Template talk:Post-secondary institutions in Ontario

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

message: I removed Alfred Kemptville Ridgetown because 2 of the 3 simply re-direct to the Ontario Agricultural College. They're all campuses of the larger University of Guelph. If we include them, then we have to include every member college of the University of Toronto, to start. GreenJoe 21:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that move. and actually I was about to do that myself...but anyhoo... Good job GJ. nat.utoronto 21:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specialist institutions 

message: What is the difference between this section and the "Privately Funded Institutions"? Could RCC and CMCC not be moved into the Privately Funded Institutions section? DigitalC (talk) 10:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference is that these institution are "...either established through an Act of the Legislative Assembly or through a Royal Charter", as stated on the bottom of the degree-granting institution section. nat.utoronto 17:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But does it really matter? Can't we just find a common title and combine them? GreenJoe 17:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it does, as these institutions under degree-granting institution section are established and the authority to grant accredited degrees by the crown (through a royal charter or through the royal assent of their respective acts) and that essentially separates them from other institutions listed here. nat.utoronto 18:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it doesn't. That's the job of the article, not the silly template. We could easily remove the words about how they are established. GreenJoe 19:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it does. The fact is the position of those institutions in the case of offering a degree program is non-permanent and could be easily removed at the whims of the Minister, while the private institutions can only have their authority remove through a lengthy legislative process (or quick if the legislature is unanimous, but that would be rare). nat.utoronto 19:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As well, they offer more than one academic degree program (if not all their academic programs end in a degree) unlike those who offer programs under ministerial consent which are often only one or two programs. nat.utoronto 20:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, they are listed differently by the MTCU. nat.utoronto 20:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're being petty, instead of cooperating. GreenJoe 20:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I can say the same about you. In fact, from what I have seen, many people other than myself, feel the same way about you because of the overly aggressive way you interact with them. nat.utoronto 20:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Takes one to know one. GreenJoe 20:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Joe, many editors have been very patient with you. All you have done is try to push people around, trying to forcefully conform people to your POV. If you haven't notice Joe, you are the one that hasn't been very cooperative, you are the one that has been uncivil and rude, and you are the one that hasn't been assuming good faith. I know that I have been very patient with you, I have - for the most part - attempted to communicate and start a discussion with you, I have been civil - as one could be - with you, and all I receive in return is total unpleasantness, rudeness, and complete aggressiveness. If you can't see that and attempt to change the way you interact with people, one of these day you are going to piss off the wrong person - I can assure you that person isn't me - but the day you do piss off the wrong person, you are going to regret it. nat.utoronto 20:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're making stuff up to try to support your position. However, we are way off topic for the moment. I suggest we try to get back on topic instead of trading insults. You're the admin, and you're not setting a very good example. For shame. GreenJoe 22:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether I am an admin or not doe not change the fact that you have been uncivil, rude and aggressive. Adminship is not a status, but just a technicality. I am not making things up and I am not trying to insult you, I am just being honest with you. So far you have made couple misconception about wikipedia: (1) 3RR and blocks are not punitive but preventive, and (2) adminship is not a status, but a technicality (admins are just editors with a few more tools). nat.utoronto 22:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

text: To me, as a reader, that doesn't make a difference to me, and that isn't clarified by this template. The template doesn't tell me WHY, even though CMCC & RCC are 1) degree granting institutions and 2) private colleges, they are not under that section.DigitalC (talk) 23:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just noticed that it DOES tell "All above institutions are either established through an Act of the Legislative Assembly or through a Royal Charter", however this doesn't explain to the read WHY RCC & CMCC are not in this section. The section titles are misleading, as RCC & CMCC are Degree Granting Institutions, and therefore should fall under that heading - all that would require would be the text be changed to explain that there are other ways that an institution can achieve Degree granting status than by Act or by Royal Charter.DigitalC (talk) 01:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ministerial consent does not involve an act passed through the legislative assembly (forget about royal charters, those are only for institutions that originated prior to confederation - actually, prior to responsible government, I think - Queen's and U of T via King's College). In practice I think that means it's easier to revoke. Also, the degree granting status of both institutions looks to be extremely limited. Reggie Perrin (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Degree Programs Offered under Ministerial Consent 

message: Is Saint Paul University a private school? It is certainly federated with U Ottawa and is listed on its wikipedia page as being public. I believe it should be deleted from the template altogether, as other university colleges such as those at UWO are not listed.NEPats (talk) 02:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. If it's a federated school and not independent, it shouldn't be on the template. Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a difference between a federated school and an affiliate college.  A federated school would be like the constituent members of UofU or Laurentian.  Affiliate Colleges on the other hand are autonomous institutions which award degrees by virtue of an affiliation agreement with a parent university. I went to one of these and its financing and governance are autonomous from the parent university.  
Based on this document these are the ones I think should be included in the template, perhaps as their own category of affiliate colleges.  They are certainly publicly funded up to a point in that part of their infrastructure funding comes from the province and their students are OSAP eligible.  Furthermore, together these institutions represent tens of thousands of students which is a noteworthy aspect of post-secondary education in ontario
*Assumption University
*Brescia University College
*Canterbury College
*Conrad Grebel University College
*Huron University College
*Iona College (Windsor)
*King's University College
*Renison University College
*St. Jerome's University
*St. Paul's University College
What do you guys think Dowew (talk) 00:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Saint Paul University

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