Talk:Ontario Academic Credit

OAC Exchange for U.S College credits was possible

I deleted the following claim, because, while it would be logical, in my experience (in 1991 at New York Univ.) it's false, and certainly not typical: If you received credit for OAC at a high ranked U.S university (New York University) why would it be false. It might not be true as a broad statement covering all u.s universities.Starbwoy (talk) 03:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Typically those who earned their OAC and then matriculated at a U.S. college or university have been/will be entitled to a year's worth of credits, in effect allowing them to skip freshman year.

Does anyone have evidence to support the claim?

Zashaw 20:34, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I don't know about American universities, but students that are admitted to Concordia University in Montreal are entitled to six university credits for every OAC course (up to 30 credits), provided they are humanities/social sciences courses and they received a 70% or higher in the course. (This is only applicable to students applying to the Faculty of Arts and Science or the Faculty of Fine Arts, as far as I know.)

It was probably very possible that OAC Students could of used their OAC Credits as 1St year university credits outside of Ontario. The problem was that it was never discussed and was almost TOP SECRET while students were in still in high school, possibly because it was assumed students would go to Ontario Universities. Only very interested/ aggressive parents/ students in career planning students would of known this, while still in high school. I'm now wondering what exactly GUIDANCE CHANCELLORS did besides help students tick off a paper for courses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.138.233 (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

http://www.degreeforum.net/excelsior-thomas-edison-charter-oak-specific/10622-ontario-academic-credit-oac.html On a board on the same subject discussed here: "I have to disagree. I attended a 4 year accredited college in NYC and they accepted MY OAC credits at 3 credits a piece. I never graduated, only went there for one year."

As someone else mention I remember Concordia in Montreal used to give credit for OAC credit. It was very much possible. the problem was very few people were told or knew about it, as everyone pretty much stayed in southern Ontario. any wy a U.S university unless you were near the border or it was a prestigious U.S university. No real economic reason to go...plus you would have to pay international fee which was rediculous, compared to very cheap (at the time ) tax payer supported university

The OAC in the 1980's were very much like entry level university first courses.Starbwoy (talk) 03:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

---

"Students were required to complete it in order to receive the Ontario Secondary School Diploma (OSSD)."

Patently false; I received my OSSD at the end of Grade 12 with the credits required, having never taken an OAC. I chose to graduate later, staying on to complete OACs (which I never used, but that's beside the point...).

I'm modifying that portion to correctly reflect things. Radagast 16:12, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

I confused the OSSD with the OSSC, thinking that the OSSC was issued to those who didn't complete OACs. Thanks for clarifying. Darkcore 01:25, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Article in need of serious attention

First, I would like to note that I am quite new to Wikipedia. I do not know how to go about the various things that, in my opinion, needs to be done with this article.

There are various problems including lack of distinction between:

• Ontario Academic Credits [OAC credits, also OAC (singular), OACs (plural)]
• the related courses [OAC courses, again also OAC(s)]
• Ontario Academic Credit year [OAC, OAC year, Grade 13]
• the students in that year [OAC student(s), OAC(s)]
• the Ontario secondary school curriculum that includes OAC

I am unsure which of the above is the base idea/term. In any case, Ontario Academic Credit year is described in the first sentence.

This also affects the double-cohort orientated section where OAC is used in more than one way. It is made more complicated by the fact that OAC is used to refer to the old-curriculum and Grade 12 is used to refer to the new-curriculum in discussions of the double-cohort where old and new curriculum would be more clear.

Dates are also confusing. (Note: I am going to sleep, I will get back to this)

-- UTSRelativity 09:13, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I tried to address some of the issues you mentioned. I can't speak to the OAC (old curriculum)/Grade 12 (new curriculum) part since I didn't go through the new system, so you (or someone else who is knowledgeable) will have to add to that. Feel free to add/edit/delete as required. Also, what do you mean by "dates are also confusing"? I'm a little confused by all of the disputed tags... Darkcore 18:45, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the help.  I have a problem with the dates because of the use of "until", "prior to", and years without additional qualification.  Suffice it to say that English is not very good sometimes, but it is the best that some of us have (Consider: "This was not true for all of 2003"; "This was, for all of 2003, not true"; "For all of 2003, this was not true").  I have a problem with until because it can be taken as inclusive or non-inclusive, etc.  I have a problem with "prior to" because it does not necessarily imply that the situation changed at the time mentioned or at all (i.e. OAC existed prior to 2000 and OAC existed prior to 2010).  Thus, the statement in Education in Canada that uses "until 2002" could be accepted by qualifying the statement with "exclusively the last grade", etc.  The years can also be taken to be calendar years, graduation years, etc.  IMHO, school years should be used where applicable (e.g. "OAC was not offered for 2003-2004 and all subsequent school years" or "OAC was last offered for 2002-2003").

This article also lacks mention of the phase-in period and other changes (e.g. EQAO).  OS:IS and OSS needs to be added (and perhaps the article fixed to use these as a base).

I believe that Secondary School Reform (Ontario) should be a suitable title when this article is fixed.

-- UTSRelativity 21:50, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't know anything about EQAO et al., so please, if you wish to add such information, go ahead.

I think that, instead of a secondary school reform article, an article on Education in Ontario would be more appropriate. It could go into greater detail about the historical development of secondary and post-secondary education in the province, and could tie in OAC-related information with some of the other changes that you've mentioned. Since educational standards vary so widely among the provinces (Education in Quebec for example), and Ontario's system is quite different from other jurisdictions in Canada or elsewhere, such an article would be a good way of highlighting the differences. We could probably merge the information in this article into the new one. Darkcore 06:16, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

- and the writing is abysmal. 'could of'? please! if one assumes that most, if not all, contributors are products of the ontario educational system,(as am i) it's a sad commentary indeed.Toyokuni3 (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Grade point averages

They may not have used the terminology at UTS, but at my school and at others, the term GPA was used. Not to mention, all Ontario universities use the term GPA. I am reverting this. Darkcore 17:51, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I do not agree. I know that my high school was very careful not to use GPA this way. A Google search for "Ontario GPA top-six" seems to show that people differentiate between the two. IMHO, there is no problem with using "top-six average", whereas there is a problem with using "GPA". I would take GPA if you can support it with an example of it being used this way in an official document on the OUAC website (perhaps others). -- UTSRelativity 22:19, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would, but I don't really care enough. Maybe after the holidays. Darkcore 22:39, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

They called it Average. The term GPA was unknown to most of us except from US TV. University admissions referred to average grade (eg 79%) and not as 3.2 like the US does. As well the Canadian University systems despite referring to GPA had a totally different system where number can go beyond 4.0; in Canadian system a 4.0 is a very poor mark. I think it went up to 12.0 if memory serves, but the system was nothing like what we saw in film and tv. Kav2001c (talk) 05:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)kav2001c

OAC's were a sham

Ontario Aicademic Credit was a needles and usless sham, that the Ontario Government used t to hold people's head to a grindstone, if they were interested in higher aspirations. I'ts surprising that it went on for so long, wasting an extra year of students life, while all along the rest of Canada and the U.S. were proving that it was not need, as they had direct entry to university after the 12th grade.

Instead of providing a good guidance system with teachers, and career exploration earlier on, they instead herded individuals into OAC's wasting a year for many, then wasting more time again in University, as many of the OAC's in the Humanities were so similar to the one's offered at the Universities. I took OAC Art History in high school, then had to do the exact course again in 1st year university for my degree.

This provided an overeducated workforce, where many are over educated for their jobs.

The qualifications to graduate from some Ontario college and university programs are ridiculous when compared to similar programs in other provinces and especially in the U.S.

For example in New York state, an individual can get certified as a X-ray technician after only 2 years, yet in Ontario, to do the same X-Ray Technician job you need a degree (1 year University with sciences + 3 years of training). All new nurses in Ontario now need a degree.

It seems like in Ontario, pretty soon you will need a degree to pass wind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.13.22 (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC) Yeaaa for the degree holders with no jobs...at least you're over educated, ...Ontario style —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.13.22 (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It was entirely possible to complete high school in four years under the old system and go to university... but there was a catch. One credit (usually grade 12 math, MAT459) needed to be done in summer school as each year's math had the previous grade as prerequisite. The same was *not* true of other subjects - the grade 11/12 science courses were unrelated to each other (one was chemistry, the other physics), the English literature (as a first language) didn't require 11 before 12 as sequential prerequisites, nor did the electives (some of which ended at 12 anyway). The result was that summer school was a mix of very good students (who just wanted to get it over with and graduate in four years) and very bad students (who were repeating the course after failing during the regular term), but no middle ground. With one credit from summer school, plus 4 years * 8 credits/year, gave 33 total. Done. K7L (talk) 06:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

This may have changed based on when you go to school; Grade 11 science courses were Chemistry and/or Biology, Grade 12 science course was Physics (which had an extra math prerequisite hence the delay). You only needed 1 Science course to graduate so you could choose which you liked best or take them all. All 3 Grade 11 / 12 courses had the respective OAC class which had the 11 / 12 class as prerequisite. Another interesting side note is the article seems to have no mention of the 3 tracks that existed in High School. All core classes (such as math, english, science) came in three distinct levels. Basic were very simple classes, usually intended for those who only wanted to graduate, General were midlevel and usually for the College bound students, and Advanced led to the OACs and University or College programs. You could go to University have Basic or General classes on your transcript but you could not use them as a prerequisite to an OAC class. Advanced track was only way to get an OAC. Kav2001c (talk) 05:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)kav2001c

NPOV discussion

A previous version of the article said that OAC was nixed in 1995 in order to "save money". A recent edit deleted that, and stated that it was to "modernize the education system". I'm not familiar with Ontario politics these days, but both suggestions do not sound NPOV. In retrospect, to "save money" implies the government was being cheap. The modernization argument sounds like a vague appeal to progress. (Indeed, I don't see in what sense taking away OAC is intrinsically more "modern", other than the circular sense that it's the way things happen to be now, as opposed to the past -- sounds like spin to me.) Zashaw 00:53, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Statement for Minister of Education and Training John C. Snobelen on Secondary School Reforms dated November 2, 1995 available from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/statemen/secsch.html claims that the reforms provide "quality and value" because "every student deserves the best quality education we can provide and every taxpayer deserves the best value for his or her education dollars". Simply from this, it should be clear that "to save money" is NPOV. I would accept the "modernization argument" provided that it is made more clear. The same statement quoted above appears to make "modernization" the facilitation of students not aiming towards university. That is what I would place in the article. I will also be re-adding the congestion of Ontario universities that this caused as it is integral to the double cohort, and is more in line with the rest of the paragraph. I am removing the part about the universities outside Ontario as it lacks backing and is vague. The admission standards were increased due to competition from more applicants and not for the purpose of being closer to standards elsewhere. Not to mention that "outside of Ontario" could be almost anywhere. Also, changes to the minimum admission requirements were superficial in many cases (OAC courses replaced with OSS Grade 12 courses). The "standards elsewhere argument" is also not NPOV because it implies that Ontario university standards are lower than those "elsewhere". I would be adding information about delays and problems with the implementation of the reforms later which is NPOV because if it sounds bad it is. I am re-adding the NPOV notice until the article is fixed.

-- UTSRelativity 16:33, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC) updated by UTSRelativity 05:01, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wow. Bolding overload. It's really not necessary to place emphasis on every second word like that. It's annoying.

I disagree with the "modernization" statement, because that would imply that Ontario's secondary school system was somehow inferior to other high school systems, which is patently false. However, the "saving money" statement is quite true, although I think there is a better way to word that. Indeed, the aforementioned link described that there would be some $350 million in savings to the Ontario government annually as a result of the elimination of OAC. Darkcore 22:37, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For the modernization vs. saving-money issue: Assuming that both issues were mentioned in Ontario (and are not just speculation of a few Wikipedians like myself), it seems like we need to mention both, since both are possible reasons that have some basis in fact. We should mention the $350m savings, which is relevant (even though cost saving may or may not have been the "real" reason). I thought UTSRelativity's framing of the modernization argument sounded more reasonable (although my suspicion is that the politicians did try the vague use of "modernization"... as well). Zashaw 02:11, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the over-bolding. I found it useful in keeping track of my thoughts to make sure I covered all the issues. I believe we all have a problem with the modernization statement as it is. I also agree with Darkcore's argument that it is not NPOV as it is. In my experience, politicians (or their supporters) did use "modernization" in a vague way to explain the reforms (I am uncertain whether they actually used that term or not). Government of Ontario television commercials did in fact use a "raising the bar" message, which does imply that Ontario's education system was inferior to certain other systems prior to the reforms. Therefore, it is my opinion that the "modernization" argument should be split into parts: "raising the bar", "facilitation", and "standardization". "Raising the bar" would have to be noted as from government public relations material; "facilition" is my treatment of the "modernization" in my previous post, and "standardization" (which is currently vaguely mentioned in the sentence after the "modernization or to save money" one) would include the introduction of standard report card formats and additional standardized testing.

As for the "saving money" statement, I would like to convince Zashaw that it was a real reason for the changes if not the only reason. We need to consider the fact that the secondary school reforms were initiated by the PC party under Mike Harris with a "Common Sense Revolution" platform. Their stated goal was to clean up the budget; they were not trying to introduce large curriculum and testing development costs. I suppose we can make the "saving money" statement sound better by saying "saving taxpayer money", but IMHO that makes the statement sound like political propaganda. We must also remember that the prediction of a savings 350 million CAD/year was made in 1995, the implementation was to be ready in 1997 at the time, and the disasters with the Education Quality and Accountability Office did not occur yet.

-- UTSRelativity 05:01, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think I did not make clear that I agree that both sides should be represented, and I believe that we can term both "modernization" and "to save money" as motivations for the reforms (and side-step the "real reason" problem altogether except to note that some people think that the only reason was to save money).

A more comprehensive breakdown of what we consider the "modernization" argument to be is available at http://k6educators.about.com/library/blont.htm. We may have to increase the scope of this article soon to include elementary education as the shifting of materials taught from higher grades to lower grades extends to elementary schools. We now have to resolve the NPOV problem with implication that Ontario's education system is inferior that is prevalent in pro-reform materials. I believe that it would be useful to note that test scores are used to back up the "inferior" viewpoint, and that the teacher's associations made an argument that the new curriculum was designed to improve test scores and not the quality of teaching. This is getting complicated...

-- UTSRelativity 17:14, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with everything, presenting both sides, that saving money was probably a real reason, and your better framing of the modernization argument -- and that it makes it more complicated. I'm happy with any changes to the article in the directions you suggest. Zashaw 04:02, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Question about Assessment

How were OAC courses assessed ? Did the students have to take province-wide exams written and graded by an external exam board (like A-Levels in the UK) ? Or were the different High Schools responsible for administering their own exams ? 200.177.5.144 23:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

OAC courses were exactly like other courses - they were assessed by tests, assignments and exams. One unique feature of the OAC course was the "ISU" or Independent Study Unit. It was essentially a project that was completed by the student independently. For example, an ISU in a OAC Computer course would involve programming a project designed by the student. There were no standardized tests like the SATs or A-Levels in England. Firehawk12 10:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

In my experience in Toronto (Scarborough) they were exactly like the universities, and and was thought of as preparing students for University. Like University there were not many tests or assignments, but it depended on the courses. In humanities there were probably 2 large essays max (many times 1) and a big mid term test and a huge final exam. Students tended to drop the course when they received a bad mark in their first essay or exam, as their final mark would be low due to the mark. The courses were lecture based so there were less assessments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.138.233 (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering why there is no mention of the period when all Grade 13 examinations were set and graded by boards at the Department of Education. In my view, these exams provided an objective assessment of a students knowledge of the subject. They also provided a comparative assessment of schools and teachers. In my case, it prompted a change of schools between Grades 12 and 13 in preparation for college. That decision was made possible and easier by the publication of results of examinations in the local newspaper. I realize that this latter practice would no longer be possible because of objections from the Federation of Teachers and by our "enlightened" privacy concerns. Omarvan (talk) 12:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

French

In French OAC was CPO, however I never learned what that acronym stood for (for that matter I didn't know what OAC stood for until just a few minutes ago). Does anyone know?

The name of OAC in French was Cour préuniversitaires de l'Ontario (or CPO). CuffX 04:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Drinking age

The Ontario drinking age had originally been lowered to 18. Then, to keep alcohol out of Grade 13, it was raised to 19. That was the stated reason at the time.
I personally was in Grade 12 and 13 during that second transition. As I had skipped a grade (Grade 4), my friends were drinking legally by the end of Grade 12, but I only joined them 2 years later in First Year.
The province should logically have dropped the age back down to 18 as part of the process to abolish Grade 13.
Varlaam (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Onterrible isn't logical; it's a silly place where beer has its own store instead of being in every grocer's like in Hull. K7L (talk) 06:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone know anything about "OSSGD"?

Many years ago, I was told I should put "OSSGD" ("Ontario Secondary School Graduation Diploma") on my résumé. A Google search shows this acronym is indeed a "thing", but I can't find much information on it—was it different from an OSSD? Does anyone know?

When Ontario had grade 13, did students get two diplomas? :They got two diplomas. In grade 12 you got your OSSD (Ontario Secondary School Diploma) and in grade 13 your OSSHD (Ontario Secondary School Honours Diploma) [1]

My guess is that OSSD was grade 12 (27 credits) and OSSHD added six grade 13 credits (33 credits, total). The first attempts to phase out grade 13 created a 30 credits diploma, so OSSD became OSSGD. [2] seems to use the two interchangeably for old/new grade 12. K7L (talk) 06:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

If you took advanced level courses, you graduated with a minimum of 6 OAC's which were required for university and only received one diploma, although I expect I could say I have either now that the OAC's are phased out. General level courses were taken by students planning to attended college. Yes, many other countries interchange the two, but here in Canada colleges are similar to going to a community college and you take diploma programs, whereas universities offer degree programs. It could be incredibly limiting as the decision for your career path had to be made at the time of secondary school enrollment. I, for example, took all advanced level including several OAC's, and instead enrolled in college where it wasn't necessary. The only benefit was, at application time, your grades in an advanced level course were bumped up by an additional 20% so they could be compared with students grades at the general level. OAC's were courses such as Calculus, Algebra and Geometry, then University level Physics, Biology, English, French etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.248.157.150 (talk) 06:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Educational institutions disestablished in 2003?

Would that category work here, or is it only for schools rather than grade levels in a given system? The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)