by:
Sue McIntyre
Kevin McNaney
Katherine Morgan
Cristina Rucci
Leanne Sexsmith
Second Year Masters Students
School of Community and Regional Planning
University of British Columbia
March 10, 1997
Prepared under the direction of :
Professor Anthony H.J. Dorcey
Please Note: Data used for this analysis is not always the latest.
Schools are constantly changing fees, requirements, etc. Please check
the latest school materials for current information.
Planning Curriculums for the 21st Century:
What Do Canadian and American Schools Say They Do?
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION ONE: OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY
Objectives
Intended Audience
Methodology
SECTION TWO: SCHOOL PROFILES
2.1 Accreditation
2.2 Costs and Funding
2.3 Demographics
2.4 Size of the Program
2.5 Entrance Requirements
Conclusion
SECTION THREE: SCHOOL PHILOSOPHY AND APPROACH
3.1 Mission Statements
3.2 Role of the Planner
3.3 Values and Attitudes
3.4 Applied Planning Practice
Conclusions
SECTION FOUR: PROGRAM OF STUDY
4.1 Program Structure
4.2 Program Content
Conclusions
SECTION FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR UBC
5.1 Conclusions
5.2 Recommendations for UBC
WORKS CITED
APPENDIX A
Cornell University
Harvard University
McGill University
Queens University
Technical University of Nova Scotia
Université Laval
University of British Columbia
University of Calgary
University of California Los Angeles
University of Maryland at College Park
University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill
University of Oregon
University of Toronto
University of Washington
University of Waterloo
York University
Figures and Tables
Table 2.1.1 Accreditation Status of Planning Programs
Table 2.2.1 Costs and Funding
Figure 2.2.1 Tuition and Fees
Table 2.3.1 Demographics
Figure 2.3.1 Percent Female Students and Faculty
Table 2.4.1 Size of Progam
Figure 2.4.1 Desirability: % admittants that enter
Figure 2.4.2 Competitiveness: % of applicants admitted
Table 2.5.1 Entrance Requirements
Table 3.1.1: Comparison of Mission Statements & Sociospatial Processes
Table 3.1.2: Number of Sociospatial Processes Addressed by Each School
Table 3.1.3: Number of Mission Statements Addressing Each Sociospatial Process
Table 3.2.1 - The Role of the Planner
Table 3.3.1 - Values and Attitudes
Table 3.4.1 - Exposure to Applied Planning Practice and Professional Planners
Table 4.1.1 Program Structure
Figure 4.1.1 Core Courses as Percent of Total Program
Figure 4.1.2 Concentration Courses as Percent of Total Program
Figure 4.1.3 Thesis or Equivalent as Percent of Total Program
Figure 4.1.4 Elective Courses as Percent of Total Program
Table 4.2.1 - Topics Assessed
Table 4.2.2 - Group Designations
Table 4.2.3 Comparison of School Coverage of Sociospatial Processes in Courses
and Mission Statements Figure 4.2.1 Explicit Coverage of Sociospatial Processes
in Courses and Mission Statements
Figure 4.2.2 Topics Covered in Core Courses
Figure 4.2.3 Area of Concentration and Subject Coverage in Courses
Table 4.2.4 Concentrations Available at Sample Schools
Figure 4.2.4 Explicit Course Coverage of Methods Topics
Figure 4.2.5 Explicit Course Coverage of Quantitative Methods Topics
Table 4.2.5 UBC Course Topic Group Designations
SECTION ONE: OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY
The technological expansion and rapid population growth of the twentieth
century have resulted in an unprecedented level of change. This transition
is reflected in the way we live, the way we manipulate the environment as
well as in our changing values, perceptions, attitudes and world-views.
The high level of uncertainty accompanying this change has resulted in a
great demand for individuals who can adopt a comprehensive approach to managing
change. The field of planning has responded through the provision of trained
professionals with developed skills and foresight to give stability and
thought to these unstable times.
As technology advances and progress continues, planning is faced with a
multitude of choices for the direction of the profession. At the heart of
these decisions remain the integral questions concerning what values, traditions,
skills and knowledge should be passed on to the planners of tomorrow. Here
in the School of Community and Regional Planning (SCARP) at the University
of British Columbia (UBC), we are attempting to continually adapt our planning
curriculum to the forces and challenges of modern civilization. Planning
Curriculums for the 21st Century: What Do Canadian and American Schools
Say They Do? continues the student-initiated evaluation of UBCs curriculum
by building on the review of the schools courses and focus contained in
the 1996 report Planning for the 21st Century . Our goal is
to compare all of the Canadian and selected American schools in order that
we may understand the context for graduate education in planning within
which we are seeking to improve and adapt our own planning curriculum to
better meet the needs of modern society.
This study is divided into four principal components. The first section
presents the objectives, methodology and limitations of analysis. The report
then presents profiles of the selected schools including information such
as demographics, costs and funding, accreditation, entrance requirements
and size. The philosophy and approach of the schools is subsequently analyzed
through a discussion of their mission statements, perceptions of the role
of the planner, values and attitudes, and relative level of applied planning
practice. The study then examines the structure and content of each planning
schools program of study with reference to the number and type of courses
available, the amount of core courses required and the degree to which the
course offerings substantiate the mission statements. The study concludes
with a general overview of the findings and examines the implications for
the UBC School of Community and Regional Planning.
Objectives
The principal objectives of this study were as follows:
To survey the masters level curriculum of all accredited Canadian and selected
US schools of planning;
To update the 1995 review of what the literature proposes as appropriate
curriculum for planning education;
To combine the findings from the literature reviews and the information
from the sample of schools in order to compare and contrast the curriculum
for planning education at the masters level at UBC with other schools in
North America;
To synthesize this information into recommendations for the improvement
of UBCs curriculum.
Intended Audience
This study has been completed by a group of five second-year masters students
at UBC as part of a continuing review of the schools curriculum. As such,
the report is primarily intended for the students and faculty of UBC. The
information contained in the study, however, represents a broad information
base which has not been previously available and is of relevance to anyone
interested in North American planning education.
Methodology
Choosing an appropriate methodology to address the study questions was a
challenge. The difficulties in comparing eighteen schools, located in two
countries, with two different languages, spanning all regions on the North
American continent are tremendous. Basically, this comparative analysis
focuses on three questions:
1. What does the planning education literature say?
2. What do the schools promotional and curriculum materials say?
3. What are the implications for planning curriculum at UBC?
To answer them, several other methodological questions must be addressed
which relate to the selection of the sample, the collection of data, the
literature consulted and the limitations of analysis.
Selecting the Sample of Planning Schools
While it was recognized that we could not possibly examine every graduate
school of planning in North America, we realized the importance of selecting
an adequate sampling of schools across Canada and in the United States.
We initially chose a selection of approximately thirty planning schools
which included all the Canadian graduate schools of planning and a group
of large American planning schools which were considered to be comparable
to UBC. All of these schools were notified of the project by either fax,
direct mail, email, telephone or a combination thereof and were asked for
the information that was needed for the study. While some schools responded
fully and promptly, others responded more slowly and sometimes less fully.
In seven cases, no response was received. Strangely, in one instance the
school would not even send its basic student application package despite
repeated requests. After several months of concerted effort, the following
schools of planning who had responded to our requests became the sample
for this report (abbreviations used throughout the report are bracketed):
University of British Columbia (UBC)
University of Calgary (Calgary)
University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)
Cornell University (Cornell)
Harvard University (Harvard)
Université Laval (Laval)
University of Manitoba (Manitoba)
University of Maryland at College Park (Maryland)
McGill University (McGill)
Université de Montréal (Montreal)
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (Chapel Hill)
University of Oregon (Oregon)
Queens University (Queens)
University of Toronto (Toronto)
Technical University of Nova Scotia (TUNS)
University of Washington (Washington)
University of Waterloo (Waterloo)
York University (York)
Although the school of planning at the University of Guelph is also an accredited
graduate program, the information needed for comparison was unavailable
and they are regrettably not analyzed in this study. While there are other
accredited graduate schools of planning in the United States, we feel this
sample depicts a representative cross section of approaches to planning
education in North America.
Collecting the Data
The process of collecting, managing and analyzing the vast amount of data
needed for this study was time consuming, difficult and frustrating. The
vast majority of the information came from the promotional and curriculum
materials produced by the schools themselves. While these information packages
have diverse structures, quality and content, they were generally effective
in presenting the planning schools as they view themselves
. As a result, this source of information proves very effective in providing
subjective information on each of the schools. In addition, considerable
empirical data was available in the information provided by the schools.
Where the information may have been lacking in hard copy, we were sometimes
able to find what we needed on the internet (see references in appendix).
Selecting the Literature
This study builds on and does not reiterate the wide-ranging analyses, conclusions
and recommendations of the report Planning for the 21st Century
produced by the student review group during 1995-96. In particular, their
report provides the more comprehensive review of the literature on planning
theory, practice and education within which the present assessment is undertaken.
Three articles that are highly relevant to our particular purposes have
been selected to provide the analytical frameworks applied in the current
study. These articles are:
Friedmann, John, 1996. The Core Curriculum in Planning Revisited
.
Forester, John, 1986. Politics, Power, Ethics and Practice: Abiding
Problems for the Future of Planning .
Kaufman and Simons. 1995. Quantitative and Research Methods in Planning:
Are Schools Teaching What Practitioners Practice?
The article by Friedmann is used extensively because it is highly relevant
and nothing comparable is readily available. The choice also allows for
some comparisons to be made between the two studies . In particular it adds
to the Friedmann study which considered only one Canadian school, UBC. It
is recognized that this means that the analysis is strongly influenced by
Friedmanns perspective on the world of planning. His article was not published
when the first group of students undertook their study and so it was not
incorporated into their larger literature review. Time has not permitted
a careful assessment of the biases inherent in Friedmanns analytical framework
and his identification of major alternatives. It is recommended that this
be undertaken as part of the next steps in the ongoing curriculum review
so as to better understand the results of the present analyses.
Limitations of Analysis
While each of the sections of analysis clarifies its specific limitations,
several general comments need to be made about the study:
1. Data The data used in this study is provided primarily
by the planning schools. As a result, the study is confronted with data
which is highly variable in terms of structure, completeness and methods
of measurement. Although every effort has been made to standardize the information
for analysis, some inconsistencies remain.
2. Interpretation Many of the schools are neither explicit
nor clear about key aspects of their program. As a result, the interpretation
of the data acquires a degree of subjectivity from the curriculum review
group which cannot be avoided.
3. Scope As with all projects of this nature this study
was limited in time and thus in scope. While it would have been extremely
interesting to formulate a comparison of all North American planning programs,
this is neither possible nor necessary to fulfill the objectives of this
endeavour.
4. Currency Every effort has been made to obtain data for
the 1994 academic year. However, there are two major limitations that are
clearly evident from the UBC data alone. First, variations between years
can be very substantial. Second, schools are making changes every year which,
for the purposes of this study, leads to a misrepresentation of some of
the situations.
5. Reality This report is based on what schools say they
do in their programs as opposed to what they actually do. As any student
or faculty member knows, there often can be a substantial difference between
the two. In addition, detailed course outlines have not been examined and
compared with summary statements in the schools promotional materials. Again,
these typically vary considerably. Any attempt to come to grips with these
divergences is a challenging task in any one school, let alone between the
eighteen schools included in this study.
Despite these substantial limitations, we believe the following analysis
provides a useful comparative picture as long as the qualifications are
kept clearly in mind. It is a perspective that has not previously existed.
The limitations also have major implications for steps that need to be taken
by schools to provide basic information that is critical to the development
of planning education.
A summary of the conclusions and recommendations may be found in section
five of this report.