funding university education in ontario profile_10 university funding _17 loan and influence...

Funding UniversityEducation in OntarioOntario University Applicant SurveyTM Report

joelrivard

Typewritten Text

February 2006

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).


< $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.


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 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%).


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).


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)


Female

Aged 18 or less

Employed part-time

Grade average below 70%





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


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


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)


Female

Aged 18 or less

Employed part-time

Grade average below 70%





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).


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.


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


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


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%


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


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


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.


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


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


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.


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%


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).


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


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


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).


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


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


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).


4.03.53.02.5


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.


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%

Mail

Website / Internet

Brochures / Pamphlets

E-mail

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

Email

Mail

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.


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


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


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


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.


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).


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.


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%


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 %


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).


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.


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.


<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.


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


<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).


$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).


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.


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.


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.


<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.


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.


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


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


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


sources of money for your education?

❍ Yes

❍ No


budgeting for university?

❍ Yes

❍ No


applying for scholarships and bursaries?

❍ Yes

❍ No


student loan programs?

❍ Yes

❍ No


loan repayment options?

❍ Yes

❍ No


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?

__________________________________________

__________________________________________

__________________________________________

__________________________________________


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”.


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


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


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.


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


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]


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


% 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


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


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


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


# 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


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


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


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

funding university education in ontario profile_____10 university funding _____17 loan and influence...

Documents

funding university education in ontario profile_10 university funding _17 loan and influence...