Template talk:Post-secondary institutions in Ontario

	Canada portal This template is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
	Ontario portal This template is supported by WikiProject Ontario.
	This template is supported by WikiProject Education in Canada.

Archives:

Discussions from previous templates: Ont Uni · Ont Coll

I just love the discussion you had Nat, on merging the two templates. GreenJoe 16:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Michener

Michener should be on the template; it is most certainly is a post-secondary institution. It is listed on the colleges page of the provincial ministry.[1] It is funded by the provincial government.[2]

It describes itself as:

"... a post-secondary, diploma and certificate granting institution, The Michener Institute is one among a few Ontario universities and colleges responding to the education needs in health care."[3]

Nephron T|C 18:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still not a public college. GreenJoe 19:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we add it, then we also have to add the Academy of Learning, or Everest College. GreenJoe 20:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lets look at your bald assertions:

1."not a public college"

There is a big list of non-public colleges on the template-- not a reason to exclude.
No proof is offered to back-up the claim.

I could not confirm the assertion. "The Michener Institute" does not appear in the private colleges database of the Ministry.[4]

No rebuttal to the reference above about public funding.[5]
The template is called "Ont post-secondary" - it isn't called "Public Ont post-secondary".

2."Everest College and Academy of Learning are not on the template"

Everest College and Academy of Learning aren't mentioned on the ministry web page[6]
This is a non sequitur. This isn't about them.

Nothing you've said is a reason to remove Michener from the template. I added Michener to the Colleges template when it existed and it was on there for the better part of a year until you removed it without stating a reason.[7]

Lets ask a few others that have edited the template. Nephron T|C 02:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it were a public college, it would be listed in the same manner as the others. As for the template name, I didn't name it. I preferred when it was 2 templates, and I may go and be bold enough to change it back. "This isn't about them." - Perhaps not, but it's an example. Nothing you've said is a reason to include it. GreenJoe 02:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it would be better to include. Any case, I solicited three opinions on the question.[8] [9] [10] I'll go with whatever the mob wants... this is Wikipedia-- it isn't a battleground. Nephron T|C 02:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good. GreenJoe 03:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the ministry's page at [11]" There are 24 colleges in Ontario." If you count the colleges with full listings on that page there are 24 and then afterwards there is an "in addition" section which mentions The Michener Institute so it is clear that Michener is not a provincial community college (and they are definitely not an "Institute of Advanced Studies") so they should not be listed as such. However, they are listed on the ministry's page under "in addition", along with several campuses of the University of Guelph that offer post-secondary certificates, and they do receive public funding so they are not the same as a private career college but are some sort of semi-public institution so I'd be included to list them in the colleges template under some sot of "other" line eg "other diploma and certificate granting institution receiving public funding". I'd also like to argue for the retention of the other "other" lines in the post-secondary template as these list institutions that have been given degree-granting authority by the province making them again somewhat different from private career colleges such as the Academy of Learning. Michener grants degrees as well, but in conjunction with a university rather than under their own name, so I don't think they fit into either of the existing "other" categories. The fact that they award post-graduate certificates and a degree in conjunction with an established university also makes them distinct from private career colleges. Also, unlike private career colleges, Michener is a member of the Association of Canadian Community Colleges listed here.

So I suggest creating an "other" category for them under Community Colleges.Reggie Perrin (talk) 18:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the other colleges mentioned at the ministry page in addition to the 24 community colleges are Collège d'Alfred, Kemptville College, and Ridgetown College which are all affiliates (now called "campuses") of the Ontario Agricultural College of the University of Guelph. Reggie Perrin (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a private career college to me and I don't think they should be included in this navigational box. The public funding it gets comes through the Ministry of Health, not the Ministry of Education. They are not among the 24 community colleges recognised by the Ministry of Education. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. I went through their website in great detail, and I honestly couldn't find any evidence either way, but if they were a public institution, it would be easier to find. So by including them, are we going to add every private institution that get's public funding? GreenJoe 21:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Just the ones that are given degree granting powers by the Government of Ontario or the MCTU. nat.utoronto 22:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michener doesn't grant degrees, only diplomas. I suggest you read their website. GreenJoe 22:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But is it a MCTU recognized diploma that they are granting? nat.utoronto 03:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every private career college issues a diploma that the MCTU recognizes. GreenJoe 04:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's valid to list Michener here, but not under the colleges section. I've added a separate section of this template for the four institutions that are mentioned as footnotes on MCTU's colleges page; while they're valid inclusions on the template, they're a separate class of institution from CAATs. Bearcat (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One or two templates?

Redirecting this to the colleges template is inappropriate as that template doesn't list universities or other degree granting institutions. If there is to be a redirection it should be to this template, not the other way around. Reggie Perrin (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd note that this template is only being directly used on two specialist colleges, Dominican University College and Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College. There are also separate templates for colleges and universities, both of which were redirects to this one until earlier today when GreenJoe decided to revert them back to separate templates as he appears to be personally opposed to the idea of merged college/university templates. While certainly ill-advised, the redirect he put in place on this one wasn't inaccurately representing anything, however, as no university-level institution has this template on it anyway.

All that clarified, however, I'm of the opinion that there should be one post-secondary template per province, listing both colleges and universities. As I also noted in the BC dispute, Wikipedia now has the capability to hide sections of a template that aren't relevant, so there's no longer any need for multiple templates when we can simply do one template for both colleges and universities and then hide the section that doesn't belong on any given article. I also can't find any evidence that GreenJoe, apart from his own personal preferences, has ever actually initiated a discussion anywhere to build any sort of consensus for how these templates should or shouldn't be organized. Bearcat (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As seen from my creation of this template, I am for the one template. The reason why is due to the fact that there was previously no possibility for private degree granting institutions established through an act of the legislature (i.e. Redeemer University College and Tyndale University College and Seminary) to be listed on the {{Ont Uni}} template as GreenJoe had been reverting any contributions that have done so. This template allows for the inclusion on those articles and aids readers to find Ministry of Colleges, Training and Universities/Government of Ontario-recognized institutions. The great thing about Wikipedia now is the introduction and implementation of {{Navbox}}, which allows the readers to hid the navigation menus if they chose to do so, and as such, as Bearcat has stated, there is no longer the need for multiple navigational templates on the issue of ps institutions. nat.utoronto 21:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template is HUGE, and really needs to be broken up into 2 templates. GreenJoe 17:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Specialist institutions

I removed Alfred · Kemptville · Ridgetown because 2 of the 3 simply re-direct to the Ontario Agricultural College. They're all campuses of the larger University of Guelph. If we include them, then we have to include every member college of the University of Toronto, to start. GreenJoe 21:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that move. and actually I was about to do that myself...but anyhoo... Good job GJ. nat.utoronto 21:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dominican University College

Nowhere on the provided website does it say they are publically funded. It only says "getting to know Ontario's universities." It's being challenged, thus an in-line citation is required to satisfy WP:CITE. GreenJoe 23:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All I see at the top of that page is:

"Getting to Know Ontario's Universities Ontario's universities offer many exciting choices for students. You can learn more about each university and its programs by visiting these websites, or by writing or calling for more information." GreenJoe 00:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look here under "How many universities are there?" nat.utoronto 00:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This document suggests it is at least partially publicly-funded, or, specifically: "As a denominational institution, the Dominican University College is not entirely funded by the public purse. Other income sources are tuition fees, the Dominicans of Canada, a College Foundation created in 1982 and different granting agencies." DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well what matters is that the MTCU has stated on its website that "Ontario has 18 publicly funded universities."^[1] with Dominican on that list that the phrase links to. nat.utoronto 03:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The number of universities on that page is greater than 18, however. What does that mean? DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It means Dominican doesn't belong. Or the Ministry made a typo. I'll go with the first. GreenJoe 20:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is also this: http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/general/postsec/degreegauth.html which has a list of links. Under the heading "Degree Authority through an Act of the Legislative Assembly" there are 2 links

and guess where the "Publicly Assisted University" link leads to? The list with the Universities which includes Dominican. Since the Ministry has stated twice (or more) on its website "Publicly Funded/Assisted Universities" that that phrase always leads back to the list that has Dominican on it, I'm going with the ministry made a typo when entering that number on the website. nat.utoronto 14:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Degree Programs Offered under Ministerial Consent

What is the difference between this section and the "Privately Funded Institutions"? Could RCC and CMCC not be moved into the Privately Funded Institutions section? DigitalC (talk) 10:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that these institution are "...either established through an Act of the Legislative Assembly or through a Royal Charter", as stated on the bottom of the degree-granting institution section. nat.utoronto 17:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But does it really matter? Can't we just find a common title and combine them? GreenJoe 17:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does, as these institutions under degree-granting institution section are established and the authority to grant accredited degrees by the crown (through a royal charter or through the royal assent of their respective acts) and that essentially separates them from other institutions listed here. nat.utoronto 18:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. That's the job of the article, not the silly template. We could easily remove the words about how they are established. GreenJoe 19:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does. The fact is the position of those institutions in the case of offering a degree program is non-permanent and could be easily removed at the whims of the Minister, while the private institutions can only have their authority remove through a lengthy legislative process (or quick if the legislature is unanimous, but that would be rare). nat.utoronto 19:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As well, they offer more than one academic degree program (if not all their academic programs end in a degree) unlike those who offer programs under ministerial consent which are often only one or two programs. nat.utoronto 20:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, they are listed differently by the MTCU. nat.utoronto 20:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're being petty, instead of cooperating. GreenJoe 20:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can say the same about you. In fact, from what I have seen, many people other than myself, feel the same way about you because of the overly aggressive way you interact with them. nat.utoronto 20:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Takes one to know one. GreenJoe 20:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Joe, many editors have been very patient with you. All you have done is try to push people around, trying to forcefully conform people to your POV. If you haven't notice Joe, you are the one that hasn't been very cooperative, you are the one that has been uncivil and rude, and you are the one that hasn't been assuming good faith. I know that I have been very patient with you, I have - for the most part - attempted to communicate and start a discussion with you, I have been civil - as one could be - with you, and all I receive in return is total unpleasantness, rudeness, and complete aggressiveness. If you can't see that and attempt to change the way you interact with people, one of these day you are going to piss off the wrong person - I can assure you that person isn't me - but the day you do piss off the wrong person, you are going to regret it. nat.utoronto 20:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're making stuff up to try to support your position. However, we are way off topic for the moment. I suggest we try to get back on topic instead of trading insults. You're the admin, and you're not setting a very good example. For shame. GreenJoe 22:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether I am an admin or not doe not change the fact that you have been uncivil, rude and aggressive. Adminship is not a status, but just a technicality. I am not making things up and I am not trying to insult you, I am just being honest with you. So far you have made couple misconception about wikipedia: (1) 3RR and blocks are not punitive but preventive, and (2) adminship is not a status, but a technicality (admins are just editors with a few more tools). nat.utoronto 22:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To me, as a reader, that doesn't make a difference to me, and that isn't clarified by this template. The template doesn't tell me WHY, even though CMCC & RCC are 1) degree granting institutions and 2) private colleges, they are not under that section.DigitalC (talk) 23:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that it DOES tell "All above institutions are either established through an Act of the Legislative Assembly or through a Royal Charter", however this doesn't explain to the read WHY RCC & CMCC are not in this section. The section titles are misleading, as RCC & CMCC are Degree Granting Institutions, and therefore should fall under that heading - all that would require would be the <small>text be changed to explain that there are other ways that an institution can achieve Degree granting status than by Act or by Royal Charter.DigitalC (talk) 01:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ministerial consent does not involve an act passed through the legislative assembly (forget about royal charters, those are only for institutions that originated prior to confederation - actually, prior to responsible government, I think - Queen's and U of T via King's College). In practice I think that means it's easier to revoke. Also, the degree granting status of both institutions looks to be extremely limited. Reggie Perrin (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Paul University

Is Saint Paul University a private school? It is certainly federated with U Ottawa and is listed on its wikipedia page as being public. I believe it should be deleted from the template altogether, as other university colleges such as those at UWO are not listed.NEPats (talk) 02:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If it's a federated school and not independent, it shouldn't be on the template. Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between a federated school and an affiliate college. A federated school would be like the constituent members of UofU or Laurentian. Affiliate Colleges on the other hand are autonomous institutions which award degrees by virtue of an affiliation agreement with a parent university. I went to one of these and its financing and governance are autonomous from the parent university.

Based on this document these are the ones I think should be included in the template, perhaps as their own category of affiliate colleges. They are certainly publicly funded up to a point in that part of their infrastructure funding comes from the province and their students are OSAP eligible. Furthermore, together these institutions represent tens of thousands of students which is a noteworthy aspect of post-secondary education in ontario

What do you guys think Dowew (talk) 00:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RMC

Royal Military College is covered by provincial legislation, not federal. See also - The Royal Military College of Canada Degrees Act https://www.rmc-cmr.ca/en/college-commandants-office/about-royal-military-college-canada Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]