ERIC ED499849: The Affordability of University Education: A Perspective from Both Sides of the 49th Parallel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was conducted to better understand the relative affordability of public university education in Canada and the United States. The report was written to answer two key questions: (1) How does access to university education in Canada compare to access in the US? and (2) How affordable is the Canadian university system compared to the American system? Data confirm that, although Canada and the US have similar high school graduation rates and post-secondary participation rates, the US sends a greater percentage of students to university-level education than does Canada. Tuition, fees, and the total cost of attendance are lower in Canada; however, American university students receive 30 percent more grant aid as Canadian students and they have access to significantly more loan aid. The report offers three main recommendations for governmental and non-governmental policy analysts and researchers to consider: (1) Policies of aid and cost at Canadian universities; (2) Increased data and research capacity; and (3) Educational quality. The report concludes that steps must be taken to make university education more affordable for all students and families, especially those who are historically underserved at that level. The following are appended: (1) Data Tables; (2) Major Program Descriptions; (3) Data Sources; and (4) Treatment of Fiscal Data. (Contains 19 footnotes and 33 figures.) [Abstract modified to meet ERIC guidelines. This report was produced by the Educational Policy Institute (EPI) and was supported by the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation.]
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".