion takes place, students are worried that opportunities to improve teaching quality system-wide will be overlooked.

Simple, low-cost initiatives like faculty professional development could improve teaching quality in a differentiated or non-differentiated system. Giving our professors the opportunity to enhance their teaching skills will ultimately create benefits that are far reaching and have tangible effects on the students that wish to compete in the future knowledge economy. Professional development could be to help faculty adjust to large classrooms, or to facilitate new and innovative teaching styles. The latter is particularly exciting.

I believe that the perfect balance of teaching and research coupled with experiential education and forms of self-directed learning are tools that have the capacity to enhance critical thinking skills, and ultimately create global citizens. The concept of experiential education in the classroom isn't new, but is widely under-utilized. At McMaster, there are many classes that have implemented this unique learning style, for example there is a fourth year Anthropology class called "Anthropology of Infectious Disease" taught by Dr. Ann Herring. It is a capstone experiential education course where each year the class designs, writes, produces and publishes a book of original articles on a topic of infectious disease. They are forced to integrate their academic skills with community partners and leaders. It is a labour intensive class that relies on initiative and self-directed learning all to produce a publication worthy book in ten weeks.

This is the type of education students need to see value for their money. It's not just about getting a good quality education, but a life changing undergraduate experience.

-Alicia Ali
Vice President (Education), McMaster Students Union