Funding University Education in Ontario Profile_____10 University Funding _____17 Loan and Influence...
Transcript of Funding University Education in Ontario Profile_____10 University Funding _____17 Loan and Influence...
Funding UniversityEducation in OntarioOntario University Applicant SurveyTM Report
Funding UniversityEducation in OntarioOntario University Applicant SurveyTM Report
Prepared by Acumen Research Group
February 2006
Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation
Published in 2006 by
The Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation
1000 Sherbrooke Street West, Suite 800, Montreal, QC, Canada H3A 3R2
Toll Free: 1-877-786-3999
Fax: (514) 985-5987
Web: www.millenniumscholarships.ca
Email: [email protected]
National Library of Canada Cataloguing in Publication
Acumen Research Group
Funding University Education in Ontario
Ontario University Applicant Survey™ Report
Number 26
Includes bibliographical references.
1704-8435 Millennium Research Series (Online)
Layout Design: Charlton + Company Design Group
The opinions expressed in this research document are those of the authors and do not represent official policies of the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation, and other agencies or organizations that may have provided support, financial or otherwise, for this project.
Foreword _____________________________________________________________i
Introduction __________________________________________________________1
Methodology __________________________________________________________2Procedure_______________________________________________________________________________________________________2
Sample _________________________________________________________________________________________________________2
Instrument______________________________________________________________________________________________________3
Background Information _________________________________________________4Demographic Profile _____________________________________________________________________________________________4
Equal Access Issues ______________________________________________________________________________________________8
Education-Related Profile________________________________________________________________________________________10
University Funding ____________________________________________________17Loan and Funding Information___________________________________________________________________________________17
Influence of Finances on University Selection ______________________________________________________________________28
Savings for University ___________________________________________________________________________________________29
Funding Sources for First Year of University ________________________________________________________________________42
Executive Summary ____________________________________________________47Background Information ________________________________________________________________________________________47
University Funding _____________________________________________________________________________________________48
Concluding Remarks____________________________________________________50
Appendices __________________________________________________________51Appendix A: Questionnaire ______________________________________________________________________________________52
Appendix B: Invitation and Reminder E-Mails______________________________________________________________________61
Appendix C: Regional Definitions _________________________________________________________________________________63
Appendix D: Income Breakdowns_________________________________________________________________________________65
Appendix E: Aboriginal Status Cross-Tabs__________________________________________________________________________66
Appendix F: Disability Status Cross-Tabs __________________________________________________________________________69
Appendix G: Visible Minority Status Cross-Tabs ____________________________________________________________________72
Appendix H: Additional University Funding Cross-Tabs _____________________________________________________________75
Table of Contents
In its seventh year, the University Applicant Survey™ (UAS™) continues to address the needs of a variety of
clients and to grow in order to better meet those needs. This year’s survey marked an important development:
the first Special Edition version of the survey. The Special Edition UAS™ is an online survey accessible to a
sample of 10,000 randomly selected applicants to Ontario universities. Acumen Research developed the ques-
tionnaire in consultation with its three corporate clients.
Corporate Clients and Sponsors:
• Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation
• Travel CUTS
• VIA Rail Canada.
Once again, we wish to thank the Ontario Universities’ Application Centre (OUAC)—without its help this
study would not be possible. The OUAC distributed the email invitations (with an embedded survey link) and
ensured the anonymity of all respondents.
We would also like to acknowledge the valuable prizes donated by VIA Rail Canada, Travel CUTS and
Acumen Research. No doubt, without such powerful inducements to participate, the response rate would have
been much lower.
i
Foreword
1
Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation Questions
This year’s UAS™ builds on the learning of the pre-
vious seven years. This final report provides the
Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation with
results from the following questions of the 2004
version of the survey:
• Background information (Q1 to Q13)
• University costs and funding (Q22 to Q67).
See Appendix A for a copy of the survey.
Introduction
“Education is also the key to success in Canadian society—it is a tried and true means to opening
the doors of opportunity.”
“Higher education is, therefore, at once a social good, a personal opportunity and an economic invest-
ment. We have an obligation to make sure it is genuinely accessible to ever-growing numbers.”
— Bob Rae
This short excerpt from a paper by former Ontario
premier Bob Rae1 accurately captures the principle
objective of the Special Edition UAS™. This unique
study, funded by the Canada Millennium Scholarship
Foundation, provides a direct pipeline to the needs,
attitudes, beliefs and behaviour of applicants to
Ontario universities.
This report examines applicants’ knowledge of
funding sources, their saving habits, the amount of
savings they have accumulated, their use of
resources and their preferred means of receiving
information about post-secondary education and
funding. It also analyzes differences by region,
household income, gender and so on. These findings
should help policy-makers better understand the
impact such factors have on access to higher edu-
cation in Canada.
Notably, the UAS™ was administered online
for the first time in 2004. The new format was more
efficient and did not reduce the response rate, which
continues to be around 27%.
1. “Post-Secondary Review—A Message from Bob Rae,” Rae Commission Discussion Paper (2004).
2
Procedure
Acumen Research programmed the email invitation
and the survey using our proprietary Survey
Management Software™. The Ontario Universities’
Application Centre (OUAC) selected a random sample
of participants and oversaw the distribution of the
email invitation. The email invitation included a
unique ID and password, along with an embedded
link to the survey. The email invitation was sent on
May 5, 2004, a reminder email was sent on May 17,
2004, and the survey was taken down on May 20, 2004.
Please refer to Appendix B for copies of the invitation
and reminder emails.
Twenty-five prizes were offered as participation
incentives. The first prize was a Toshiba laptop
computer; second prize was one of two $1,000 travel
vouchers provided by Travel CUTS; and third prize
was one of two VIA Rail Canada Weekend Escape
round-trip tickets for two. Twenty VIA Rail $50 travel
vouchers were also offered as prizes.
Sample
This year, the study involved 10,000 participants
randomly selected from a total population of
approximately 115,000 applicants (at the time of the
survey) seeking admission to an Ontario university
in 2004. Having chosen the sample, it was determined
that 280 were Francophones, and these individuals
were emailed French versions of the invitation
and questionnaire.
Of the 10,000 email invitations sent, 350 were
returned with an “email address unknown” message.
Of the remaining 9,650 possible respondents, 2,626
completed the survey, for an overall response rate of
27% and a confidence interval of plus or minus 1.9%
(at the 95% confidence level). More specifically:
• Of the 9,415 email invitations received by
Anglophone applicants, 2,577 were returned, for a
response rate of 27.4%.
• Of the 235 email invitations received by Franco-
phone applicants, 49 were returned, for a response
rate of 20.8%.
Methodology
Figure 1.1a — Respondents by Region, 2003
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
20.2
36.2
14.5
16.8
6.6
4.0
Eastern Canada
Eastern Ontario
Central Ontario
Metro Toronto
Northern Ontario
Western Canada
SW Ontario
Eastern Canada
Eastern Ontario
Central Ontario
Metro Toronto
Northern Ontario
Western Canada
SW Ontario
Figure 1.1b — Respondents by Region, 2004
3.5
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
22.8
13.4
14.7
4.5
6.5
34.6
M E T H O D O LO G Y 3
As seen in Figure 1.1b, 90% of 2004 participants
were residing in Ontario at the time of applying to
university. Within Ontario, approximately 35% of
the respondents are from Central Ontario, 23% from
Metro Toronto, 15% from Southwestern Ontario and
13% from Eastern Ontario. Applicants living east
of Ontario comprise 3.5% of the sample, while
participants west of Ontario comprise 6.5% of the
sample. This distribution is very similar to that found
in the 2003 UAS™ (Figure 1.1a). Complete break-
downs of participants by geographic area, as well as
regional definitions, are provided in Appendix C.
Instrument
Acumen Research designed the questionnaire in
consultation with the aforementioned corporate
clients. The questionnaire included 78 questions
(many of which had sub-items), divided into four
main sections:
• Background information documents the
demographic and academic characteristics of
respondents.
• Travel issues was designed for VIA Rail Canada
and Travel CUTS to elicit information about
students’ predicted travel plans and modal use.
• University funding was designed for clients in the
financial services sector, including the Canada
Millennium Scholarship Foundation, to provide
ongoing information concerning funding issues
and saving patterns among university applicants.
• Concept testing was designed to gather input
into a proposed program aimed at improving
post-secondary career planning among high
school students.
As the UAS™ Special Edition was conducted
online and previous surveys were paper-based, it is
wise to treat comparisons to previous data with
caution. The impact of the change in methodology
on longitudinal trend data is difficult to determine.
This section provides an overview of sample charac-
teristics and demographic information gathered
from Questions 1 through 13 of the questionnaire
(see Appendix B). This information is divided into
three sub-sections:
• Demographic profile
• Equal access issues
• Education-related profile.
Please note that findings reported in the tables and
graphs refer to all respondents, both Anglophone and
Francophone. Findings specific to the Francophone
sub-sample are reported independently only when
there are noteworthy differences between the two
groups. Please also note that findings specific to
Francophone participants are based on a small group
of respondents (n=49).
Demographic Profile
Gender and First Language
The overall sample is made up of approximately 62%
female and 38% male respondents. This distribution
is fairly consistent with the results in the three pre-
ceding versions of the UAS™: 66% female and
34% male in 2003, 61% female and 39% male in 2002
and 65% female and 35% male in 2001. There are
49 Francophone participants, representing 2% of the
total sample (compared to 3% in 2002). The gender
split among French respondents (67% female and 33%
male) is relatively close to that of the overall sample.
Table 2.1 provides further details.
Statistics from the Ontario Universities’ Appli-
cation Centre (OUAC) reveal that the female/male
ratio in the UAS™ sample is quite similar to that
4
Background Information
Table 2.1 — Gender and Language of Participants
Female Count
Row%
Male Count
Row%
Total Count
Row%
English
1,592
98%
985
98%
2,577
98%
French
33
2%
16
2%
49
2%
Total
1,625
100%
1,001
100%
2,626
100%
Applicants’ First Language
of the total applicant population. Of the original
10,000-applicant sample drawn in May 2004, 57%
were female and 43% were male.
Age
In terms of age, the 2004 applicant pool is quite
different from that of 2003 (Figure 2.1a and 2.1b). As
one might expect, a fair number of students who were
in a position to apply to university in 2003 postponed
their application in order to avoid the admissions
logjam caused by the double cohort. Last year, 78% of
applicants were aged 18 or less, but this year only 54%
of applicants are aged 18 or less. Similarly, 40% of 2004
applicants are between the ages of 19 and 24,
compared to only 20% last year.
Once again, population statistics provided by
OUAC reveal that the age breakdown of the sample
is very similar to that of the general applicant popu-
lation (Table 2.2).
Family Composition
Respondents were asked to indicate their marital
status. Not surprisingly, 93% of respondents are single;
3% are married; 1% have a common-law spouse; and
3% indicated some other, unspecified status.
As in previous years, respondents were also asked
to indicate the number of dependants they have. In
2004, 2% of respondents reported having dependent
children; this is similar to the 3% reported in 2003.
5B A C K G R O U N D I N F O R M AT I O N
Figure 2.1a — Age of Applicants, 2004
17 or less
18 19 20–24 25–29 30+
40%
50%
60%
30%
20%
10%
0%
52.7
3.2 3.2
20.3 19.2
17 or less
18 19 20–24 25–29 30+
Figure 2.1b — Age of Applicants, 2003
40%
50%
30%
20%
10%
0%
32.2
14.3
6.1
45.7
Table 2.2 — Age Breakdown Comparison
Age Group
17 or less
18
19
20–24
25–29
30 or more
2004 UAS™
1.4%
52.7%
20.3%
19.2%
3.2%
3.2%
General ApplicantPopulation
1.3%
47.7%
20.8%
23.3%
3.8%
3.2%
As seen in Table 2.3, among the 64 respondents with
dependent children, 47% have one child, 31% have
two children and 22% have more than two children.
Approximately 31% of respondents with children
identified themselves as single parents.
Three per cent of all respondents reported being
responsible for a dependent adult—that is, an adult
who requires their financial aid or support and with
whom they reside.
Employment Status
Figures 2.2a and 2.2b show the employment status
by gender for applicants in both 2003 and 2004.
Females continue to be slightly more likely to be
employed than males. In keeping with the older
average age of 2004 applicants, the proportion of
respondents working full-time in 2004 is double the
amount reported in 2003.
Household Income
For the purposes of the report, total annual household
income was divided into five income brackets, plus
“don’t know” responses. The categories are as follows:
less than $29,999, $30,000 to $49,999, $50,000 to
$89,999, $90,000 to $119,999 and $120,000 or more.
The original income groupings are reported in
Appendix D.
Figure 2.3 shows that the highest proportion of
respondents fall into the lowest income group
($29,999 per year or less). Respondents in the $50,000
to $89,999 household income category represent the
next highest proportion (20%). Those with household
incomes of $90,000 or more constitute 16% of the
sample. About 21% of respondents reported that they
did not know their household income.
F U N D I N G U N I V E R S I TY E D U C AT I O N I N O N TA R I O6
Table 2.3 — Number of Dependent Children
Valid One
Two
Three or more
Total
Missing None
Total
Frequency
30
20
14
64
2,561
2,626
Per Cent
1.1
0.8
0.5
2.4
97.5
100.0
CumulativePercentage
46.9
78.1
100.0
Valid Percentage
46.9
31.3
21.9
100.0
Part-time Full-time Not Employed
Figure 2.2a — Employment Status by Gender, 2003
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
FemaleMale
Gender59.5
50.5
5.9 6.1
34.643.3
Part-time Full-time Not Employed
Figure 2.2b — Employment Status by Gender, 2004
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
FemaleMale
Gender
47.3
13.0 12.2
34.140.5
52.9
Table 2.4 displays longitudinal trends in the total
household income of Ontario university applicants.
In 2004, there was a large increase in the proportion
of respondents with an annual household income of
less than $20,000, with a corresponding decrease in
the proportion of applicants whose households
bring in more than $50,000 per annum. This change
can largely be attributed to the older average age of
the survey sample this year, compared to last year
(Figure 2.4).
7B A C K G R O U N D I N F O R M AT I O N
< $29,999
$30,000–$49,999
$50,000–$89,999
$90,000–$119,999
Don’t Know
$120,000 +
Figure 2.3 — Household Income
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
11.7
7.6
20.2
31.8
20.5
8.2
Table 2.4 — Household Income by Survey Year
Less than $20,000
$20,000–$29,999
Low
$30,000–$49,999
$50,000–$89,999
$90,000–$119,999
Middle
> $120,000
Upper
Don’t know
2000
12%
6%
18%
14%
24%
11%
49%
8%
8%
25%
100%
2001
16%
6%
22%
13%
25%
11%
49%
7%
8%
21%
100%
2002
8%
6%
14%
13%
26%
12%
51%
11%
11%
24%
100%
2003
8%
6%
14%
13%
29%
14%
56%
11%
11%
18%
100%
2004
27%
5%
32%
11%
20%
8%
39%
8%
8%
21%
100%
Income Group
Less than$30,000
$30,000–$59,999 $60,000–$89,999 $90,000–$119,999 $120,000+
Figure 2.4 — Household Income by Age
17 or less181920–2425–2930+
Age
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Low
Subtotal
Middle low
Middle
Middle upper
Subtotal
Upper
Subtotal
Total
Equal Access Issues
In order to gain more information about post-
secondary representation of some historically under-
represented demographic groups—i.e., Aboriginal
Peoples, individuals with disabilities and visible
minority groups—the 2002 UAS™ Steering
Committee, which included representation from the
COU’s (Council of Ontario Universities) Standing
Committee on the Status of Women and the
COU’s Standing Committee on Employment and
Educational Equity, devised three new questions for
the 2002 UAS™. These questions have been used
in each subsequent UAS™. It should be noted,
however, that a slight modification was made for the
2004 instrument. In the past, applicants identifying
themselves as an Aboriginal person or a person with
a disability were further asked to specify their
Aboriginal status or the type of disability. As the
numbers in these two groups are typically very small
and such breakdowns were not necessary for this
year’s clients, these follow-up questions were not
asked in the 2004 UAS™.
Aboriginal Status
As was the case last year, 1% of respondents (35 out
of 2,626) indicated they are an Aboriginal person
(Figure 2.5).
Table 2.5 compares key demographic variables
longitudinally between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal
respondents. Please refer to Appendix E for complete
cross-tabulations of these variables. The grade
average of Aboriginal respondents continues to
show improvement from previous years; in 2004,
Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal respondents have
similar grade average breakdowns. As discussed
earlier, there are higher proportions of low-income
households responding to this year’s study, which
likely explains the increase in the proportion of
Aboriginal respondents in households earning
less than $50,000 per year. In both the 2003 and
2004 surveys, Aboriginal applicants are more likely
than non-Aboriginal applicants to come from
lower-income households and less likely than non-
Aboriginal applicants to be employed part-time.
F U N D I N G U N I V E R S I TY E D U C AT I O N I N O N TA R I O8
Figure 2.5 — Aboriginal Status
YesNo
1.3%
98.7%
Table 2.5 — Key Demographic Differences by Survey Year (Aboriginal Status versus Non-Aboriginal Status)
Demographic Variable
Female
Aged 18 or less
Employed part-time
Grade average 70%–79%
Grade average 80%–89%
Grade average 90% or above
Household income below$50,000 per year
2003(N=77)
63%
68%
42%
33%
52%
8%
40%
2004(N=35)
66%
37%
31%
26%
54%
14%
57%
Aboriginal
2003(N=5,273)
66%
78%
57%
24%
54%
19%
27%
2004(N=2,590)
62%
54%
51%
29%
50%
17%
43%
Non-Aboriginal
Disability Status
As shown in Figure 2.6, approximately 3% of all
respondents indicated that they are a person with a
disability. This is similar to the results in 2003 (2%) and
2002 (3%).
Table 2.6 compares key demographic variables
longitudinally between applicants with and without
disabilities. The results should be viewed with caution
due to the small n-size. Please refer to Appendix F for
complete cross-tabulations for these variables.
Table 2.6 indicates that respondents with disabili-
ties are somewhat more likely to report grade averages
of 90% or higher in comparison to their 2003 counter-
parts. Despite this, respondents without a disability
are still more likely than people with disabilities to
report grade averages above 80%.
Visible Minority Status
As shown in Figure 2.7, 28% of respondents (730 out
of 2,626) reported belonging to a visible minority
group. This is also similar to previous results: 28% in
2003 and 33% in 2002.
Of these 730 individuals:
• 224 (31%) are South Asian (24% in 2003)
• 44 (6%) are Arab/West Asian (9% in 2003)
• 20 (3%) are South-East Asian (5% in 2003)
• 85 (12%) are Black (10% in 2003)
• 36 (5%) are Korean (5% in 2003)
• 223 (31%) are Chinese (36% in 2003)
• 35 (5%) are Filipino (4% in 2003)
• 13 (2%) are Japanese (1% in 2003)
• 47 (7%) are “other visible minority” (7% in 2003).
9B A C K G R O U N D I N F O R M AT I O N
Figure 2.6 — Disability Status
YesNo
97.4%
2.6%
Table 2.6 — Key Demographic Differences by Survey Year (Disability Status versus Non-Disability Status)
Demographic Variable
Female
Aged 18 or less
Employed part-time
Grade average below 70%
Grade average 70%–79%
Grade average 80%–89%
Grade average 90% or above
Household income below$50,000 per year
2003(N=118)
52%
72%
55%
2%
40%
50%
9%
19%
2004(N=69)
59%
41%
45%
3%
38%
36%
16%
41%
Disability
2003(N=5,246)
66%
78%
57%
3%
24%
55%
19%
28%
2004(N=1,895)
62%
54%
51%
5%
28%
57%
16%
44%
Non-Disability
Table 2.7 compares key demographic variables
longitudinally between visible minority and non-
visible-minority respondents. In general, respondents
belonging to a visible minority group are less likely
than non-minority respondents to be employed
part-time and to have an annual household income
above $50,000. Please refer to Appendix G for
complete cross-tabulations for these variables.
Education-Related Profile
Applicants’ academic characteristics include:
• Applicant status
• Grade average
• Age when decision was made to attend university
• Grade when first-choice university was chosen.
Applicant Status
Table 2.8 shows respondents’ applicant status at the
time of completing the survey. As expected, the
number of secondary school students applying to uni-
versity decreased from the 2003 double cohort year. As
a result, the proportion of former secondary students
and university transfer students is correspondingly
greater in 2004. The vast majority of applicants (69%)
are still secondary school students, however.
Most Recent Grade Average
Table 2.9 illustrates grade averages reported by
respondents between 2000 and 2004. The grade
average breakdowns are fairly consistent, except for
F U N D I N G U N I V E R S I TY E D U C AT I O N I N O N TA R I O10
Figure 2.7 — Visible Minority Status
YesNo
27.8%
72.2%
Table 2.7 — Key Demographic Differences by Survey Year (Visible Minority versus Non-Visible Minority)
Demographic Variable
Female
Aged 18 or less
Employed part-time
Grade average below 70%
Grade average 70%–79%
Grade average 80%–89%
Grade average 90% or above
Household income below$50,000 per year
2003(N=1,524)
60%
74%
39%
3%
24%
52%
20%
44%
2004(N=730)
54%
37%
36%
7%
29%
48%
17%
50%
Visible Minority
2003(N=3,827)
68%
79%
64%
2%
25%
55%
18%
21%
2004(N=1,895)
65%
54%
56%
4%
29%
51%
16%
41%
Non-Visible Minority
2003, when averages tended to be slightly higher.
This difference was consistent with university
requirements—in response to the double cohort,
universities temporarily raised their cut-off averages
in 2003.
Exploring grade average by gender shows the
continuation of a long-standing trend—namely,
female respondents report slightly higher grade aver-
ages than males (Figure 2.8). Looking at grade average
longitudinally by gender (Table 2.10), it is apparent
that males have been reporting gradually lower grades
since 2001. Female applicants’ grade averages, on
the other hand, have been quite consistent across
the years.
B A C K G R O U N D I N F O R M AT I O N 11
< 60
%
60–6
4%
65–6
9%
70–7
4%
75–7
9%
80–8
4%
85–8
9%
90–9
4%
95%
+
Figure 2.8 — Most Recent Grade Average by Gender
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Female
Male
Gender
Table 2.9 — Most Recent Grade Average by Survey Year
Grade Average
< 65%
65%–69%
70%–74%
< 75%
75%–79%
80%–84%
85%–89%
90%+
90%–94%
95%+
2004
0.7%
3.0%
11.0%
14.7%
17.4%
26.8%
23.5%
16.4%
13.9%
2.6%
2003
0.5%
1.4%
7.6%
9.5%
16.3%
29.6%
25.7%
19.1%
15.8%
3.3%
2002
1.2%
3.0%
10.1%
14.3%
17.8%
27.6%
23.1%
17.2%
14.1%
3.1%
2001
12.9%
18.0%
27.5%
23.1%
18.5%
15.6%
2.9%
2000
15.0%
17.3%
29.3%
22.3%
16.2%
Proportion of Sample
Table 2.8 — Applicant Status
Current Status
Secondary school student
CAAT student
CEGEP student
University transfer student
Former secondary school student
Other
Proportion ofSample (2003)
89%
2%
1%
1%
4%
4%
Proportion ofSample (2004)
69%
5%
1%
8%
10%
6%
Age Applicants Decided to Attend University
Question 3 asked respondents to indicate the age
at which they decided to attend university. In
keeping with previous results, one in three university
applicants had decided to attend university before
they reached the age of 10. Not surprisingly, given the
older age of this year’s applicants, the proportion
making the decision between the ages of 10 and
14 is slightly lower than in the past, while the pro-
portion deciding after 20 is slightly higher (Figures
2.11a and 2.11b).
Female applicants continue to be more likely than
males to decide to attend university at an early age
(Figures 2.12a and 2.12b).
F U N D I N G U N I V E R S I TY E D U C AT I O N I N O N TA R I O12
Table 2.10 — Grade Average by Gender and Survey Year
Males
2004
2003
2002
2001
Females
2004
2003
2002
2001
<75%
19.0%
12.2%
16.1%
14.5%
13.6%
9.6%
13.2%
12.0%
75%–79%
17.6%
16.9%
17.4%
17.3%
17.4%
16.6%
17.9%
18.1%
80%–84%
25.4%
28.9%
25.1%
25.6%
27.7%
30.1%
29.2%
28.6%
85%–89%
21.3%
22.6%
22.8%
21.1%
24.9%
25.6%
23.3%
24.5%
90%–94%
13.6%
15.7%
14.7%
17.6%
14.2%
15.1%
13.7%
14.6%
95% +
3.2%
3.6%
3.9%
4.0%
2.3%
3.0%
2.6%
2.2%
Grade Average
Proportion of Male Respondents
Proportion of Female Respondents
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
< 60% 60–64% 65–69% 70–74% 75–79% 80–84% 85–89% 90–94% 95%+
Figure 2.9 — Grade Average by Income
< $29,999$30,000–$49,999$50,000–$89,999$90,000–$119,999$120,000+Don’t Know
Household Income
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
< 65% 65–69% 70–74% 75–79% 80–84% 85–89% 90–94% 95%+
Figure 2.10 — Grade Average by Age
17 or more181920–2425–2930+
Age
As seen previously, younger applicants tend
to have higher grades and live in higher-income
households. Accordingly, students with high grade
averages and those belonging to high-income house-
holds tend to make their decision about attending
university at a younger age (Figures 2.13b and 2.14b)
than other applicants.
Grade Applicants Decided to Attend TheirFirst-Choice University
Respondents were asked to indicate in what grade
they settled on their “first-choice” university. The
reduction of high school to four years following the
revision of the Ontario secondary curriculum does not
seem to have substantially altered the decision point.
13B A C K G R O U N D I N F O R M AT I O N
40%
10%
20%
30%
0%
Figure 2.11a — Age Decided to Attend University, 2004
<9 years 10–14years
15–19years
20+
6.9
25.7
33.134.2
Figure 2.11b — Age Decided to Attend University, 2003
40%
10%
20%
30%
0%< 9 years 10–14
years15–19years
20+
2.5
25.1
37.834.6
Figure 2.12a — Age Decided to Attend University by Gender, 2004
40%
10%
20%
30%
0%< 9 years 10–14
years15–19years
20+
FemaleMale
Gender29.537.1
32.933.3
31.3
22.3
6.47.3
40%
10%
20%
30%
0%
Figure 2.12b — Age Decided to Attend University by Gender, 2003
<9 years 10–14years
15–19years
20+
FemaleMale
Gender
27.638.3 38.337.5 31.3
21.9
2.8
F U N D I N G U N I V E R S I TY E D U C AT I O N I N O N TA R I O14
That is, the majority of applicants wait until their
last year of high school to select their first-choice
university.
Analysis by age reveals that around 10% of
19-year-old applicants selected their first-choice
university after high school, but most (80%) did so
at a younger age, while still in high school; many
of these individuals likely postponed applying
to university because of the double cohort. Analysis
by grade average reveals little variation in terms
of when applicants decided on their first-
choice university.
Figure 2.13a — Age Decided to Attend University by Grade, 2003
20+15–19 years10–14 years<9 years
Age Decided
0%
80%
100%
40%
60%
20%
<75% 75–79% 80–84% 85–89% 90–94% 95+
39%
4%
35%
21%
33%
38%
27%
26%
41%
31%
21%
38%
41%
37%
16%
45%
26%
9%
61%
Figure 2.13b — Age Decided to Attend University by Grade, 2004
20+15–19 years10–14 years<9 years
Age Decided
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
<75% 75–79% 80–84% 85–89% 90–94% 95+
35%
10%
33%
22%
34%
7%
32%
26%
27%
7%
34%
32%
21%
6%
34%
40%
32%
14%
48%
26%
9%
61%
6%
B A C K G R O U N D I N F O R M AT I O N 15
Figure 2.14a — Age Decided to Attend University by Household Income, 2003
0%
20+15–19 years10–14 years<9 years
Age Decided80%
100%
40%
60%
20%
< $29,999 $30,000–$49,999
$50,000–$89,999
$90,000–$119,999
$120,000+ Don’t Know
30%
8%
30%
32%
30%
39%
28%
24%
42%
33%
20%
40%
38%
36%
17%
47%
36%
28%
34%
Figure 2.14b — Age Decided to Attend University by Household Income, 2004
20+15–19 years10–14 years<9 years
Age Decided80%
100%
40%
60%
20%
0%< $29,999 $30,000
–$49,999$50,000
–$89,999$90,000
–$119,999$120,000+ Don’t Know
29%
10%
32%
29%
28%
13%
28%
31%
24%
5%
36%
34%
21%
34%
39%
31%
15%
52%
35%
26%
36%
Elementary School
Grade 9
Grade 10
Grade 11
OAC
Undecided
Grade 12
Figure 2.15a — When Applicants Selected First-Choice University, 2003
5.0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
33.2
18.6
After High School 4.9
7.8
17.6
6.7
6.2
Elementary School
Grade 9
Grade 10
Grade 11
After High School
Grade 12
Figure 2.15b — When Applicants Selected First-Choice University, 2004
3.6
0% 10% 20% 30% 50%40%
45.7
14.0
Undecided 9.5
15.6
6.9
4.8
F U N D I N G U N I V E R S I TY E D U C AT I O N I N O N TA R I O16
Figure 2.16a — When Applicants Selected First-Choice University by Age
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
ElementarySchool
Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 After HighSchool
Undecided
60%
50% 17 or less181920–2425–2930+
Age
Figure 2.16b — When Applicants Selected First-Choice University by Grade Average
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
60%
50% <75%75–79%80–84%85–89%90–94%95%+
Grade Average
ElementarySchool
Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 After HighSchool
Undecided
This section reports the results of the survey
questions relating to funding. For the 2004 edition of
the UAS™, this includes questions 22 to 37 (please
see Appendix A for a copy of the questionnaire). Select
longitudinal data are included where relevant. The
results are presented under the following headings:
• Loan and funding information
• Influence of finances on university selection
• Savings for university
• Funding sources for university.
Loan and FundingInformation
This sub-section looks at four key areas: applicants’
knowledge of financial aid programs, the helpfulness
of cost and funding information, the need for further
financial information and the preferred means of
receiving financial information.
Knowledge of Financial Aid Programs
On a 4-point scale (1=“not at all,” 2=“very little,”
3=“somewhat” and 4=“very much”), respondents
were asked how knowledgeable they are about
various provincial and national programs that
provide loans, grants, scholarships and bursaries.
These included the Canada Millennium Scholarship
Foundation’s bursaries and excellence awards.
Traditionally, the UAS™ has found that respon-
dents exhibit fairly low levels of knowledge of
financial aid, and this year is no exception. Figure 3.1
indicates that over 50% of applicants have “very
little” or no knowledge at all of available financial aid
programs. Overall, familiarity with provincial loan
and scholarship programs is the highest, followed by
awareness of federal loan programs: approximately
40% of applicants are at least “somewhat” knowledge-
able about these three programs, and roughly one in
10 are “very much” familiar. Applicants are just as
likely to have “very much” knowledge of the Canada
Millennium Scholarship Foundation’s programs as
17
Not At AllVery LittleSomewhatVery Much
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Prov. Loan Program
Prov. Scholarships
Federal Loan Program
CMSF Bursaries
CMSF Excell. Awards
Provincial Bursaries
Canada Study Grants
Figure 3.1 — Knowledge of Student Financial Aid Programs
45.8
35.9
35.3
34.6
28.9
28.6
23.7
35.0
34.2
28.2
28.9
33.2
29.5
31.2
17.1
24.3
24.2
25.7
31.1
30.6
34.5
5.7
12.3
10.8
6.9
11.3
10.7
University Funding
Financial Aid Program
Provincial loan programs
Provincial scholarships
Federal loan programs
Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation bursaries
Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation excellence awards
Provincial bursaries
Canada Study Grants
they are of provincial loans and scholarships;
however, more than one in three people indicated
that they were “not at all” knowledgeable of the
Foundation’s programs.
As in the past, the 2004 mean score ratings for
knowledge of financial aid (based on the above
4-point scale) continue to fall into the “very little”
range (i.e., from 1.50 to 2.49). The mean level
of knowledge regarding loan programs has been
gradually rising since 2002, but familiarity with the
Foundation’s bursaries and excellence awards has
dropped marginally since last year.
The 2004 results confirm last year’s finding that
familiarity with funding programs rises with grade
average and that knowledge of student loan programs
increases as income decreases (Figures 3.2a and .2b).
This suggests that the applicants for whom these
programs are designed are being appropriately
targeted. In Figure 3.2a it is clear that the mean level of
knowledge of provincial scholarships and especially of
the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation’s
programs increases as grade averages reach 90% or
more. Compared to their counterparts, respondents
in households earning less than $90,000 a year are
more familiar with provincial and federal loan
programs (Figure 3.2b). Both grade average and
income have little or no effect upon the knowledge of
provincial bursaries and Canada Study Grants.
F U N D I N G U N I V E R S I TY E D U C AT I O N I N O N TA R I O18
Table 3.1 — Mean Scores for Knowledge of Financial Aid by Survey Year
2000
2.25
2.17
2001
2.19
2.10
2002
2.12
2.05
2003
2.19
2.19
2.12
2.23
2.27
1.99
1.77
2004
2.32
2.25
2.16
2.13
2.13
2.00
1.75
Mean Score (1–4)
Figure 3.2a — Knowledge of Student Financial Aid Programs by Grade Average
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
Prov.Loan
Program
Prov.Scholarships
FederalLoan
Program
MillenniumBursaries
MillenniumExcell.Awards
ProvincialBursaries
Canada StudyGrants
4.0
3.5 <75%75–79%80–84%85–89%90–94%95%+
Grade Average
Analyzing knowledge of financial aid programs by
region reveals that applicants from Northern Ontario
tend to be more familiar with provincial and Canada
Millennium Scholarship Foundation programs than
those in the rest of Canada. Respondents from
Eastern Canada reported notably low levels of
knowledge regarding provincial scholarships.
Given that older applicants typically have lower
household incomes, it is not surprising that average
knowledge of loan programs increases with age. The
opposite is true regarding non-loan sources of
funding, however—familiarity with provincial and
Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation schol-
arships and bursaries tends to decrease with age.
Please see Appendix H for tabulations of these data.
U N I V E R S I TY F U N D I N G 19
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
Prov.Loan
Program
Prov.Scholarships
FederalLoan
Program
MillenniumBursaries
MillenniumExcell.Awards
ProvincialBursaries
Canada StudyGrants
4.0
3.5
Figure 3.2c — Knowledge of Student Financial Aid Programs by Region
Western CanadaNorthern OntarioSW OntarioCentral OntarioMetro TorontoEastern OntarioEastern Canada
Region
Figure 3.2b — Knowledge of Student Financial Aid Programs by Income
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
Prov.Loan
Program
Prov.Scholarships
FederalLoan
Program
MillenniumBursaries
MillenniumExcell.Awards
ProvincialBursaries
Canada StudyGrants
4.0
3.5 < $29,999$30,000–$49,999$50,000–$89,999$90,000–$119,999$120,000+
Household Income
Sources of Cost and Funding Information
Respondents were asked to indicate which sources of
information they used to find out about the costs of
university and funding options and then to rate the
usefulness of those sources which they had used.
Numerous sources were used by well over half
of the sample: 90% discussed the subject with their
friends and parents/relatives; over 80% read uni-
versity publications or talked to a guidance counsellor;
and approximately three-quarters referred to books
and magazines, educational websites or financial
brochures and publications. More than one-half
of applicants obtained information about the cost
and funding of higher education through a liaison
presentation. However, only about one in five appli-
cants visited the CanLearn website.
It is important to note that many of these results
are 10 to 20 percentage points higher than those
reported in previous paper-based versions of the
UAS™. Despite the anomaly, this year’s results can
be considered accurate for several reasons. First, the
online format uses programmed “skip patterns,”
which ensures that respondents indicated whether
or not they had made use of a particular information
source prior to rating its helpfulness. In the paper
survey, respondents did not always follow skip
patterns correctly, sometimes answering the helpful-
ness portion without first specifying if they had used
the source in question.2 Second, while one may
speculate that respondents to an online survey are
more likely to make use of online information
sources, 98% of applicants are now online; also, the
increases were observed across the board, even for
paper and in-person sources of information. Third,
the response rate is the same as in previous years, so
there is no reason to think that the sample is not
representative of this year’s applicant population.
F U N D I N G U N I V E R S I TY E D U C AT I O N I N O N TA R I O20
Figure 3.3 — Use of Cost and Funding Information Sources
% Making Use of Information Source
22.3
72.9
64.6
55.2
73.8
80.6
84.8
90.0
90.8
100%80%20% 40% 60%0%
Parents and Relatives
Friends
Univ. Publications
Guidance Counsellor
Books and Magazines
University Liaison
CanLearn
Other Ed. Websites
Financial Brochures
Ed. Planning CD-ROM 15.6
2. Such responses are ambiguous: that is, if the respondent selected “not at all helpful,” it may be because they didn’t actually use the service or it couldmean that they used it and did not find it helpful. It is impossible to be sure which is correct, but, for the sake of analysis, in past surveys suchresponses were deemed to mean that the applicant had simply not used the source. This year’s instrument eliminates any confusion about the issue.
72
83
72
73
52
42
48
58
4
2
2003Results
21
Analysis by demographic variable reveals the follow-
ing points (see Appendix H for more details):
• Applicants from the highest income group are
less likely to use education-related websites and
financial brochures (Figure 3.4a).
• In general, levels of usage of all sources drop
dramatically with increasing age, except in the
case of education-related websites, the CanLearn
website and educational planning CD-ROMs
(Figure 3.4b).
• Usage levels do not vary tremendously with
grade average; however, university publications
and education-related websites are used some-
what more as average grades increase.
• Aboriginal applicants are significantly less likely
to use financial brochures and publications.
• Francophone applicants generally make more
use of all sources of information except guidance
counsellors.
With respect to measuring helpfulness, a 4-point
rating scale was again provided: 1 (“not at all”), 2 (“very
little”), 3 (“somewhat”) or 4 (“very”). As Figure 3.5
shows, parents and relatives, friends, university
publications and liaison presentations are consid-
ered the most helpful sources of information.
Approximately three-quarters of applicants indi-
cated that these four sources are “somewhat” or
“very” helpful. Over one-half of applicants consider
U N I V E R S I TY F U N D I N G
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Friends Parents & Relatives
Univ.Publications
GuidanceCounsellors
Books and Magazines
Other Ed.Websites
FinancialBrochures
UniversityLiason
CanLearn CD-ROM
< $29,999$30,000–$49,999$50,000–$89,999$90,000–$119,999$120,000+
Household Income
100%
Figure 3.4a — Use of Cost and Funding Information Sources by Income
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Friends Parents & Relatives
Univ.Publications
GuidanceCounsellors
Books and Magazines
Other Ed.Websites
FinancialBrochures
UniversityLiason
CanLearn CD-ROM
100%
Figure 3.4b — Use of Cost and Funding Information Sources by Age
18 or less1920–2425+
Age
guidance counsellors, educational websites, books
and magazines, and financial advice brochures and
publications to be either “somewhat” or “very” helpful.
Table 3.2 lists the mean helpfulness ratings from
2000 to 2004 for all information sources, based on
the aforementioned 4-point scale. Most of the scores
fall into the “somewhat” helpful range (i.e., 2.50 to
3.49). Mean scores for all sources except friends have
dropped since 2003 but are generally similar to
the 2002 scores. The sources of cost and funding
information that decreased the most since 2003 in
terms of mean helpfulness are educational planning
CD-ROMs, the CanLearn website, financial bro-
chures, publications and books and magazines.
It is not surprising that older applicants find
guidance counsellors and university liaison presen-
tations less helpful than younger applicants do, since
these sources are related to attending high school.
However, older applicants (i.e., those aged 25 or
older) also tend to deem university publications and
books and magazines in general to be less helpful
(Figure 3.6a).
F U N D I N G U N I V E R S I TY E D U C AT I O N I N O N TA R I O22
Not At AllVery LittleSomewhatVery
Figure 3.5 — Mean Helpfulness of Cost and Funding Information Sources
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
6.0
5.0 19.3 44.0 31.7
4.5 18.3 47.9 29.3
7.8 17.7 43.1 31.4
12.8 23.8 34.6 28.8
7.1 25.1 42.9 24.8
9.1 30.9 42.1 17.9
9.2 30.5 45.7 14.6
28.9 26.4 30.9 13.8
44.1 29.3 4.721.9
16.7 38.6 3.7Parents and Relatives
Friends
Univ. Publications
Guidance Counsellor
Books and Magazines
University Liaison
CanLearn
Other Ed. Websites
Financial Brochures
Ed. Planning CD-ROM
Financial Aid Program
Parents/relatives
Friends
University publications
University liaison
Guidance counsellor
Other education websites
Books or magazines
Financial brochures/publications
CanLearn website
Educational planning CD-ROM
Table 3.2 — Mean Scores for Helpfulness of Information Sources by Survey Year
2000
3.11
2.73
3.04
2.75
2.51
2.58
2.68
2.42
2.63
2001
3.09
2.91
3.07
2.79
2.63
2.87
2.69
2.35
2.69
1.45
2002
3.11
2.90
3.05
2.91
2.79
2.67
2.77
2.86
1.79
1.53
2003
3.23
2.89
3.25
3.24
2.97
3.01
3.01
3.09
2.86
2.57
2004
3.10
3.03
3.02
2.98
2.79
2.85
2.69
2.66
2.30
1.87
Mean Score (1–4)
23U N I V E R S I TY F U N D I N G
Francophone applicants rated the helpfulness of
liaison presentations, educational websites and finan-
cial brochures higher than Anglophone applicants
did; on the other hand, Francophone applicants on
average find high school guidance counsellors, books
and magazines, and educational planning CD-ROMs
less helpful than their Anglophone counterparts
consider them to be, as shown in Figure 3.6b.
(It should be borne in mind, however, that only 49
Francophone applicants are present in the sample.)
Household income and grade average appear to
have little effect on helpfulness ratings. Respondents
who have a disability or who are of Aboriginal status
find liaison presentations less useful than applicants
do generally. Aboriginal applicants also consider
guidance counsellors to be less helpful, on average.
Please see Appendix H for more details, while
keeping in mind the small n-size of these sample
sub-groups.
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
Friends Parents & Relatives
Univ.Publications
GuidanceCounsellors
Books and Magazines
Other Ed.Websites
FinancialBrochures
UniversityLiason
CanLearn CD-ROM
3.5
4.0
Figure 3.6a — Mean Helpfulness of Cost and Funding Information Sources by Age
18 or less1920–2425+
Age
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
Friends Parents & Relatives
Univ.Publications
GuidanceCounsellors
Books and Magazines
Other Ed.Websites
FinancialBrochures
UniversityLiason
CanLearn CD-ROM
3.5
4.0
Figure 3.6b — Mean Helpfulness of Cost and Funding Information Sources by Language
EnglishFrench
Language
Need for More Financial Information
Respondents were asked to what extent they would
like to receive more financial and education-related
funding information, using the same kind of 4-point
scale described previously. As displayed in Figure 3.7,
between one- and two-thirds of applicants “very
much” wish to receive more financial information,
irrespective of the type. Not surprisingly, information
concerning additional non-loan funding in the form
of scholarships and bursaries or sources of money in
general is most frequently considered “very much”
desired. Information about the cost of education and
ways to manage that cost through budgeting are
“somewhat” or “very much” wanted by over 80% of
applicants, while the three other options (student
loan programs, loan repayment options and loan
repayment responsibilities) are “somewhat” or “very
much” wanted by approximately two-thirds of
participants. These results are comparable to the
data from previous surveys, although the desire for
additional information is marginally lower in 2004
for all topics except applying for scholarships and
bursaries (Table 3.3).
F U N D I N G U N I V E R S I TY E D U C AT I O N I N O N TA R I O24
28.8
27.8
27.4
37.3
39.0
31.8
22.7
15.317.6
16.117.1
16.012.4
12.7
9.8
10.3
8.0
7.0
7.9
6.7
4.1
39.0
44.2
43.0
43.3
51.2
65.2
38.3
Not At AllVery LittleSomewhatVery Much
Scholarships andBursaries
Figure 3.7 — Desire for More Financial Information
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Sources of Money
Loan RepaymentResponsibilities
Loan Repayment Options
Student Loan Programs
Budgeting
Cost of Education
Type of Financial Information
Applying for scholarships/bursaries
Sources of money for education
Cost of education
Budgeting for university
Student loan programs
Loan repayment options
Loan repayment responsibilities
Table 3.3 — Desire for More Financial Information by Survey Year
2000
3.54
3.16
3.26
3.06
3.06
2001
3.51
3.18
3.25
3.00
2.99
2002
3.50
3.36
3.32
3.32
3.20
3.04
3.02
2003
3.49
3.29
3.30
3.27
3.14
2.97
2.94
2004
3.49
3.27
3.18
3.16
3.03
2.89
2.88
Level of Desire (Mean Score, 1–4)
Increasing household income is inversely related
to the desire for additional financial information, but
only at annual household income levels exceeding
$90,000. The effect of income is less pronounced
upon the desire for knowledge about budgeting and
applying for scholarships and bursaries (Figure 3.8a).
As one might expect, interest in learning more about
scholarships and bursaries is greater as grade average
U N I V E R S I TY F U N D I N G 25
increases. On the other hand, increasing grade
averages are linked with a decrease in the average
level of desire for additional information concerning
loans (Figure 3.8b).
Both Francophones and applicants who reported
visible minority status expressed a significantly
higher than average desire for financial and funding
information in general (please see Appendix H).
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
Schol’ps/Bursaries
Sourcesof Money
Cost of Education
Budgeting StudentLoans
Loan Repay.Options
Loan Repay.Resp.
3.5
4.0
Figure 3.8a — Desire for More Financial Information by Household Income
< $29,999$30,000–$49,999$50,000–$89,999$90,000–$119,999$120,000+
Household Income
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
Schol’ps/Bursaries
Sourcesof Money
Cost of Education
Budgeting StudentLoans
Loan Repay.Options
Loan Repay.Resp.
3.5
4.0
Figure 3.8b — Desire for More Financial Information by Grade Average
< 75%75–79%80–84%85–89%90–94%95%+
Grade Average
Extent to Which Financial Information is Sought
The 2004 UAS™ included a new question that asked
respondents to indicate if they actively looked for the
kinds of financial and funding information discussed
above. Only applicants who claimed to “somewhat”
or “very much” want a particular kind of information
were asked if they had made an effort to obtain it.
Figure 3.9 shows that two-thirds of applicants who
“somewhat” or “very much” desire more information
about sources of money, the cost of education and
applying for scholarships and bursaries had in fact
actively searched for such information prior to the
survey. Figure 3.9 shows both the proportion of rele-
vant respondents who had made an effort to obtain
the desired information, as well as the mean level of
desire for such information among all respondents.
Interestingly, it is obvious from this graph that the
more respondents desire additional information
about a particular subject, the more likely they are to
have actively looked for it. While one might suspect
that applicants need more information about a
particular topic due to the fact that they have not put
any effort into finding it in the first place, the data
strongly suggest that this is not the case.
Compared to respondents who said they had
not looked for a particular type of information,
respondents who said they had actively sought
information were more likely to “very much”
(rather than “somewhat”) desire that information.
Appendix H has further details.
Preferred Format for Cost and Funding Information
In its earlier incarnations, the UAS™ explored
applicants’ preferred formats for receiving financial
information by asking them to check all desirable
formats from a list. More recently, the survey
prompted applicants to indicate the degree to which
they would prefer each format on a 4-point scale.
However, in 2004 the question was administered in
an open-ended fashion. Applicants were asked the
following: “How might we get information about
education cost and funding sources to you in a way
that you are most likely to use?” Thus, respondents’
answers were not restricted or influenced by a
list, while the issue of preference is implicit in the
question (i.e., applicants will only mention those
formats which are useful to them).
F U N D I N G U N I V E R S I TY E D U C AT I O N I N O N TA R I O26
4.03.53.02.5
Schol’ps/Bursaries
Sources of Money
Cost of Education
Budgeting
Loan Repay. Options
Student Loans
Figure 3.9 — Proportion of Applicants Who Actively Looked for Financial Information (Respondents for Whom Information Is “Somewhat”/“Very Much” Desired Only)
0% 20% 80%40% 60%
52.7
28.3
Loan Repay. Resp. 28.0
42.7
68.6
71.0
66.6
Mean Desire for More Information
One in three respondents offered a response to
the open-ended question that identified at least one
format. Some responses mentioned several different
possibilities. The numbers in Figure 3.10 represent
the proportion of the 944 people who mentioned at
least one format.
Since the respondents were invited to participate
via email, it is perhaps not surprising that over
one-half suggested email as a source they were likely
to use. This format was the most popular response in
2004, unlike previous years, when mail was most
often cited as the preferred means of receiving cost
and funding information. In 2004, mail was the
second most frequently mentioned format (30%).
Sixteen per cent of applicants mentioned they would
like to be able to find the information on the
Internet; brochures and pamphlets were slightly less
popular (11%). Less than one-tenth mentioned
seminars, presentations or workshops (7%), guidance
counsellors (5%) or
high school in general (2%), and 2% suggested the
information should be included in the application
process. The telephone, OSAP and universities in
general, as well as commercials, friends, surveys,
door-to-door messengers, banks and the government
were also offered as possibilities by a small minority.
U N I V E R S I TY F U N D I N G 27
Figure 3.10 — Formats for Receiving Cost and Funding Information Most Likely to be Used
7.7
0.5
2.0
1.5
0.7
2.3
5.1
6.5
30.3
16.3
11.3
51.2
60%50%40%30%20%10%0%
Website / Internet
Brochures / Pamphlets
Seminars / Presentations /Workshops
School GuidanceCounsellors
Include inApplication Process
OSAP
University
High School
Phone
Other
Table 3.4 — First-Choice Format for Cost andFunding Information
Format
Internet
Brochures/pamphlets
Seminars/presentations/workshops
School guidance counsellors
Part of application process
High school
Phone
OSAP
University
Other
Proportion SelectingFormat as First Choice
41.6%
17.3%
10.7%
9.2%
4.9%
3.1%
1.8%
2.0%
0.4%
0.7%
0.5%
7.7%
Since some respondents offered several answers
to the question about the format of information, the
first suggestion they made was coded as their first
choice. Table 3.4 presents the frequency distribution
of these first-choice responses. Email is again the
most popular response by a considerable margin.
Influence of Finances onUniversity Selection
The 2004 online edition of the UAS™ included a
question that explored applicants’ decision-making
process in terms of choosing a university to apply to.
Specifically, respondents were asked which of the
following factors had the most influence on their
decision:
• program reputation (“My program of interest is
very specific, so I selected universities that have a
strong reputation in that program”)
• overall university reputation (“My program of
interest is widely available, so I selected universities
that have a strong reputation overall”)
• admission standards (“My program of interest is
widely available, so I selected universities to which
I felt I could get accepted”)
• financial situation (“My financial situation forced
me to consider only those universities close to
where I live”).
Respondents also had the option of indicating
that none of the four above factors primarily influ-
enced the selection process.
Figure 3.11 shows that applicants are most likely
to select universities based on program availability/
reputation. Thirty-one per cent relied primarily on
the university’s reputation in general. Approximately
one in 10 applicants picked universities based
mostly on the likelihood that they would be
accepted, and an additional one in 10 applicants
were led by their financial situation to consider only
universities close to where they live.
As one would expect, household income affects
the proportion of applicants indicating their financial
situation had the most influence on the decision-
making process. Over 15% of respondents from
households that earn less than $30,000 each year
limited their university selection process to nearby
institutions (Figure 3.12a) because of finances. It is
also interesting to note that applicants whose house-
hold incomes exceed $120,000 per year are more
likely to choose universities based primarily on repu-
tation rather than program availability/reputation.
Not surprisingly, admission standards tend to
be more important to applicants with low grade
averages. In particular, applicants whose averages
are below 75% are more likely to consider academic
expectations than university reputation. Conversely,
admission standards appear to have little or no effect
upon university selection among applicants whose
grade averages exceed 85%. A decreasing grade
average also somewhat increases the probability
that applicants will be restricted by their financial
situation; this may be related to the lack of scholar-
ship funding available to students with low grades.
Further analysis by demographic difference reveals
that males are slightly more likely than females to
consider admission standards as the most important
factor, and people with disabilities are significantly
more likely to be restricted by their financial situation.
Appendix H provides further information.
F U N D I N G U N I V E R S I TY E D U C AT I O N I N O N TA R I O28
Program
Univ. Reputation
Admission Standards
Figure 3.11 — Factor Most InfluencingUniversity Selection
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Financial Situation
None of the Above
9.3
11.1
9.6
30.7
39.3
Savings for University
Several questions in the survey relate to personal
savings and the costs associated with a university
education. In order to track applicants’ awareness of
and expectations regarding the costs of university
education, these questions have been asked in all
surveys since 1997. The data obtained from these
questions in 2004, as well as pertinent longitudinal
results, are presented here under the following
headings:
• Estimated costs of university
• Living arrangements while attending university
• Saving habits
• Total amount saved.
Estimated Costs of University
As in previous years, respondents were asked to
estimate the total cost of their first year of university,
including tuition, living expenses, transportation
and books. The mean estimated cost of the first year
U N I V E R S I TY F U N D I N G 29
Figure 3.12a — Factor Most Influencing University Selection by Household Income
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Program Univ. Reputation Admission Standards Financial Situation None of the Above
< $29,999$30,000–$49,999$50,000–$89,999$90,000–$119,999$120,000 +
Household Income
50%
Figure 3.12b — Factor Most Influencing University Selection by Grade Average
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
< 75%75%–79%80%–84%85%–89%90%–94%95%+
Grade Average50%
60%
Program Univ. Reputation Admission Standards Financial Situation None of the Above
Estimated Cost of First Year of University
in 2004 is $12,520. This estimate is 3% greater than it
was last year; when compared to changes in the
average since 1997, this represents a fairly typical
year-to-year increase, following an atypical levelling
off in 2003. The median and mode of the 2004
estimates are $12,000 and $15,000, respectively. The
distribution of estimates was more dispersed this
year than in previous years: generally, the standard
deviation is around $6,000 or $7,000 from the mean,
but this year it has risen considerably to $12,000.
Figure 3.13 illustrates the distribution of estimated
costs for 2004. The pattern of this distribution is similar
to that of the 2003 survey, although the variability
of estimates is greater this year (see standard devia-
tion in Table 3.5). While applicants typically expect
their costs to fall between $12,000 and $16,000, one in
four believe the expense of their first year will not
exceed $8,000.
Average estimated cost rises very gradually as
household income increases. The effect of grade
average is more pronounced: estimates range from
approximately $10,000 among respondents with the
F U N D I N G U N I V E R S I TY E D U C AT I O N I N O N TA R I O30
Year
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Table 3.5 — Estimated Cost of First Year of University by Survey Year
Mean Cost
$9,616
$10,281
$10,669
$11,228
$11,878
$12,192
$12,153
$12,520
N-Size
2,171
1,683
2,889
2,029
1,845
6,854
5,000
1,164
PercentageChange
N/A
+6.9%
+3.8%
+5.2%
+5.8%
+2.7%
-0.3%
+3.0%
StandardDeviation
$6,929
$6,219
$5,787
$6,055
$7,895
$6,294
$7,493
$12,084
Less than $4,000
$4,000–$7,999
$16,000–$19,999
Figure 3.13 — Estimated Cost of First Year of University
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
$8,000–$11,999
$12,000–$15,999
$20,000–$23,999
$24,000+
8.0
5.1
2.8
3.6
21.0
23.0
36.4
< $29,000
$30,000–$49,999
$120,000+
Figure 3.14a — Estimated Cost of First Year of University by Household Income
$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000
$50,000–$89,999
$90,000–$119,999
13,225
11,934
12,904
12,887
13,826
<75%
75–79%
90%+
Figure 3.14b — Estimated Cost of First Year of University by Grade Average
$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000
80–84%
85–89%
13,258
10,603
11,512
13,362
13,237
lowest grade averages to over $13,000 among those
with a grade average of 80% or more.
Further analysis by region reveals that applicants
from Western Canada and Southwestern Ontario
tend to estimate higher than average costs for the
first year of university, as detailed in Appendix H.
Living Arrangements While Attending University
Respondents were asked if they plan to live at home
with their parent(s) or legal guardians while attending
university and, if so, to what extent finances deter-
mined this decision.
As shown in Figure 3.15, 35% of the 2004 sample
intend to stay with their parent(s) or guardians
while attending university. This is the same as the
proportion in 2003.
Applicants who come from households earning
more than $120,000 are less likely than normal to
plan to stay with their parents. On the other hand,
the lower the grade average of respondents, the more
likely they are to stay with their parents.
Male and visible minority applicants are notably
more likely to plan to live with their parents, whereas
Francophones, Aboriginal individuals and people
with disabilities are less likely to do so.
The average estimated cost of the first year of
university among applicants planning to remain
with their parents is $8,891. Those not planning to
live with their parents estimate on average that their
expenses will be 64% higher, or $14,612. As is clear
from Figure 3.17, applicants planning to live with
their parents are most likely to estimate costs in
the $4,000 to $8,000 range, whereas respondents
intending to be more independent are most likely to
estimate costs in the range of $12,000 to $16,000.
In 2004, 54% of those planning to live with their
parents during university reported that finances
“very much” determined the decision to stay with
their parents (a slight increase from the 2003
proportion of 50%). More significantly, the proportion
U N I V E R S I TY F U N D I N G 31
Figure 3.15 — Plans to Live with Parents
N/AYesNo
58.9%
6.3%
34.8%
< $29,999
$30,000–$49,999
$50,000–$89,999
$90,000–$119,999
$120,000+
Figure 3.16a — Plans to Live with Parents by Household Income
0% 20% 40%
% Planning to Live with Parents
33.9
35.7
34.5
32.7
22.1
< 75%
75–79%
80–84%
85–89%
90–94%
95%+
Figure 3.16b — Plans to Live with Parents by Grade Average
0% 25% 50%
% Planning to Live with Parents
26.5
28.7
31.1
34.2
39.1
43.1
of applicants stating that this decision was involuntary
(i.e., they could not afford to attend university other-
wise) increased from 23% in 2003 to 30% in 2004.
This means that 10% of applicants overall cannot
afford to live independently.
Figure 3.19a illustrates the extent to which the
likelihood that the decision to live with parents while
attending university is involuntary decreases as
household income increases.
F U N D I N G U N I V E R S I TY E D U C AT I O N I N O N TA R I O32
45
3118
1350
12
26,9
15,510,5
8.7
7,3
0% 20% 40% 50%
YesNo
Figure 3.17 — Estimated Cost of First Year of University by Plans to Live with Parents
Less than $4,000
$4,000–$7,999
$8,000–$11,999
$12,000–$15,999
$16,000–$19,999
$20,000–$23,999
$24,000+
Live with Parents
Not At All
Very Little
Somewhat
Very Much
Figure 3.18a — Extent to which Finances Determined Decision to Live with Parents
0% 40% 60%20%
54.0
25.2
9.6
11.2
Figure 3.18b — Nature of Decision to Live with Parents
InvoluntaryVoluntary
69.9%
31.1%
Respondents who indicated that the decision to
live with their parents or guardians was involuntary
were asked if their ability to pursue their desired
program of study was also limited as a result.
Specifically, they were asked to select one of three
options that best described the influence of having
to live at home on their program selection: “no
impact,” “a little impact” or “a lot of impact.”
Figure 3.20 illustrates that over 60% of respondents
who have to continue living with their parents
reported that their ability to pursue their desired
program of study was not affected; in other words,
local universities offered the courses they wanted.
Most of the remaining respondents reported that
having to live at home had a minor impact on
program selection. Only 8% of these applicants
indicated that the necessity of living at home had a
major impact on what program they chose—that is,
their choice was limited by the availability of courses
at local universities. These results basically imply
that 38% of all applicants living with their parents
due to financial constraints (4% of the overall
sample) were compromised to some extent in terms
of pursuing their desired program of study.
Respondents who reported visible minority
status were somewhat more likely than other
applicants to report that living at home due to their
financial situation had an impact on their choice of
program (Figure 3.21).
33U N I V E R S I TY F U N D I N G
Less than $29,000
$30,000–$49,999
$120,000+
0%
$50,000–$89,999
$90,000–$119,999 12.5
15.9
23.9
45.5
Figure 3.19a — Proportion of Applicants for Whom Decision to Live with Parents is Involuntary by Household Income
20%10% 30% 40% 50%
Less than 75%
75–79%
90%+
Figure 3.19b — Proportion of Applicants for Whom Decision to Live with Parents is Involuntary by Grade Average
0% 10% 20% 30%
80–84%
85–89%
10.3
21.1
24.4
20.7
23.5
No Impact
A Little Impact
A Lot of Impact 8.0
30.2
61.8
0% 12,5
Figure 3.20 — Impact of Financial Situation on Pursuit of Desired Program of Study
20% 40% 60% 80%
Saving Habits
This sub-section addresses the following issues:
• Planning the financing of education with parents
• Parental saving habits
• Applicant saving habits.
Planning the Financing of Education With Parents
Respondents were asked if they had planned the
financing of their post-secondary education with
their parents or legal guardians and, if so, in what
grade these discussions began. Compared to approxi-
mately 70% of applicants in previous years who
reported planning university financing with their
parents, only 56% reported doing so this year.
Figure 3.22 shows that 63% of applicants aged 18 or
less discussed finances with their parents, and the
proportion decreases with the age of applicants.
Figures 3.23a and 3.23b illustrate that these
parental discussions are more likely to occur among
higher household income groups and among those
with higher grade averages.
F U N D I N G U N I V E R S I TY E D U C AT I O N I N O N TA R I O34
12.3
0% 20% 60% 80%
YesNo
Figure 3.21 — Impact of Financial Situation on Pursuit of Desired Program of Study by Visible Minority Status
40%
Visible Minority68.7
26.0
50.6No Impact
A Little Impact
A Lot of Impact
37.0
18 or less
19
25+
20–24
0%
Figure 3.22 — Planning Finances with Parents by Age
20% 40% 60% 80%
% Who Planned Finances With Parents
62.6
58.6
47.0
15.2
< $29,999
$30,000–$49,999
$50,000–$89,999
$90,000–$119,999
$120,000+
Figure 3.23a — Planning Finances with Parents by Household Income
0% 60%40%20% 80%
% Who Planned Finances With Parents
65.2
67.5
59.0
51.3
49.8 < 75%
75–79%
80–84%
85–89%
90%+
Figure 3.23b — Planning Finances with Parents by Grade Average
0 % 40 %20 % 60 % 80 %
% Who Planned Finances With Parents
61.9
60.4
53.0
55.8
47.3
Further analysis reveals that Francophones, visible
minority applicants and people with disabilities are
less likely to discuss financing their education with
their parents (see Appendix H).
Figure 3.24 illustrates that discussions about
paying for university usually begin when applicants
are in Grade 11 or 12. Only 16% of respondents who
reported such discussions indicated that they
began before high school. Figure 3.25 clearly shows
how the years during high school when discussions
are most likely to begin shift from Grade 12/OAC to
Grades 11 and 12 as respondents get younger. This
shift reflects the recent overhaul of the Ontario high
school curriculum.
Parental Saving Habits
Excluding respondents who stated that they did not
know or that the question was not applicable to
them, 67% of applicants (or 53% overall) reported
that their parents had money set aside for their
university education at the time of the survey. This
proportion is down from 71% in 2003, but similar to
the 68% observed in 2002.
Nearly half of respondents whose household
income is below $50,000 reported that their parents
had not been saving money. The probability of
parents having saved some money rises dramatically
when household income increases beyond $50,000
per year (Figure 3.27a). Increasing grade average is
also linked with an increase in the likelihood that
parents have saved money to help applicants pay for
university (Figure 3.27b).
35U N I V E R S I TY F U N D I N G
K–6
7
8
9
10
11
12
OAC
After HS
Figure 3.24 — Grade During which Financial Planning Discussions Began
0% 20%10% 30%
7.5
2.6
5.6
11.7
13.2
24.5
4.1
4.6
26.2
After HSOAC1211109K–8
18 or less
19
20–24
25+
Figure 3.25 — Grade During which Financial Planning Discussions Began by Grade
0%
19%
11% 12% 18% 26% 28%
10% 6% 8% 14% 23% 20% 18%
48%8%12%8%16%
13% 30% 24%13%
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Grade
Figure 3.26 — Parent/Guardian Savings for University
YesNo32.9%
67.1%
Parents of over three-quarters of respondents
aged 18 or less had accumulated savings for university
at the time of the survey (Figure 3.27c). However,
parents of Francophone and Aboriginal applicants
and parents of respondents from Eastern Canada,
Northern Ontario and Metro Toronto are less likely to
have been saving for their children’s university
expenses, as detailed in Appendix H.
Among respondents who reported that their
parents or guardians had saved some money, 31%
indicated they had been doing so for more than one
year but less than six years. Twenty-nine per cent of
applicants (15% of the overall sample) whose parents
had savings set aside reported that their parents
had been accumulating these savings for more than
15 years, as shown in Figure 3.28.
F U N D I N G U N I V E R S I TY E D U C AT I O N I N O N TA R I O36
1320304745
8780
70
5355
Figure 3.27a — Parent/Guardian Savings for University by Household Income
NoYes
Parents Saved
$120
,000
+
$90,
000–
$119
,999
$50,
000–
$89,
999
$30,
000–
$49,
999
< $2
9,99
9
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%2731343637
7369
666463
Figure 3.27b — Parent/Guardian Savings forUniversity by Grade Average
NoYes
Parents Saved
90%
+
85–8
9%
80–8
4%
75–7
9%
< 7
5%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
83493323
17
51
67
77
Figure 3.27c — Parent/Guardian Savings for University by Age
NoYes
Parents Saved
18 or less
19 20–24 25+
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
The typical length of time applicants’ parents
have been saving increases as household income
rises, as displayed in Figure 3.29 (please keep in
mind that Figures 3.28 and 3.29 only display data
for respondents whose parents had saved some
money for university). Further analysis reveals that
parents of visible minority respondents typically
save for shorter periods of time than parents of other
respondents (Appendix H).
Applicant Saving Habits
Just over half of applicants (55%) indicated that they
had personally accumulated savings for university
at the time of the survey. This proportion is appre-
ciably lower than the 63% who reported having
savings in 2003.
Household income has a limited influence on
whether applicants have personal savings for
university: the proportion with such savings is
slightly higher (60%) among respondents in house-
holds bringing in more than $50,000 annually
(Figure 3.31a). Figure 3.31b indicates that applicants
whose grade average is below 75% are less likely than
others to have set money aside.
U N I V E R S I TY F U N D I N G 37
<1
1–5
6–10
11–15
15+
Figure 3.28 — Number of Years Parents/Guardians Have Been Saving
0% 20%10% 30% 40%
29.1
13.0
20.3
30.9
6.7
<1 1–5 6–10 11–15 >15
Figure 3.29 — Number of Years Parents/Guardians Have Been Saving by Household Income
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
< $29,999$30,000–$49,999$50,000–$89,999$90,000–$119,999$120,000+
Intended Credential
Figure 3.30 — Applicant Savings for University
YesNo44.9%
55.1%
With respect to age, 19-year-old applicants are the
most likely to have personal savings for university;
the probability of having savings is lower among
older applicants (Figure 3.31c). Among the different
regions, participants from Southwestern Ontario
most often reported having savings (Figure 3.31d).
Applicants with a disability are more likely than
those without a disability to have savings, and
Aboriginal applicants and those belonging to a
visible minority are less likely than average to have
savings, as detailed in Appendix H.
Among applicants who had been saving for
university, 30% had been doing so for less than one
year at the time of the survey. Applicants were most
likely to have spent between one and five years
amassing funds, although 13% (7% of the overall
sample) had been saving for more than five years.
Total Amount Saved
When all sources—parents, legal guardians, relatives,
applicants themselves or others—are considered,
68% of respondents reported that some money had
been saved for their university education. Of course,
this means that 32% of applicants were facing the
prospect of funding their education without any
savings to draw upon. Figures 3.33a and 3.33b demon-
strate that the probability of having money saved,
irrespective of the source, increases with household
income and grade average.
F U N D I N G U N I V E R S I TY E D U C AT I O N I N O N TA R I O38
Figure 3.31a — Applicant Savings for University by Household Income
< $29,999
$30,000–$49,999
$50,000–$89,999
$90,000–$119,999
$120,000 +
0% 20% 60%40% 80%
60.7
61.3
59.8
54.9
54.8
Figure 3.31b — Applicant Savings for University by Grade Average
<75%
75%–79%
80%–84%
85%–89%
90%+
0% 20% 40% 60%
56.5
56.9
58.6
55.5
44.6
45.7
51.2
63.4
54.5
Figure 3.31c — Applicant Savings for University by Age
18 or less
19
20–24
25+
0% 40%20% 60% 80%
45.7
51.2
63.4
54.5
Western Canada
Northern Ontario
SW Ontario
Central Ontario
Metro Toronto
Eastern Ontario
Eastern Canada
Figure 3.31d — Applicant Savings for University by Region
0% 20% 60%40% 80%
52.8
58.4
46.7
56.4
67.1
57.9
49.1
U N I V E R S I TY F U N D I N G 39
<1
1–5
6–10
11–15
>15
Figure 3.32 — Period of Time Applicants Have Been Saving
0% 20% 40% 60%
6.9
57.2
30.1
2.2
3.6
Figure 3.33a — Proportion Having Money Saved (All Sources) by Household Income
< $29,999
$30,000–$49,999
$50,000–$89,999
$90,000–$119,999
$120,000+
0% 40%20% 60% 80% 100%
87.4
78.1
68.8
58.7
58.1
Figure 3.33b — Proportion Having Money Saved (All Sources) by Grade Average
<75%
75–79%
80–84%
85–89%
90%+
0% 40%20% 60% 80%
73.8
71.6
67.3
65.6
61.4 18 or less
19
20–24
25+
Figure 3.33c — Proportion Having Money Saved (All Sources) by Age
0% 40%20% 60% 80%
37.1
55.7
68.3
76.2
Western Canada
Northern Ontario
SW Ontario
Central Ontario
Metro Toronto
Eastern Ontario
Eastern Canada
Figure 3.33d — Proportion Having Money Saved (All Sources) by Region
0% 40%20% 60% 80%
57.3
68.0
61.8
70.5
70.2
65.8
78.3 Yes
No
Figure 3.33e — Proportion Having Money Saved (All Sources) by Plans to Live with Parents
0% 25% 50% 75%
71.3
65.9
Applicant Group
Overall
Household income
Grade average
Age
Gender
Visible minority status
Plan to live with parent(s)
Parent savings for university
< $29,999
$30,000–$49,999
$50,000–$89,999
$90,000–$119,999
$120,000+
< 75%
75%–79%
80%–84%
85%–89%
90%+
18 or less
19
20–24
25+
Female
Male
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Median Savings (Including $0 Amounts)
$4,000
$2,000
$2,351
$4,000
$6,000
$10,185
$2,000
$2,000
$4,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$3,398
$1,100
$0
$4,000
$4,000
$2,000
$5,000
$3,000
$5,000
$10,000
$0
The probability of having money saved decreases
dramatically with age. Respondents from Eastern
Canada and Metro Toronto, Aboriginal applicants,
Francophones and those with visible minority status
are less likely to have money saved for university.
Please see Figures 3.33c and .33d, plus Appendix H, for
more information. Over 70% of applicants planning
not to live with their parents during university have
money saved for their education (Figure 3.33e).
Those applicants who have money saved have
amassed $14,343, on average (from all sources), for
their university education. This amount is very
similar to the $14,076 reported in 2003. Both the
median and mode amounts of money saved are
$10,000, while the maximum amount reported is
$250,000. When those who have no money saved are
included, the average per capita amount of money
saved for the whole sample equals $9,753.
Table 3.6 presents the median amount of money
saved by various demographic variables. The median
values are reported for both respondents who have
money saved (i.e., not including $0 amounts) and for
respondents overall (i.e., including $0 amounts).
F U N D I N G U N I V E R S I TY E D U C AT I O N I N O N TA R I O40
$1–$5,999
$6,000–$11,999
$12,000–$17,999
$18,000–$23,999
$24,000–$29,999
$30,000+
Figure 3.34 — Distribution of Total Savings
0% 20%10% 30% 40%
9.4
10.6
12.9
30.1
33.8
3.2
23% Overall
20% Overall
9% Overall
7% Overall
2% Overall
6% Overall
Table 3.6 — Median Amount Saved by Demographic Variable
Median Savings (Not Including $0 Amounts)
$10,000
$8,000
$8,500
$10,000
$10,000
$15,000
$10,000
$10,000
$9,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$7,500
$8,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$5,000
As expected, household income affects the
amount of money saved, as well as the likelihood
of having savings. Combining these two effects
illustrates how applicants from the lower household
income brackets (less than $50,000 per year) typically
have one-fifth of the funds that applicants from the
highest income bracket ($120,000 per year or more)
have available to them. Although increasing grade
average increases the likelihood of having money
saved, it does not appear to affect the amount saved
among those who do have money saved. Applicants
over the age of 25 generally have less money saved
than younger applicants, and when this pheno-
menon is combined with the decreasing probability
of having money saved at all with increasing age, it is
apparent that these older applicants typically have
no savings at all—that is, the median for all such
applicants, including $0 amounts, is $0.
Although males and females are just as likely to
have money saved, males tend to have more money
available. The reverse is true for visible minorities,
who typically have as much money saved as
applicants who do not belong to a visible minority
group but tend to have less funding available, since
they are less likely to have money saved at all.
Despite the greater likelihood of applicants
having money saved in the event that they do not
plan to live with their parents, the actual average
amount of savings does not appear to be different
from those who plan to live with their parents. As
depicted in Figure 3.35, applicants who are not
planning to live with their parents during university
tend to have only slightly more money saved.
Applicants whose parents have saved money for
their university education have a median amount of
$10,000 saved. Applicants whose savings do not
include any parental contributions typically have
$5,000 amassed. However, since only one in four
applicants who do not have parental contributions
have in fact saved money, the median savings for all
such applicants is $0 (see Table 3.6).
U N I V E R S I TY F U N D I N G 41
26,9
10,5
8.7
0% 20% 40% 50%
YesNo
Figure 3.35 — Distribution of Total Savings among Those Who Have Savings by Plans to Live with Parents
$1–$5,999
$6,000–$11,999
$12,000–$17,999
$18,000–$23,999
$24,000–$29,999
$30,000+
Live with Parents
12.7
11.0
13.3
29.1
30.3
7.9
9.9
12.4
30.2
37.6
Respondents were asked to estimate the amount of
money they will receive from their various sources of
funding to cover the cost of their first year of university.
A total of 11 different sources of funding were
listed in the 2004 survey. Respondents could provide
estimates for any or all of the 11 sources, which were
grouped into three categories: private sources, loan
sources and “scholastic” sources (i.e., scholarships,
bursaries and grants). The 2004 edition of the UAS™
also allowed applicants to estimate the amount of
funds coming from some “other,” previously unspeci-
fied source. The results are presented as follows:
• Private funds, scholarships, bursaries and grants
• Loans, expected debt load and concerns.
Private Funds, Scholarships, Bursaries and Grants
This sub-section covers the following areas:
• Overall funds
• Use of private funds
• Use of scholastic funds.
Overall Funds
Overall, the average total amount of funding students
believed they will have access to is $12,295—a figure
that is similar to respondents’ average estimated
costs for the first year of university ($12,520).
The specific resources that students believe will
contribute to the total amount available vary for
each respondent. Figure 3.36a indicates that the
majority of respondents (95%) will be able to draw
on some form of private funds to cover their first
year of university, and, on average, students
expected to obtain nearly $9,000 from these sources
(Figure 3.36b). Just over 40% of the respondents
expected to use loan funding, and these applicants
believed that, on average, $6,679 will be available
through this source. Approximately half the respon-
dents expected to receive scholarships, bursaries or
grants to help cover their first-year expenses; these
students, on average, anticipated receiving just over
$2,000 from such sources. One in 20 applicants
reported additional funds coming from another,
unspecified source, worth an average of $2,299.
F U N D I N G U N I V E R S I TY E D U C AT I O N I N O N TA R I O42
Funding Sources for First Year of University
Private Funds
Loan Sources
Scholastic Funds
Other Sources
Figure 3.36a — Proportion Using Funding Sources
0% 40% 60%20% 80% 100%
47.1
42.2
4.7
94.8
Private Funds
Loan Sources
Scholastic Funds
Other Sources
Figure 3.36b — Average Value of Funding Sources among Applicants Using Source
$0 $4,000 $6,000$2,000 $8,000 $10,000
2,132
6,679
2,299
8,817
Use of Private Funds
Two-thirds of applicants3 indicated that they will be
supported by a contribution from their parents
during the first year of university, totalling $5,721 on
average. Almost one-quarter of applicants were
expecting to use funds from an RESP, worth an
average of $5,021.
Less than one in 10 applicants have a trust fund;
those who do expected that it would contribute
$4,224 toward the cost of their first year of university.
One-half of applicants reported having personal
savings which they would use, and 70% had part-
time or summer employment savings. In both cases,
the savings in question amount to less than $3,000
on average.
Use of Scholarships, Bursaries and Grants
Nearly one-half of all applicants expected to receive
financial support from a scholarship or bursary
during their first year of university. The average esti-
mated value of such support is just under $2,000.
Only 14 people (less than 1% of all applicants, or
approximately two out of three Aboriginal applicants)
anticipated receiving an Aboriginal scholarship.
Given such a small n-size, the average value is of
limited use; however, the amount of $1,000 was
most commonly mentioned. Just 2% of applicants
anticipated aid from other government grants, and
these individuals were looking forward to an average
of $1,360 from such sources.
U N I V E R S I TY F U N D I N G 43
3. The proportions reported for usage of funding sources are out of the total sample, whereas last year’s report calculated proportions based on thenumber of applicants who used the relevant type of funding source (in this case, private funds).
Figure 3.37a – Proportion Using Private Funding Sources
RESP
Trust Fund
Personal Savings
Employment Earnings
Parent Contribution
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
69.3
49.4
8.0
23.0
66.3
Figure 3.37b — Average Value of Private Funding Sources among Applicants Using Source
$0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000
2,485
2,748
4,224
5,021
5,721
RESP
Trust Fund
Personal Savings
Employment Earnings
Parent Contribution
Schol’p/Bursary
Aboriginal Schol’p
Other Gov. Grants
Figure 3.38a — Proportion Using Scholastic Funding Sources
0% 25% 50%
46.3
0.9
2.4
Schol’p/Bursary
Other Gov. Grants
Figure 3.38b — Average Value of Scholastic Funding Sources among Applicants Using Source
1,360
1,961
$2,000$1,000$0
As one would expect, the availability of scholastic
funds varies with grade average. Figure 3.39a illustrates
this phenomenon, and indicates that over 70% of
applicants whose grade average exceeds 90%
expected some funding from a scholarship or
bursary. The value of scholastic funds tends to rise
with academic performance as well, with students
with grades exceeding 90% predicting over $3,000 on
average (Figure 3.39b).
Loans, Expected Debt Load and Concerns
Almost one-third of applicants expected to take out a
regular government student loan, borrowing an
average of $6,202. One in eight respondents thought
they would have to rely on a bank loan, borrowing an
average of $5,286. Six per cent of applicants expected
to be supported by a private loan (granted to them by
family, friends, etc.). Such loans are typically smaller,
the average respondent receiving less than $3,000.
Figure 3.41 illustrates the amount of debt
applicants expected to have after their first year of
university due to loan funding. Over one-half
anticipated no student loan debt, since they did not
expect to borrow money. One in five applicants, on
the other hand, predicted that they will owe over
$6,000 after they have completed their first year.
Figures 3.42a and 3.42b demonstrate how the
likelihood of being in debt increases among appli-
cants with low household income and those with no
savings for university.
F U N D I N G U N I V E R S I TY E D U C AT I O N I N O N TA R I O44
<75%
75–79%
80–84%
85–89%
90%+
Figure 3.39a — Use of Scholarships and Bursaries by Grade Average
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
70.3
60.7
46.6
28.4
21.7 <75%
75–79%
80–84%
85–89%
90%+
Figure 3.39b — Average Value of Scholarships and Bursaries by Grade Average
$4,000$2,000$0
3,053
1,904
1,362
1,367
1,584
No Debt
Less than $3,000
$3,000–$5,999
$6,000–$8,999
$9,000–$11,999
$12,000+
Figure 3.41 — Expected Amount of Student Loan Debt from First Year of University
0% 20% 40% 60%
6.9
8.7
13.3
9.2
57.8
4.1
Gov’t Loan
Bank Loan
Private Loan
Figure 3.40a — Proportion Using Loans
0% 20% 40%
6.2
12.8
32.0 Gov’t Loan
Bank Loan
Private Loan
Figure 3.40b — Average Amount Borrowed
$0 $4,000 $8,000$6,000$2,000
2,517
5,286
6,202
Respondents were asked to indicate on a scale of
1 to 4 (1=“not at all,” 2=“very little,” 3= “somewhat”
and 4=“very much”) how concerned they are with
regards to financial issues pertaining to their uni-
versity education. Approximately 50% of applicants
are “very much” concerned about the amount of
debt they will incur while completing their university
degree and about having sufficient funding to
complete their studies.
U N I V E R S I TY F U N D I N G 45
Figure 3.42a — Expected Amount of Student Loan Debt by Household Income
No Debt Less than $3,000 $3,000–$5,999 $6,000–$8,999 $9,000–$11,999 $12,000 +
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
< $29,999$30,000–$49,999$50,000–$89,999$90,000–$119,999$120,000 +
Household Income
Figure 3.42b — Expected Amount of Student Loan Debt by Whether or Not Applicant Has Savings
No Debt Less than $3,000 $3,000–$5,999 $6,000–$8,999 $9,000–$11,999 $12,000 +
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
YesNo
Money Saved for University
Amount of Debt
Sufficient Funding
Ability to Pay Debt
Figure 3.43 — Proportion Who Are “Very Concerned” about Student Funding and Debt Issues
0% 20% 40% 60%
47.0
51.5
53.1
Concern over the amount of debt naturally
increases with increasing debt load. Applicants who
expected to borrow more than $3,000 to complete
their first year of university are typically “very much”
concerned (mean score of 3.5 to 4.0) about the
amount of debt they will amass while completing
their entire degree. Even applicants who did not yet
expect to borrow money for their studies are often
“somewhat” concerned about this matter.
Figure 3.44b indicates that applicants who have
savings for university only exhibit “very little” or no
concern about having sufficient funds to complete
their degree if they have over $20,000 saved.
When asked how long it would take to repay the
debt they expected to incur while completing their
university degree, 23% of applicants stated that they
would have no debt upon graduation. This is much
lower than the 58% who did not anticipate any
student loan debt after the first year, suggesting that
many participants anticipate incurring debt later on
as their studies advance.
Those who do expect to be in debt after completing
their university degree typically anticipate taking up
to seven years to repay what they owe. Over 10% feel
that repayment will take more than seven years, and
18% have no idea how long it will take.
F U N D I N G U N I V E R S I TY E D U C AT I O N I N O N TA R I O46
No Debt
Less than $3,000
$3,000–$5,999
$6,000–$8,999
$9,000–$11,999
$12,000+
Figure 3.44a — Concern about Amount of Debt Incurred During University Degree by Amount of Debt Expected after First Year
1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
3.77
3.74
3.79
3.59
3.40
2.92
None-Zero Debt
1–3 years
4–7 years
8–11 years
>11 years
Don’t Know
Figure 3.45 — Expected Number of Years Required to Repay Debt Incurred while Completing University Degree
0% 10% 20% 30%
17.6
2.9
8.8
24.3
23.8
22.7
Not At All Very Little Somewhat Very Much
Figure 3.44b — Concern about Having Sufficient Funding to Complete University Degree by Total Savings (Respondents with Savings Only)
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$0
Mean Total Amount Saved for University
Background Information
Demographic Profile
The breakdown of the sample population by gender
and language is consistent with UAS™ results in the
past few years: 62% of the sample are female, and 2%
are Francophones. Over one-half of respondents are
aged 18. The sample in 2004 was more likely to be
over the age of 18 than the sample surveyed in 2003;
this is likely due to the large number of students who
deferred their university application in 2003 in order
to avoid the double cohort.
Over 90% of 2004 applicants are single, and nearly
two-thirds are employed, mostly on a part-time basis.
Approximately one-third have household incomes of
less than $30,000 per year.
Equal Access Issues
The proportion of applicants reporting Aboriginal or
visible minority status (1% and 28%, respectively) is
consistent with previous studies. Both Aboriginal
and visible minority applicants tend to have lower
than average household incomes and are less likely
to be employed than applicants not of Aboriginal or
visible minority status.
Also in keeping with previous studies, approxi-
mately 3% of respondents reported having a disability.
Education-Related Profile
Almost 70% of respondents in 2004 were secondary
school students at the time of the survey, down from
approximately 90% in 2003. This shift is related to the
older age of this year’s sample, which contains larger
than usual proportions of university transfer and
former secondary school students.
The distribution of grade averages in 2004 is
relatively consistent with results gathered over the
previous four years, although grade averages among
males have been dropping gradually since 2001. This
year the link between increasing grade average and
increasing household income is more pronounced
than in previous surveys; however, given the larger
proportion of older applicants this year and the
connection between lower incomes and increasing
age, this pattern is largely a function of older
applicants (who tend to have lower marks) applying
to university as mature students.
Much like in previous years, one in three
applicants decided to attend university before they
reached the age of 10. In accordance with the older
age of this year’s applicants, the proportion making
this decision between the ages of 10 and 14 is slightly
lower than usual, while the proportion deciding after
20 is slightly higher.
Secondary-school-age applicants typically waited
until Grade 12 to decide upon their first-choice
university. One-half of those aged 20 to 24 decided
upon their first choice while they were still in high
school. When the respondents were surveyed in
early May 2004, approximately one in 10 had not yet
decided upon their final choice of university.
47
Executive Summary
Cost and Funding Information
Applicants’ knowledge of financial aid programs
remains low this year, with over 50% of respondents
reporting “very little” or no familiarity with such
programs. Friends and family are the most commonly
used sources of university-related cost and funding
information, followed by university publications and
guidance counsellors; all of these sources are used by
more than 80% of the sample. The sources of informa-
tion that received the highest helpfulness scores are
family, friends, university publications and university
liaison presentations, all of which are on the whole
deemed to be “somewhat” helpful.
Over one-half of applicants “very much” desire
more information about applying for scholarships,
bursaries and sources of money in general. Further
analysis reveals that the more applicants desire
information, the more likely they are to have actively
sought it out. This allays suspicion that applicants
need more information due to the fact that they
do not put any effort into finding it in the first
place—instead, applicants’ interest in various
funding-related topics prompts them to search
for information, and what they find is apparently
not enough.
This year, email is by far the most frequently
preferred format for receiving cost and funding
information. Applicants would be most likely to
make use of information received in this manner.
Influence of Finances on University Selection
When selecting universities to attend, applicants are
most commonly influenced by the availability of a
specific program or the reputation of the university
in general. Approximately one in 10 applicants are
forced by financial constraints to consider only
universities close to their parents’ or guardian’s home.
Savings for University
The average estimated cost of the first year of uni-
versity is $12,520, 3% higher than last year’s estimate.
Approximately one in three applicants plan to stay
with their parent(s)/guardian while attending uni-
versity; this is similar to last year’s result. The average
estimated cost of the first year among applicants not
planning to stay with their parents is $14,612.
The proportion of applicants reporting that the
decision to live with their parents was involuntary,
due to financial reasons, has risen from 23% in 2003 to
30% in 2004. Overall, 10% of applicants cannot afford
to live independently. Thirty-eight per cent of appli-
cants who cannot afford to live independently, or 4%
of applicants overall, were as a consequence, restricted
to some extent in choosing a program of study.
Just over one-half of the sample reported
discussing the financing of their university education
with their parents. Likewise, about one-half indicated
that their parents had set aside savings for their
university studies or that they themselves had
amassed savings for university. Overall, approximately
one-third of applicants do not have any money saved
for their education. Among those who do have
savings, an average of $14,343 has been amassed.
Two-thirds of applicants reported that the total
amount of savings they have is less than their esti-
mated cost for the first year of university.
Funding Sources for First Year of University
Overall, considering all possible sources of funding
(including loans), applicants estimated having
access to, on average, $12,295 to cover the costs of
their first year of university. This is very similar to the
average estimated cost of the first year. Ninety-five
per cent of applicants have private sources
of funding, including parental contributions, RESPs,
trust funds and applicant savings. Slightly less
F U N D I N G U N I V E R S I TY E D U C AT I O N I N O N TA R I O48
University Funding
than 50% of applicants expected to receive scholar-
ships, bursaries or other government grants. Over
40% expected to take out a loan to help pay for
school, for an average amount of $6,679. Importantly,
32% of applicants are embarking on their university
education with no savings whatsoever.
Approximately one-half of applicants are very
concerned about the amount of debt they will incur
while completing their university degree, being able
to repay that debt and having sufficient funding to
complete their studies. One in 10 applicants expect
that it will take more than seven years to repay the
debt from their first university degree; however, one
in five expect they will have incurred no debt at all by
the time they complete their degree.
E X E C U T I V E S U M M A RY 49
Each year, the UAS™ documents university appli-
cants’ perceptions, expectations and saving habits
relating to the financing of their education, as well
as their funding information needs. This kind of
information can help the Canada Millennium
Scholarship Foundation optimize the fulfillment of
their mandate to create opportunities for students to
pursue post-secondary education.
Of note in 2004 is the demographic shift among
this year’s pool of university applicants. Last year,
during the double cohort, the majority of applicants
were 17- or 18-years-old, living with their parents
and benefitting from higher average levels of house-
hold income. In 2004, however, a much larger
proportion of applicants are between the ages of
19 and 24 and many are living independently with
much lower average household incomes.
Notable findings this year include the fact that
actively searching for financial information does not
satisfy an applicant’s desire for more information.
This suggests that students are either not aware of all
the available sources of information or are searching
for something not currently provided. It may be
worthwhile to explore this issue further in future
editions of the survey.
While applicants typically select universities
based on their preferred program of study, one in 10
students reported that their choice of institution was
compromised by a lack of financial resources. These
people were forced to apply to universities close
to their family home. Furthermore, 4% of applicants
overall, or approximately 4,000 people, were compro-
mised in entering their program of choice because
they had to attend a local university. Finally, two out of
three students overall will require additional financial
support within their first year of studies, since they
either have no savings or do not have enough to cover
their anticipated expenses.
50
Concluding Remarks
Appendix A: Questionnaire _______________________________________________52
Appendix B: Invitation and Reminder Emails _________________________________61
Appendix C: Regional Definitions __________________________________________63
Appendix D: Income Breakdowns __________________________________________65
Appendix E: Aboriginal Status Cross-Tabs ____________________________________66
Appendix F: Disability Status Cross-Tabs _____________________________________69
Appendix G: Visible Minority Status Cross-Tabs________________________________72
Appendix H: Additional University Funding Cross-Tabs __________________________75
51
Appendices
1. First, we would like to ask you a few
background questions.
Which best describes your status as a
university applicant?
❍ Current secondary school student
❍ Current or former Ontario College of
Applied Arts & Technology (CAAT) student
❍ Current or former Quebec CEGEP student
❍ Former secondary school student
❍ University transfer student
❍ Other
2. What is your most recent grade average (%)
(best estimate for 2003/2004)?
❍ <60%
❍ 60–64%
❍ 65–69%
❍ 70–74%
❍ 75–79%
❍ 80–84%
❍ 85–89%
❍ 90–94%
❍ 95%+
3. At what age did you decide that you wanted to
attend university?
❍ <9 years
❍ 10–14 years
❍ 15–19 years
❍ 20+
4. When did you decide that you wanted to
attend your 1st choice university?
❍ Elementary School
❍ Grade 9
❍ Grade 10
❍ Grade 11
❍ Grade 12
❍ After High School
❍ Undecided
5. What is your marital status?
❍ Single
❍ Married
❍ Common law
❍ Other
6. How many dependent children do you have?
❍ None
❍ One
❍ Two
❍ Three or more
7. Are you responsible for any adult dependents
(that is, an adult who requires your financial
aid or support and who resides with you)?
❍ Yes
❍ No
8. What is your current employment status?
❍ Part-time
❍ Full-time
❍ Not employed
52
Appendix A
2004 University ApplicantSurvey—Special Edition
9. Please estimate your total household income
last year. As with all your other responses, this
information will be kept strictly confidential
and anoymous.
❍ Less than $20,000
❍ $20,000–$29,999
❍ $30,000–$39,999
❍ $40,000–$49,999
❍ $50,000–$59,999
❍ $60,000–$69,999
❍ $70,000–$79,999
❍ $80,000–$89,999
❍ $90,000–$99,999
❍ $100,000–$119,999
❍ $120,000+
❍ Don’t know
10. Are you a person with a disability? (Anyone
with a long-term or recurring physical, mental,
sensory, psychiatric or learning impairment is
considered a person with disability)
❍ Yes
❍ No
11. Are you an Aboriginal person?
❍ Yes
❍ No
12. Are you in a visible minority group?
(Members of visible minority groups are
persons, other than Aboriginal peoples, who
are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in
colour, regardless of birthplace.)
❍ Yes
❍ No
13. Which of the following best describes your
ethnic background? (If you are of mixed race,
please indicate the main non-Caucasian group
or non-white group that best identifies your
visible minority status.)
❍ South Asian (e.g., East Indian, Pakistani,
Sri Lankan)
❍ Arab/West Asian (e.g., Armenian,
Egyptian, Iranian, Lebanese, Moroccan)
❍ South East Asian (e.g., Cambodian,
Indonesian, Laotian, Vietnamese)
❍ Black (e.g., African, Haitian,
Jamaican, Somali)
❍ Chinese
❍ Korean
❍ Filipino
❍ Japanese
❍ Other
14. Before we go on with the survey, we would
like to know if you would be interested in
participating in other research studies
conducted by Acumen Research. Most of
these studies offer paid incentives or prizes.
Would you like to be contacted about such
opportunities? You would still have the option
to decline participation at that time. OUAC
will provide Acumen Research your name and
contact information only if you say yes.
❍ Yes I am interested in participating in
future studies
❍ No I am not interested
❍ Ask me again later in the survey
15. Assuming you attend your first choice
university, which of the following will be
your primary means of transportation to
and from school?
❍ Public Transit
❍ Private Automobile
❍ Walk/Cycle
A P P E N D I X A — 2 0 0 4 U N I V E R S I TY A P P L I C A N T S U R V E Y — S P E C I A L E D I T I O N 53
16. While in high school, how many times did
you travel by plane (to any destination for
any reason)?
❍ Zero
❍ 1 time
❍ 2–3 times
❍ 4–5 times
❍ 6+ times
17. Within the last year, for which of the following
reasons did you travel by plane? (Select all
that apply)
❍ Did not travel by plane within the last year
❍ Vacation with parent(s)/guardian(s)
❍ Independent vacation (without
parent(s)/guardian(s))
❍ Visiting family/friends
❍ Learning related trip (organized by school,
club, etc.)
❍ Sports related trips
❍ Other __________________________________
18. Within the last year, to which of the following
destinations did you travel to by plane? (Select
all that apply)
❍ Inside Canada
❍ United States
❍ Europe
❍ Other __________________________________
19. During the next year, do you expect to travel to
any destination served by VIA Rail Canada?
❍ Yes
❍ No
20. While you are at university next year, how many
trips to destinations served by VIA Rail Canada
do you expect to take?
1. With VIA ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍
Rail Canada
2. By Bus ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍
3. By Car ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍
4. By Plane ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍
21. What is the main reason you would give for not
choosing VIA Rail Canada for your trips?
❍ Station is too far from desired destination
❍ Schedules are not convenient
❍ Trip time is too long on the train
❍ The train is too expensive
❍ Trains may have trouble keeping to
their schedule
❍ I had not thought of using the train
❍ I own a car
❍ I prefer to travel by car
❍ I prefer to travel by bus
❍ I prefer to travel by plane
❍ Other __________________________________
22. Now we would like to ask you a few questions
about university costs and funding.
When considering your post-secondary
options, which of the following best describes
your process of decision making?
❍ My program of interest is very specific so
I selected universities that have a strong
reputation in that program
❍ My program of interest is widely available
so I selected universities that have a strong
reputation overall
❍ My program of interest is widely available,
so I selected universities to which I felt I
could get accepted
❍ My financial situation forced me to
consider only those universities close to
where I live
❍ None of the above
F U N D I N G U N I V E R S I TY E D U C AT I O N I N O N TA R I O54
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10+ D/K
23. To what extent would you like to have received
more information regarding:
Cost of Education
❍ Not At All
❍ Very Little
❍ Somewhat
❍ Very Much
❍ Don’t Know
24. Sources of money for your education
❍ Not At All
❍ Very Little
❍ Somewhat
❍ Very Much
❍ Don’t Know
25. Budgeting for university
❍ Not At All
❍ Very Little
❍ Somewhat
❍ Very Much
❍ Don’t Know
26. Applying for scholarships and bursaries
❍ Not At All
❍ Very Little
❍ Somewhat
❍ Very Much
❍ Don’t Know
27. Student loan programs
❍ Not At All
❍ Very Little
❍ Somewhat
❍ Very Much
❍ Don’t Know
28. Loan repayment options
❍ Not At All
❍ Very Little
❍ Somewhat
❍ Very Much
❍ Don’t Know
29. Loan repayment responsibilities
❍ Not At All
❍ Very Little
❍ Somewhat
❍ Very Much
❍ Don’t Know
30. Did you actively look for information about
the cost of education?
❍ Yes
❍ No
31. Did you actively look for information about
sources of money for your education?
❍ Yes
❍ No
32. Did you actively look for information about
budgeting for university?
❍ Yes
❍ No
33. Did you actively look for information about
applying for scholarships and bursaries?
❍ Yes
❍ No
34. Did you actively look for information about
student loan programs?
❍ Yes
❍ No
35. Did you actively look for information about
loan repayment options?
❍ Yes
❍ No
36. Did you actively look for information about
loan repayment responsibilities?
❍ Yes
❍ No
37. How might we get information about
education cost and funding sources to you
in a way that you are most likely to use?
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
A P P E N D I X A — 2 0 0 4 U N I V E R S I TY A P P L I C A N T S U R V E Y — S P E C I A L E D I T I O N 55
38. How knowledgeable are you about the
following student financial aid programs?
39. Following are some key sources of information
regarding higher education costs and funding
available to students. Please indicate how
helpful each source was to you. If you did
not use any of these sources, please indicate
by selecting “Did Not Use”.
F U N D I N G U N I V E R S I TY E D U C AT I O N I N O N TA R I O56
No
t A
t A
ll
Very
Lit
tle
Som
ewh
at
Very
Mu
ch
Do
n’t
Kn
ow
1. Federal Government
student loan programs
2. Provincial Government
student loan programs
3. Canada Study Grants
4. Provincial bursaries
(i.e. Ontario Student
Opportunity Grant)
5. Provincial scholarships
(i.e. Queen Elizabeth II)
6. Canada Millennium
Scholarship Foundation
Bursaries
7. Canada Millennium
Scholarship Foundation
Excellence Awards
❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍
❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍
❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍
❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍
❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍
❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍
❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍
Did
No
t U
se
No
t A
t A
ll
Very
Lit
tle
Som
ewh
at
Very
Do
n’t
Kn
ow
1. Presentation by
University Liaison
Officer
2. High school guidance
counsellors
3. Financial advice
brochures and
publications
4. University
publications
5. Discussions with
parents and relatives
6. Discussions with
friends
7. Books and magazines
8. Other education
related websites
9. CanLearn Interactive
(www.canlearn.ca)
10. Education planning
CD Rom
❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍
❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍
❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍
❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍
❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍
❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍
❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍
❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍
❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍
❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍
40. To what extent are you concerned about:
41. While you are at university do you plan to live at
home with your parent(s) or legal guardian(s)?
❍ Yes
❍ No
❍ Not Applicable
42. To what extent have finances determined this
decision to live at home?
❍ Not At All
❍ Very Little
❍ Somewhat
❍ Very Much
❍ Don’t Know
43. Was this decision largely...
❍ Voluntary (to save money and/or to
reduce debt)
❍ Involuntary (cannot afford to attend
otherwise)
44. You have indicated that you plan to live at
home because of your financial situation.
We would like to understand what, if any,
impact this had on your program of study.
Please indicate which of the following BEST
describes your situation:
❍ It did not impact my ability to pursue my
desired area of study; the local university
offers the courses I want.
❍ It impacted my ability to pursue my desired
area of study a little; the local university
offered courses related to what I wanted
to study.
❍ It impacted my ability to pursue my desired
area of study a lot; I had to limit my choice
to what was available at the local university.
45. Has money been saved for your university
education?
❍ Yes
❍ No
46. In total, how much money has been
saved (including savings from your parents,
grandparents, yourself and all others)?
__________________________________________
47. Have you planned the financing of university
with your parent(s) or legal guardian(s)?
❍ Yes
❍ No
❍ Not Applicable
48. What grade were you in when these
discussions first began?
❍ K–6
❍ 7
❍ 8
❍ 9
❍ 10
❍ 11
❍ 12
❍ OAC
❍ After HS
A P P E N D I X A — 2 0 0 4 U N I V E R S I TY A P P L I C A N T S U R V E Y — S P E C I A L E D I T I O N 57
No
t A
t A
ll
Very
Lit
tle
Som
ewh
at
Very
Mu
ch
Do
n’t
Kn
ow
1. Having sufficient
funding to complete
your university
education?
2. The amount of debt you
might incur by the time
you graduate?
3. Your ability to repay that
debt within a reasonable
timeframe?
❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍
❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍
❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍
49. Have your PARENTS/GUARDIANS put aside
any savings for your university education?
❍ Yes
❍ No
❍ Don’t Know
❍ Not Applicable
50. How many years have your parents/guardian
been saving?
❍ <1
❍ 1–5
❍ 6–10
❍ 11–15
❍ >15
51. Have YOU put aside any savings for university?
❍ Yes
❍ No
52. How many years have you been saving
for university?
❍ <1
❍ 1–5
❍ 6–10
❍ 11–15
❍ >15
53. We are interested in how applicants are
planning to cover the costs of their first year
of university.
Estimate your total cost (tuition, living
expenses, transportation, books) for your
FIRST YEAR of university?
__________________________________________
54. To cover costs of your first year of university,
please estimate how much money will come
from each of the following sources. Please enter
the dollar amount (do not use percentages).
Mark ‘0’ if the source will not be contributing.
Parental/Family Contribution
Registered Education
Savings Plan (RESP)
Trust Fund
Personal Savings
(pre-university)
Earnings from Part-time and
Summer Employment
Bank Loan
Government Student Loan
(Provincial or Federal)
Private Loan
(e.g. from family)
Scholarships/Bursaries
Aboriginal
Scholarships/Bursaries/
Fellowships
Other Government Grants
Other sources
F U N D I N G U N I V E R S I TY E D U C AT I O N I N O N TA R I O58
55. How many years do you estimate it will take to
pay off your debts from your intended program
of study?
❍ None-zero debt
❍ 1–3 years
❍ 4–7 years
❍ 8–11 years
❍ More than 11 years
❍ Don’t Know
We have one last section, only a few more minutes...
The following paragraphs describe a two-phase
program proposed to help high school students
explore career and education options. The idea of
the proposed program is not to try to get students
to choose a career; it is to provide information
on options. Please read the descriptions and then
honestly answer the questions that follow, consider-
ing how you would have responded in earlier grades:
The program will have 2 components.
Phase 1 — In-School Component: As part of your
coursework, you would be required to research and
write an essay-style paper on two possible careers/
fields that you find appealing. You would describe
why each career interests you, what education or
training would be required, the financial costs of the
education or training, and your strategies to pay for
them. Identify three advantages and three disadvan-
tages for each career, and conclude with a summary
of your main learning and your preferred choice of
the two. For bonus marks, you could interview one
or more people working in one of your selected
careers/fields. If your paper were selected as one of
the top three in your school, you would win great
prizes like a laptop computer or cash scholarship!
Phase 2 — Career Fair Component: In late November,
a major Career and Higher Education Fair would be
held in a large city near you. This fair would take
place over a 2–3 day period and you would have the
opportunity to attend with your class and/or in the
evening with your parent(s). At this Fair, both faculty
and current students from Ontario colleges and
universities would be exhibiting, so you could collect
information from them about their schools and ask
questions. You would also have the chance to
meet and talk with employers and associations
representing a wide range of possible careers—for
example, representatives from Microsoft, the Law
Society, and skilled trades (electricians, plumbers
etc.) might be there to answer your questions about
possible career choices. You would also get to sit in on
many scheduled seminars on subjects like high-
paying jobs, hot new career options, paying for
college, careers in technology, etc. Winners of the
prizes for the written assignments (Phase 1) would
be announced and receive prizes at this event.
A P P E N D I X A — 2 0 0 4 U N I V E R S I TY A P P L I C A N T S U R V E Y — S P E C I A L E D I T I O N 59
56. Based on this brief description, please answer
the following questions:
Would this type of program have appealed
to you?
❍ Not At All
❍ Very Little
❍ Somewhat
❍ Very Much
57. In what grade do you think “Phase 1: In-school
assignment” should be done?
❍ 7
❍ 8
❍ 9
❍ 10
❍ 11
❍ 12
58. Do you think this assignment would have
been helpful in getting you to explore your
education and career options?
❍ Yes
❍ No
❍ Not Sure
59. In what grade do you think the students
should attend “Phase 2: Career Fair?”
❍ 7
❍ 8
❍ 9
❍ 10
❍ 11
❍ 12
60. Do you think the Career Fair would have
been helpful in getting you to explore your
education and career options?
❍ Yes
❍ No
❍ Not Sure
61. What do you dislike about the proposed
program?
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
62. What do you like about it?
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
63. How might we improve this program to work
better for high school students?
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
64. Before we go on with the survey, we would like
to know if you would be interested in parti-
cipating in other research studies conducted
by Acumen Research. Most of these studies
offer paid incentives or prizes.
Would you like to be contacted about such
opportunities? You would still have the option
to decline participation at that time. OUAC
will provide Acumen Research your name and
contact information only if you say yes.
❍ Yes I am interested in participating
in future studies
❍ No I am not interested
F U N D I N G U N I V E R S I TY E D U C AT I O N I N O N TA R I O60
Dear University Applicant,
University can be one of the most exciting and important chapters in your life. You are one of 10,000 people
whose name was randomly selected from over 115,000 university applicants to participate in this special
edition of the Annual University Applicant Survey (2004). This survey is being conducted by Acumen
Research Group on behalf of organizations like the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation and the
Canada Student Loans Program. The survey is being managed by the Ontario Universities’ Application Centre
in order to ensure that the anonymity of participants is preserved.
This survey is easy to complete—it should take approximately 10–15 minutes of your time.
To say “thank you” for participating in this important study, your name will be entered in a draw for one of
25 GREAT PRIZES! Participation is voluntary and your responses will remain anoymous.
61
Appendix B
Invitational and Reminder Email
First Prize!
Toshiba Laptop
P4, 2.6 GHz, 256 MB, 40 GB & DVD-CD RW drive
Other Prizes!
20–$50 VIA Rail CanadaTravel Certificates
Second Prizes!
$1,000 in Free TravelTwo Travel CUTStravel vouchers
Prize applies to any travel arrangementsmade at any Travel CUTS office in
Canada. Non-transferrable. No cashvalue. If the purchase is less than the
certificate amount, a new certificate willbe issued in the amount of the balance.
www.travelcuts.ca
Third Prizes!
2-Weekend EscapesRound-trip Tickets for 2
Value — $500 each
Valid anywhere VIA Rail Canadatravels in the Windsor to Quebec
City corridor. Economy Class only.
www.viarail.ca
Please click here to take online survey
If the above link did not direct you into the survey:
1) Please copy and paste the following URL into the address bar.
http://uas.acumenresearch.com/sms/index.php?fuseaction=deployment.home&survey_id=28
2) Then enter the login and password provided below
Login: < >
Password: < >
The survey will be online until May 20, 2004
If you have additional questions on how to complete the questionnaire, please contact Acumen Research Group at 1-866-9-ACUMEN (1-866-922-8636) or at [email protected]
F U N D I N G U N I V E R S I TY E D U C AT I O N I N O N TA R I O62
Dear University Applicant,
About a week ago, you were sent an email invitation to participate in this special edition of the Annual
University Applicant Survey (2004). A select, but representative, sample of university applicants have been
chosen to participate in this survey. It is extremely important that your opinions be included. If you have not
started survey, please take a few minutes to complete the survey.
If you already started filling out the survey but did not complete it, note that your data has been saved and you
can therefore continue from where you left off. Once again, to thank you for completing the survey, we will
enter your name in a draw for one of 25 great thank you prizes!
First Prize!
Toshiba Laptop
P4, 2.6 GHz, 256 MB, 40 GB & DVD-CD RW drive
Other Prizes!
20-$50 VIA Rail CanadaTravel Certificates
Second Prizes!
$1,000 in Free TravelTwo Travel CUTStravel vouchers
Prize applies to any travel arrangementsmade at any Travel CUTS office in
Canada. Non-transferrable. No cashvalue. If the purchase is less than the
certificate amount, a new certificate willbe issued in the amount of the balance.
www.travelcuts.ca
Third Prizes!
2-Weekend EscapesRound-trip Tickets for 2
Value — $500 each
Valid anywhere VIA Rail Canadatravels in the Windsor to Quebec
City corridor. Economy Class only.
www.viarail.ca
Please click here to take online survey
If the above link did not direct you into the survey:
1) Please copy and paste the following URL into the address bar.
http://uas.acumenresearch.com/sms/index.php?fuseaction=deployment.home&survey_id=28
2) Then enter the login and password provided below
Login: < >
Password: < >
The survey will be online until May 20, 2004
If you have additional questions on how to complete the questionnaire, please contact Acumen Research Group at 1-866-9-ACUMEN (1-866-922-8636) or at [email protected]
Thank you for your time, and best wishes in the future.
Throughout this report, results are reported according
to seven different regions. The participants’ geo-
graphic origins are derived from the 1st character of
their postal code. For detailed information about
each region, please refer to the maps, following.
Table 1, below, displays the response rates from
each province and/or territory. Due to their lower
application rates, out-of-province respondents are
grouped into two regional categories: 1) provinces
east of Ontario and 2) provinces west of Ontario
and the territories. Within Ontario, participants are
grouped into five regions:
1. Eastern Ontario (all postal codes beginning with
the letter ‘K’);
2. Central Ontario (all postal codes beginning with
the letter ‘L’);
3. Metropolitan Toronto (all postal codes beginning
with the letter ‘M’);
4. Southwestern Ontario (all postal codes beginning
with the letter ‘N’);
5. Northern Ontario (all postal codes beginning
with the letter ‘P’).
63
Appendix C
Regional Definitions
Table 1 – Participants by Province
Valid
Missing
Total
Newfoundland
Nova Scotia
PEI
New Brunswick
Eastern Quebec
Montreal
Western Quebec
Eastern Ontario
Central Ontario
Metro Toronto
SW Ontario
Northern Ontario
Manitoba
Saskatchewan
Alberta
British Columbia
Northern Territories
Total
System
Frequency
2
25
2
11
3
17
29
346
893
589
380
115
11
7
50
97
2
2,579
47
2,626
Per Cent
0.1
1.0
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.6
1.1
13.2
34.0
22.4
14.5
4.4
0.4
0.3
1.9
3.7
0.1
98.2
1.8
100.0
ValidPercentage
0.1
1.0
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.7
1.1
13.4
34.6
22.8
14.7
4.5
0.4
0.3
1.9
3.8
0.1
100.0
CumulativePercentage
0.1
1.0
1.1
1.6
1.7
2.3
3.5
16.9
51.5
74.3
89.1
93.5
94.0
94.2
96.2
99.9
100.0
F U N D I N G U N I V E R S I TY E D U C AT I O N I N O N TA R I O64
Table 2 — Participants by Region
Figure 1 — Postal Code Forward Sortation Areas for Canada
Valid
Missing
Total
Western Canada
Northern Ontario
SW Ontario
Central Ontario
Metro Toronto
Eastern Ontario
Eastern Canada
Total
System
Frequency
167
115
380
893
589
346
89
2,579
47
2,626
Per Cent
6.4
4.4
14.5
34.0
22.4
13.2
3.4
98.2
1.8
100.0
ValidPercentage
6.5
4.5
14.7
34.6
22.8
13.4
3.5
100.0
CumulativePercentage
6.5
10.9
25.7
60.3
83.1
96.5
100.0
XX
Y
VT S
R
P
L
N MK
H
EB
C
A
AJ Newfoundland and Labrador
Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador
P.E.IÎ.-P.-É
Nova ScotiaNouvelle-Écosse
New BrunswickNouveau-Brunswick
NorthwestTerritories
Territoires duNord-Ouest
British Columbia
Colombie-Britannique
QuebecQuébec
Ontario
Alberta
Saskatchewan
Manitoba
Nunavut
Yukon
G
CARTE DU CANADA INDIQUANT COMMENT EST
ATTRIBUÉ LE PREMIER CARACTÈRE DU CODE POSTAL
MAP OF CANADA SHOWINGALLOCATION OF THE FIRST
CHARACTER OF THE POSTAL CODE
In Question 9, respondents are asked to indicate their
total household income per year. Household income
is broken down into 12 different categories. For ease
of reporting, income categories are collapsed into
broader categories. Table 1 below shows the complete
results, while Table 2 show the categorized results.
Appendix D
Income Breakdowns
Table 1 — Total Household Income per Year
Valid
Missing
Total
<$20,000
$20,000–$29,999
$30,000–$39,999
$40,000–$49,999
$50,000–$59,999
$60,000–$69,999
$70,000–$79,999
$80,000–$89,999
$90,000–$99,999
$100,000–$119,999
$120,000+
Don’t Know
Total
0
Frequency
705
131
169
137
140
147
137
105
82
133
200
539
2,625
1
2,626
Per Cent
26.8
5.0
6.4
5.2
5.3
5.6
5.2
4.0
3.1
5.1
7.6
20.5
100.0
0.0
100.0
ValidPercentage
26.9
5.0
6.4
5.2
5.3
5.6
5.2
4.0
3.1
5.1
7.6
20.5
100.0
CumulativePercentage
26.9
31.8
38.3
43.5
48.8
54.4
59.7
63.7
66.8
71.8
79.5
100.0
Table 2 — Total Household Income Reporting Category
Valid
Missing
Total
< $29,999
$30,000–$49,999
$50,000–$89,999
$90,000–$119,999
$120,000+
Don’t Know
Total
System
Frequency
836
306
529
215
200
539
2,625
1
2,626
Per Cent
31.8
11.7
20.1
8.2
7.6
20.5
100.0
0.0
100.0
ValidPercentage
31.8
11.7
20.2
8.2
7.6
20.5
100.0
CumulativePercentage
31.8
43.5
63.7
71.8
79.5
100.0
65
66
In Question 11, respondents are asked to indicate
if they are an Aboriginal person. Significant and/or
interesting findings are reported. Tables 1–5 show the
complete cross tab results. Please note that as the
report shows, a total of 35 respondents indicated
they are Aboriginal. Please consider cell size when
interpreting results.
Appendix E
Aboriginal Status Cross-Tabs
Table 1 — Aboriginal Status by Gender
Sex Female Count
%
Male Count
%
Total Count
%
Yes
23
65.7%
12
34.3%
35
100.0%
No
1,602
61.9%
988
38.1%
2,590
100.0%
Total
1,625
61.9%
1,000
38.1%
2,625
100.0%
Aboriginal
Table 2 — Aboriginal Status by Age
Age ofApplicant
Total
17 or less
18
19
20–24
25–29
30+
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Yes
2
5.7%
11
31.4%
5
14.3%
9
25.7%
2
5.7%
6
17.1%
35
100.0%
No
34
1.3%
1,372
53.0%
528
20.4%
495
19.1%
81
3.1%
79
3.1%
2,589
100.0%
Total
36
1.4%
1,383
52.7%
533
20.3%
504
19.2%
83
3.2%
85
3.2%
2,624
100.0%
Aboriginal
A P P E N D I X E — A B O R I G I N A L S TAT U S C R O S S - TA B S 67
Table 3 — Aboriginal Status by Employment
Employment
Status
Total
Part-time
Full-time
Not Employed
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Yes
11
31.4%
10
28.6%
14
40.0%
35
100.0%
No
1,321
51.0%
324
12.5%
945
36.5%
2,590
100.0%
Total
1,332
50.7%
334
12.7%
959
36.5%
2,625
100.0%
Aboriginal
Table 4 — Aboriginal Status by Grade
Grade
Total
<60%
60–64%
65–69%
70–74%
75–79%
80–84%
85–89%
90–94%
95%+
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Yes
2
5.7%
3
8.6%
6
17.1%
12
34.3%
7
20.0%
5
14.3%
35
100.0%
No
16
0.6%
24
0.9%
79
3.1%
287
11.1%
452
17.5%
692
26.7%
610
23.6%
361
13.9%
69
2.7%
2,590
100.0%
Total
18
0.7%
24
0.9%
79
3.0%
290
11.0%
458
17.4%
704
26.8%
617
23.5%
366
13.9%
69
2.6%
2,625
100.0%
Aboriginal
F U N D I N G U N I V E R S I TY E D U C AT I O N I N O N TA R I O68
Table 5 — Aboriginal Status by Household Income
HouseholdIncome
Total
< $29,999
$30,000–$49,999
$50,000–$89,999
$90,000–$119,999
$120,000+
Don’t Know
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Yes
14
40.0%
6
17.1%
6
17.1%
4
11.4%
1
2.9%
4
11.4%
35
100.0%
No
822
31.7%
300
11.6%
523
20.2%
211
8.1%
199
7.7%
535
20.7%
2,590
100.0%
Total
836
31.8%
306
11.7%
529
20.2%
215
8.2%
200
7.6%
539
20.5%
2,625
100.0%
Aboriginal
69
In Question 10, respondents are asked if they are
a person with a disability. A brief description of
what constitutes a disability was provided on the
questionnaire. Tables 1–4 show the complete cross
tab results. Please note that as the report shows,
a total of 69 respondents indicated they are persons
with disabilities. Please consider cell size when
interpreting results.
Appendix F
Disability Cross-Tabs
Table 1 — Person with Disability by Gender
Sex Female Count
%
Male Count
%
Total Count
%
Yes
41
59.4%
28
40.6%
69
100.0%
No
1,584
62.0%
972
38.0%
2,556
100.0%
Total
1,625
61.9%
1 000
38.1%
2,625
100.0%
Disability
Table 2 — Person with Disability by Age
Age ofApplicant
Total
17 or less
18
19
20–24
25–29
30+
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Yes
1
1.4%
27
39.1%
13
18.8%
15
21.7%
3
4.3%
10
14.5%
69
100.0%
No
35
1.4%
1,356
53.1%
520
20.4%
489
19.1%
80
3.1%
75
2.9%
2,555
100.0%
Total
36
1.4%
1,383
52.7%
533
20.3%
504
19.2%
83
3.2%
85
3.2%
2,624
100.0%
Disability
F U N D I N G U N I V E R S I TY E D U C AT I O N I N O N TA R I O70
Table 3 — Person with Disability by Employment
EmploymentStatus
Total
Full-time
Part-time
Not Employed
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Yes
31
44.9%
8
11.6%
30
43.5%
69
100.0%
No
1,301
50.9%
326
12.8%
929
36.3%
2,556
100.0%
Total
1,332
50.7%
334
12.7%
959
36.5%
2,625
100.0%
Disability
Table 4 — Person with Disability by Grade
Grade
Total
<60%
60–64%
65–69%
70–74%
75–79%
80–84%
85–89%
90–94%
95%+
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Yes
1
1.4%
1
1.4%
5
7.2%
10
14.5%
16
23.2%
17
24.6%
8
11.6%
10
14.5%
1
1.4%
69
100.0%
No
17
0.7%
23
0.9%
74
2.9%
280
11.0%
442
17.3%
687
26.9%
609
23.8%
356
13.9%
68
2.7%
2,556
100.0%
Total
18
0.7%
24
0.9%
79
3.0%
290
11.0%
458
17.4%
704
26.8%
617
23.5%
366
13.9%
69
2.6%
2,625
100.0%
Disability
A P P E N D I X F — D I S A B I L I TY C R O S S - TA B S 71
Table 5 — Person with Disability by Household Income
HouseholdIncome
Total
< $29,999
$30,000–$49,999
$50,000–$89,999
$90,000–$119,999
$120,000+
Don’t Know
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Yes
21
30.4%
7
10.1%
20
29.0%
4
5.8%
5
7.2%
12
17.4%
69
100.0%
No
815
31.9%
299
11.7%
509
19.9%
211
8.3%
195
7.6%
527
20.6%
2,556
100.0%
Total
836
31.8%
306
11.7%
529
20.2%
215
8.2%
200
7.6%
539
20.5%
2,625
100.0%
Disability
72
In Question 14, respondents are asked if they belonged
to a visible minority group. If yes, respondents are
asked to indicate which group. Tables 1–6 show the
complete cross tab results. Please note that as the
report shows, a total of 730 respondents indicated
they belong to a visible minority group. As some
respondents did not answer every question, cross tab
totals do not always equal 730. Please consider cell
size when interpreting results.
Appendix G
Visible Minority Cross-Tabs
Table 1 — Visible Minority by Gender
Sex Female Count
%
Male Count
%
Total Count
%
Yes
41
59.4%
28
40.6%
69
100.0%
No
1,584
62.0%
972
38.0%
2,556
100.0%
Total
1,625
61.9%
1,000
38.1%
2,625
100.0%
Visible Minority
Table 2 — Visible Minority Group by Gender
VisibleMinorityGroup
Total
South Asian
Arab/West Asian
South East Asian
Black
Chinese
Korean
Filipino
Japanese
Other
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Female
117
52.2%
23
52.3%
13
65.0%
51
60.0%
128
57.4%
13
36.1%
17
48.6%
9
69.2%
23
48.9%
394
54.2%
Male
107
47.8%
21
47.7%
7
35.0%
34
40.0%
95
42.6%
23
63.9%
18
51.4%
4
30.8%
24
51.1%
333
45.8%
Total
224
100.0%
44
100.0%
20
100.0%
85
100.0%
223
100.0%
36
100.0%
35
100.0%
13
100.0%
47
100.0%
727
100.0%
Sex
A P P E N D I X G — V I S I B L E M I N O R I TY C R O S S - TA B S 73
Table 3 — Visible Minority by Age
Age ofApplicant
Total
17 or less
18
19
20–24
25–29
30+
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Yes
18
2.5%
401
54.9%
136
18.6%
121
16.6%
25
3.4%
29
4.0%
730
100.0%
No
18
1.0%
982
51.8%
397
21.0%
383
20.2%
58
3.1%
56
3.0%
1,894
100.0%
Total
36
1.4%
1,383
52.7%
533
20.3%
504
19.2%
83
3.2%
85
3.2%
2,624
100.0%
Visible Minority
Table 4 — Visible Minority by Employment
EmploymentStatus
Total
Part-time
Full-time
Not Employed
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Yes
263
36.0%
54
7.4%
413
56.6%
730
100.0%
No
1,069
56.4%
280
14.8%
546
28.8%
1,895
100.0%
Total
1,332
50.7%
334
12.7%
959
36.5%
2,625
100.0%
Visible Minority
F U N D I N G U N I V E R S I TY E D U C AT I O N I N O N TA R I O74
Table 5 — Visible Minority by Grade
Notes
Total
<60%
60–64%
65–69%
70–74%
75–79%
80–84%
85–89%
90–94%
95%+
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Yes
9
1.2%
8
1.1%
31
4.2%
93
12.7%
114
15.6%
187
25.6%
165
22.6%
100
13.7%
23
3.2%
730
100.0%
No
9
0.5%
16
0.8%
48
2.5%
197
10.4%
344
18.2%
517
27.3%
452
23.9%
266
14.0%
46
2.4%
1,895
100.0%
Total
18
0.7%
24
0.9%
79
3.0%
290
11.0%
458
17.4%
704
26.8%
617
23.5%
366
13.9%
69
2.6%
2,625
100.0%
Visible Minority
Table 6 — Visible Minority by Household Income
HouseholdIncome
Total
< $29,999
$30,000–$49,999
$50,000–$89,999
$90,000–$119,999
$120,000+
Don't Know
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Yes
251
34.4%
115
15.8%
135
18.5%
38
5.2%
27
3.7%
164
22.5%
730
100.0%
No
585
30.9%
191
10.1%
394
20.8%
177
9.3%
173
9.1%
375
19.8%
1,895
100.0%
Total
836
31.8%
306
11.7%
529
20.2%
215
8.2%
200
7.6%
539
20.5%
2,625
100.0%
Visible Minority
75
Knowledge of Student Financial Aid Programs by Age (mean score 1–4)
Age of Applicant
17 orless
18
19
20–24
25–29
30+
Total
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
FederalLoan
Program
1.91
34
0.93
2.07
1,333
0.88
2.19
511
0.90
2.26
488
0.98
2.61
83
0.92
2.43
82
1.03
2.16
2,531
0.92
Prov.Loan
Program
2.03
35
1.04
2.21
1,335
0.92
2.37
514
0.92
2.48
493
1.01
2.75
83
0.94
2.59
83
0.99
2.32
2,543
0.95
CanadaStudy
Grants
1.47
34
0.71
1.78
1,318
0.82
1.72
506
0.75
1.70
484
0.80
1.71
79
0.86
2.03
79
0.96
1.75
2,500
0.81
ProvincialBursaries
1.86
36
0.93
2.05
1,330
0.92
2.04
513
0.90
1.88
484
0.90
1.81
81
0.88
1.77
82
0.86
2.00
2,526
0.91
Prov.Scholarships
2.17
35
1.01
2.42
1,336
0.97
2.31
517
1.00
1.90
484
0.94
1.66
80
0.79
1.70
80
0.89
2.25
2,532
0.99
CMSFExcell.Awards
2.45
33
1.23
2.28
1,329
1.05
2.11
509
1.03
1.89
481
0.93
1.79
81
0.86
1.66
79
0.89
2.13
2,512
1.03
CMSFBursaries
2.26
34
1.26
2.21
1,327
1.01
2.09
509
1.00
1.99
483
0.97
1.96
81
0.97
1.88
81
1.03
2.13
2,515
1.01
Appendix H
Additional Funding Cross-Tabs
F U N D I N G U N I V E R S I TY E D U C AT I O N I N O N TA R I O76
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Friends Parents Univ.Publications
GuidanceCounsellors
Booksand
Magazines
Other Ed.Websites
FinancialBrochures
UniversityLiaison
CanLearn Ed. Plan. CD
100%
Use of Cost and Funding Information by Aboriginal Status (percent)
YesNo
Aboriginal
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
100%
Use of Cost and Funding Information by Language (percent)
EnglishFrench
Language
Friends Parents Univ.Publications
GuidanceCounsellors
Booksand
Magazines
Other Ed.Websites
FinancialBrochures
UniversityLiaison
CanLearn Ed. Plan. CD
Mean Helpfulness of Cost and Funding Information Sources by Aboriginal Status (mean score 1–4)
University Liaison
Guidance Counsellor
Financial Brochures
Univ. Publications
Parents & Relatives
Friends
Books and Magazines
Other Ed. Websites
CanLearn
Ed. Planning CD-Rom
Mean
2.61
2.45
2.71
2.92
2.96
3.10
2.68
3.10
2.29
2.20
N
18
22
14
26
28
29
25
20
7
5
Yes
Mean
2.99
2.80
2.66
3.02
3.10
3.02
2.69
2.85
2.30
1.87
N
1,350
2,059
1,621
2,153
2,300
2,324
1,875
1,845
463
292
No
Aboriginal
Mean
2.98
2.79
2.66
3.02
3.10
3.03
2.69
2.85
2.30
1.87
N
1,368
2,081
1,635
2,179
2,328
2,353
1,900
1,865
470
297
Total
A P P E N D I X H — A D D I T I O N A L F U N D I N G C R O S S - TA B S 77
Mean Helpfulness of Cost and Funding Information Sources by Disability (mean score 1–4)
University Liaison
Guidance Counsellor
Financial Brochures
Univ. Publications
Parents & Relatives
Friends
Books and Magazines
Other Ed. Websites
CanLearn
Ed. Planning CD-Rom
Mean
2.59
2.77
2.77
3.03
2.97
2.91
2.71
2.98
2.22
2.25
N
39
47
44
58
61
64
49
51
9
4
Yes
Mean
2.99
2.79
2.65
3.02
3.10
3.03
2.69
2.85
2.30
1.87
N
1,329
2,034
1,591
2,121
2,267
2,289
1,851
1,814
461
293
No
Disability
Mean
2.98
2.79
2.66
3.02
3.10
3.03
2.69
2.85
2.30
1.87
N
1,368
2,081
1,635
2,179
2,328
2,353
1,900
1,865
470
297
Total
Desire For More Financial Information by Visible Minority StatusMeans Q23a – Q23g by Q12
Cost of Education
Sources of Money
Budgeting
Schol’ps/Bursaries
Student Loans
Loan Repay. Options
Loan Repay. Resp.
Mean
3.45
3.45
3.34
3.55
3.29
3.17
3.17
N
730
730
730
730
730
730
730
Yes
Mean
3.15
3.28
3.15
3.50
3.00
2.88
2.87
N
1,895
1,895
1,895
1,895
1,895
1,895
1,895
No
Visible Minority
Mean
3.23
3.33
3.20
3.52
3.08
2.96
2.95
N
2,625
2,625
2,625
2,625
2,625
2,625
2,625
Total
Desire For More Financial Information by LanguageMeans Q23a – Q23g by language
Cost of Education
Sources of Money
Budgeting
Schol’ps/Bursaries
Student Loans
Loan Repay. Options
Loan Repay. Resp.
Mean
3.22
3.32
3.20
3.51
3.07
2.95
2.94
N
2,577
2,577
2,577
2,577
2,577
2,577
2,577
English
Mean
3.61
3.59
3.06
3.78
3.67
3.29
3.29
N
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
French
Language
Mean
3.23
3.33
3.20
3.51
3.08
2.96
2.95
N
2,626
2,626
2,626
2,626
2,626
2,626
2,626
Total
F U N D I N G U N I V E R S I TY E D U C AT I O N I N O N TA R I O78
Desire For More Financial Information by Whether Applicants Actively Sought Information
Q23a by Q24a
Cost ofEducation
Total
Somewhat
Very Much
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Yes
620
41.8%
864
58.2%
1,484
100.0%
No
370
61.0%
237
39.0%
607
100.0%
Total
990
47.3%
1,101
52.7%
2,091
100.0%
Cost of Education
Q23b by Q24b
Sources ofmoney
Total
Somewhat
Very Much
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Yes
439
31.4%
961
68.6%
1,400
100.0%
No
366
52.1%
336
47.9%
702
100.0%
Total
805
38.3%
1,297
61.7%
2,102
100.0%
Sources of Money
Q23d by Q24d
Schol’ps/Bursaries
Total
Somewhat
Very Much
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Yes
293
18.9%
1,257
81.1%
1,550
100.0%
No
289
40.8%
420
59.2%
709
100.0%
Total
582
25.8%
1,677
74.2%
2,259
100.0%
Scholarships & Bursaries
Q23c by Q24c
Budgeting
Total
Very Little
Somewhat
Very Much
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Yes
338
38.5%
540
61.5%
878
100.0%
No
1
0.1%
616
52.3%
560
47.6%
1,177
100.0%
Total
1
0.0%
954
46.4%
1,100
53.5%
2,055
100.0%
Budgeting
A P P E N D I X H — A D D I T I O N A L F U N D I N G C R O S S - TA B S 79
Q23e by Q24e
StudentLoans
Total
Somewhat
Very much
Don’t Know
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Yes
239
24.8%
723
75.1%
1
0.1%
963
100.0%
No
460
53.1%
404
46.7%
2
0.2%
866
100.0%
Total
699
38.2%
1,127
61.6%
3
0.2%
1,829
100.0%
Student Loan Programs
Q23f by Q24f
Loan Repay.Options
Total
Very Little
Very much
Don’t Know
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Yes
132
27.6%
347
72.4%
479
100.0%
No
1
0.1%
572
47.2%
640
52.8%
1,213
100.0%
Total
1
0.1%
704
41.6%
987
58.3%
1,692
100.0%
Loan Repayment Options
Q23g by Q24g
Loan Repay.Resp.
Total
Somewhat
Very much
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Yes
130
27.5%
343
72.5%
473
100.0%
No
596
48.9%
622
51.1%
1,218
100.0%
Total
726
42.9%
965
57.1%
1,691
100.0%
Loan Repayment Responsibilities
F U N D I N G U N I V E R S I TY E D U C AT I O N I N O N TA R I O80
Decision Making Process by GenderQ22 by sex
Process ofDecision Making
Total
Specific Program,Strong Reputation
Available Program,Strong Reputation
Available Program,Accepted Me
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Female
616
38.0%
535
33.0%
126
7.8%
179
11.0%
167
10.3%
1,623
100.0%
Male
414
41.4%
271
27.1%
118
11.8%
113
11.3%
84
8.4%
1,000
100.0%
Total
1,030
39.3%
806
30.7%
244
9.3%
292
11.1%
251
9.6%
2,623
100.0%
Financial Situation
None of the Above
Sex
Decision Making Process by DisabilityQ22 by Q10
Process ofDecision Making
Total
Specific Program,Strong Reputation
Available Program,Strong Reputation
Available Program,Accepted Me
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Yes
26
37.7%
18
26.1%
4
5.8%
13
18.8%
8
11.6%
69
100.0%
No
1,004
39.3%
788
30.9%
240
9.4%
279
10.9%
243
9.5%
2,554
100.0%
Total
1,030
39.3%
806
30.7%
244
9.3%
292
11.1%
251
9.6%
2,623
100.0%
Financial Situation
None of the Above
Disability
Estimated Total Cost of First Year
Region
Western Canada
Northern Ontario
SW Ontario
Central Ontario
Metro Toronto
Eastern Ontario
Eastern Canada
Total
Estimated Cost of the 1st Year by RegionMean Q35 by region
Mean
14,585.53
11,662.11
14,197.05
11,780.27
11,817.11
12,522.11
12,294.12
12,462.86
N
76
57
182
377
274
147
34
1,147
A P P E N D I X H — A D D I T I O N A L F U N D I N G C R O S S - TA B S 81
% Planning Finances with Parents by LanguageQ32a by language
Planned Financingwith Parent(s)
Total
Yes
No
Not Applicable
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
English
1,426
55.9%
968
38.0%
156
6.1%
2,550
100.0%
French
25
51.0%
21
42.9%
3
6.1%
49
100.0%
Total
1,451
55.8%
989
38.1%
159
6.1%
2,599
100.0%
Language
% Planning Finances with Parents by Visible Minority StatusQ32a by Q12
Planned Financingwith Parent(s)
Total
Yes
No
Not Applicable
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Yes
359
49.9%
309
43.0%
51
7.1%
719
100.0%
No
1,092
58.1%
680
36.2%
108
5.7%
1,880
100.0%
Total
1,451
55.8%
989
38.1%
159
6.1%
2,599
100.0%
Visible Minority
% Planning FinancesQ32a by Q10
Planned Financingwith Parent(s)
Total
Yes
No
Not Applicable
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Yes
30
44.1%
33
48.5%
5
7.4%
68
100.0%
No
1,421
56.1%
956
37.8%
154
6.1%
2,531
100.0%
Total
1,451
55.8%
989
38.1%
159
6.1%
2,599
100.0%
Disability
F U N D I N G U N I V E R S I TY E D U C AT I O N I N O N TA R I O82
Parents/Guardians Saving for University by LanguageQ33a by language
Have Parents Saved
Total
Yes
No
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
English
1,339
67.3%
650
32.7%
1,989
100.0%
French
24
55.8%
19
44.2%
43
100.0%
Total
1,363
67.1%
669
32.9%
2,032
100.0%
Language
Parents/Guardians Saving for University by Aboriginal StatusQ33a by Q11
Have Parents Saved
Total
Yes
No
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Yes
9
39.1%
14
60.9%
23
100.0%
No
1,354
67.4%
655
32.6%
2,009
100.0%
Total
1,363
67.1%
669
32.9%
2,032
100.0%
Aboriginal
Parents/Guardians Saving for University by RegionQ33a by Region
Region Western Canada
Northern Ontario
SW Ontario
Central Ontario
Metro Toronto
Eastern Ontario
Eastern Canada
Total
Count
100
61
196
487
261
182
43
1,330
%
75.8%
61.6%
66.4%
71.2%
60.0%
67.9%
55.1%
66.8%
Yes
Count
32
38
99
197
174
86
35
661
%
24.2%
38.4%
33.6%
28.8%
40.0%
32.1%
44.9%
33.2%
No
Have Parents Saved
Count
132
99
295
684
435
268
78
1,991
%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Total
A P P E N D I X H — A D D I T I O N A L F U N D I N G C R O S S - TA B S 83
# of Years Parents Saving by Visible Minority StatusQ33b by Q12
Years Parens Saved
Total
<1
1–5
6–10
11–15
>15
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Yes
18
5.6%
138
43.1%
70
21.9%
33
10.3%
61
19.1%
320
100.0%
No
72
7.1%
274
27.0%
201
19.8%
140
13.8%
327
32.2%
1,014
100.0%
Total
90
6.7%
412
30.9%
271
20.3%
173
13.%
388
29.1%
1,334
100.0%
Visible Minority
Applicant Saving for University by DisabilityQ34a by Q10
Have YOUSaved
Total
Yes
No
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Yes
45
66.2%
23
33.8%
68
100.0%
No
1,382
54.8%
1 140
45.2%
2,522
100.0%
Total
1,427
55.1%
1,163
44.9%
2,590
100.0%
Disability
Applicant Saving for University by Aboriginal StatusQ34a by Q11
Have YOUSaved
Total
Yes
No
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Yes
13
38.2%
21
61.8%
34
100.0%
No
1,414
55.3%
1,142
44.7%
2,556
100.0%
Total
1,427
55.1%
1,163
44.9%
2,590
100.0%
Aboriginal
F U N D I N G U N I V E R S I TY E D U C AT I O N I N O N TA R I O84
Applicant Saving for University by Visible Minority StatusQ34a by Q12
Have YOUSaved
Total
Yes
No
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Yes
287
40.0%
431
60.0%
718
100.0%
No
1,140
60.9%
732
39.1%
1,872
100.0%
Total
1,427
55.1%
1,163
44.9%
2,590
100.0%
Visible Minority
Per cent Having Money Saved by Aboriginal StatusQ31a by Q11
Money Savedfor University
Total
Yes
No
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Yes
18
51.4%
17
48.6%
35
100.0%
No
1,763
68.4%
815
31.6%
2,578
100.0%
Total
1,781
68.2%
832
31.8%
2,613
100.0%
Aboriginal
Per cent Having Money Saved by LanguageQ31a by language
Money Savedfor University
Total
Yes
No
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
English
1,753
68.4%
811
31.6%
2 564
100.0%
Français
28
57.1%
21
42.9%
49
100.0%
Total
1,781
68.2%
832
31.8%
2,613
100.0%
Language
Per cent Having Money Saved by Visible Minority StatusQ31a by Q12
Money Savedfor University
Total
Yes
No
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Yes
439
60.6%
286
39.4%
725
100.0%
No
1,342
71.1%
546
28.9%
1,888
100.0%
Total
1,781
68.2%
832
31.8%
2,613
100.0%
Visible Minority